The Real Civil War Is On! (But lot’s of folks don’t realize it yet)

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Just saw an interesting article by Tom Luongo on https://tomluongo.me/2018/07/20/in-u-s-sometimes-cia-eat-you/  about how we are, at this point, in the preliminary stages of our first civil war. Mr. Luongo correctly notes that the Lincoln atrocity in 1861-65 was not a civil war but was rather a war to prevent Southern independence with Northern aggression.

He notes that a real civil war is one where both sides fight for control of the existing government. And you have to admit, that is what we have at this point. The fight goes on daily, in the prostitute press and on the streets and in the halls of Congress.

Luongo observed, correctly, that “Since Donald Trump held his press conference in Helsinki next to Russian President Vladimir Putin the cries of ‘treason’ have been escalating. With each article written and each cable news segment aired, the position of our leaders in government became clear. ‘We decide what the function of this government is, not you.’ All Statist arguments boil down to the State saves the savage rabble from themselves. Thus forms the ideological core of this conflict between The People and The Government, but really this is about power. And The People want theirs back.”

On one side stands the Deep State Establishment–the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and various foundation-supported Leftist stooges and their profligate “news” media. On the other side, as Luongo puts it are: “our agent, Donald Trump” and us deplorables. It’s a bit of a different twist than our first pseudo “civil war” where Lincoln, Seward, Stanton and the whole Washington Establishment were against us ordinary folks, whether we lived in the North or the South. But, then, that one was all about power, too. All that blather about freeing the slaves was just window dressing. The real name of the game was changing our history, culture, and form of government.

It worked then, although there was resistance. There is also resistance this time. We just have to wait and see if there is enough to preserve the shreds of our culture that are left or if, due to our apostasy, the Lord will be pleased to let it all go down the tubes as He did for Israel in 70AD.

As of now, our current civil war is mostly a war of information–America’s patriots against the Leviathan of the Deep State and its rather slimy Swamp Creatures. The only ones using guns and partaking of violence are the Deep State’s stooges over on the Far Left–the folks that preach gun control and love and–whatever. They can mostly get by with violence where ordinary folks can’t because of the double standard of our current “Justice” system. And if you don’t think there’s a double standard you just haven’t been paying attention for the last 50 years. Ask yourself why Hillary is still walking around while people who have done one tenth of what she has done are sitting in the slammer in solitary confinement.

I am afraid, not too far down the road, this current civil war we are all involved in whether we want to be or not, will get beyond the information stage as the Deep State folks finally decide that they are going to really show us who runs the show. Shades of 1776 and 1861! Those folks who want to just go and hide somewhere and not get involved are going to be forced to choose one side or the other. Conditions will not allow them to be “mugwumps” with their mug on one side of the fence and their wump on the other!

Another site you might want to check out is

http://www.oliverwrightesq.com/truth-was-irrelevant-wsj-asks-was-brennans-action-the-real-treason

Advertisements

Observations About Vicksburg

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

 

Recently I attended a meeting where the guest speaker was Samuel W. Mitcham Jr., who has been a history professor at several colleges here in the South. He has written several books about World War 2, and also some about the War of Northern Aggression. Years back he did one about Richard Taylor and the Red River Campaign here in Louisiana that I loved. A couple years ago he did a biography of Nathan Bedford Forrest which I have not gotten around to yet but will add it to my list.

Just this year he has gotten a new book published about the Vicksburg Campaign which I was able to get a copy of and I’m now working my way through it. Eventually, I hope to do a regular book review of it, but right now I just want to pass along some of Mr. Mitcham’s observations while they are fresh in my mind, as well as adding a bit of my own commentary.

I’ve been to the battlefield at Vicksburg twice over the years and don’t recall learning as much on those trips as I have gotten from Mr. Mitcham’s book. I don’t know if it’s just me or what, but the battlefield at Vicksburg always seemed like a dreary place. The fact that it rained both times we were there, sometimes quite hard, might have had something to do with it. We ended up going over the battlefield “between the rain drops” as it were. Then, too, it might be what Vicksburg represents to me, and others I have spoken with–part of the death  knell of the old Confederate States, which, though they never officially surrendered, were not able to win the day either. And the ensuing “reconstruction” period after the War (which continues in various forms until this very day) has been the most shameful period in this country’s history.

Going over the battlefield, even with listening to the narrative tape they let you borrow at the visitor center, doesn’t give you the whole history of what went on there and now, with all the  political correctness (cultural Marxism) going on today, you might get even less of the real history than we did years ago.

Mr. Mitcham noted in his book that, during 1862-63, there were ten separate attempts by the Union to take Vicksburg. He details them all. The battles at Port Hudson, Port Gibson, Grand Gulf, Raymond, Champion Hill, and others were all major parts of the Union campaign to take Vicksburg.. They did it from different areas, in different stages, but it was all part of the Yankee/Marxist plan to reduce Vicksburg and render the Mississippi River unusable to the Confederacy, thus cutting the Confederacy in half and separating the trans-Mississippi area from that part of the Confederacy east of the river.

As I’ve read in other  places, doing this accomplished several things for the Yankee/Marxists. Lots of cotton moved south through Texas, across the Rio Grande into Mexico, where ships the Union blockade couldn’t touch anchored at or near Matamoras. Many of these ships picked up cotton and off-loaded guns, new Enfield  rifles from England, as well as powder and ammunition and other goods needed in the South that couldn’t make it there because of the Union blockade. This material was then freighted  up out of Mexico into Texas and from there shipped east as needed.  But this could not  aid the Confederacy as a whole if this war material could not get across the Mississippi  to the Confederate States east of the river.

Over the years I have read many comments about General John Pemberton who was in overall command in Vicksburg. Many of these comments would lead you to believe that General Pemberton, who was Northern-born, was a weak and ineffective general and that’s why Vicksburg fell. Mr. Mitcham presents Pemberton in a much more positive light, and he goes into the fact that, had General Joe Johnston been more willing to help Pemberton with reinforcements Vicksburg might not have suffered the fate it did. Johnston had reinforcements he could have sent, but he vacillated until it was too late for them to do  any good.

All things considered, with what General Pemberton had to work with, as far as troops, and very diverse personalities in the commanders serving under him, he probably did as well as anyone could have. He wasn’t perfect. None of us are. But he was not the bumbling ineffective personality he has been made out to be. I would not want to be dealt the hand Pemberton was dealt and then be forced to try to make a go of it.

Mitcham’s approach to the Vicksburg Campaign  is anything but politically correct. He notes in several places in the book how the Yankee/Marxists  plundered and destroyed private property and how, in many cases, they just outright stole everything that was not nailed down. And if they couldn’t steal it they destroyed it!

He noted their, in most cases, brutal incivility, toward all Southerners, black as well as white–and when it came to raping Southern women, the Yankee troops were  “equal opportunity” rapists. They didn’t care about color–only sex! He noted in one place where a Southern woman demanded to know of Yankee soldiers if they had come south to free the slaves.They just laughed! They thought that idea was ludicrous!

Mr. Mitcham also observed how Sherman treated Southerners and how he loved to find some reason, any reason, to burn property, private as well as military. I have often contended that Sherman was a pyromaniac, and Mitcham’s book does nothing to change my mind.

He also commented how, in many cases,  some Confederate generals would not cooperate with or help one another when the chips were down, and there were some important battles that were lost because one general couldn’t be bothered sending some of his men as reinforcements to another general to assure a victory. There were little, individual fiefdoms that had to be protected–even if you lost the country doing it. And you could always write a book later on, blaming the general you refused to help (preferably after he was dead) for losing the War because he didn’t have enough men on hand to win a particular battle.

Anyway, this is enough to give you a small taste of what Mr. Mitcham had to say about Vicksburg, along with my own commentary on what he said. Hopefully when I finish the book I can do a regular review, but you can tell from this much that Mr. Mitcham has really written an interesting book–one I recommend.

 

It’s NOT On His “To Do” List

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

There was an interesting article on https://renewedriglht.com over the weekend. I will quote briefly from it. “Americans were outraged to learn in reports that the FBI deployed a spy to inform on the Trump campaign. The Obama administration and the FBI colluded to run active measures against their political opponents.” is anyone really surprised? You shouldn’t be. The Deep State has not, and will not, stop at anything to destroy the presidency of Donald Trump For many Deep State operatives this is what they live for.

They’ve had it all their own way for so long, and now along comes Donald Trump, and he tips their little RED wagon over, and they have to make sure he atones for that. Their final solution for Trump–totally destroy him–and do it in such a way that no one coming after him will ever dare to upset their cultural Marxist apple cart again–ever! I wonder if there is any kind of jail sentence possible for those Obamaphiles   who ran active measures against Trump in order to help Hillary. But then, with our two-tiered “just us” system there probably isn’t. You know how it is–“different strokes for different folks!” Many of our Deep State people are simply too big and important to go to  jail. That’s just for us serfs, not them. And please don’t tell me we have a government of laws and not men. That went out with Abe Lincoln. If you don’t think so, read the American Bastille.

And now we have a “Just Us” Department whose real ruler is a man named Rosenstein. His name is not on the bosses door but it might as well be because he’s the one really running the show. The man whose name is on the door might as well have  been on vacation for the last year. All he is  interested in is civil asset forfeiture. He lets Rosenstein handle everything else.

As far as Trump “colluding” with the Russians so they would swing the election for him, we have Herr Robert Mueller “investigating” that for us. His attitude toward Donald Trump is that of a chicken hawk that has spotted a rabbit he wants for lunch. He has assembled a list of truly “impartial” lawyers to help him bag–er, I mean investigate Trump’s many and varied ties to Putin and Russia. As for those ties to Russia, after a year and a half, he hasn’t been able to  locate any of them, but  hey, don’t worry–just give him another $20 million and three for four more years and he’ll be able to put something together–true or not won’t make any difference.

In the meantime, there is all manner of evidence out there tying Hillary and Company to real Russian collusion, from the Uranium One deal forward. So why isn’t  Mueller checking  some of this out? You’re kidding right?

The only thing on Mueller’s “to do” list is to make sure he finds something, anything, to make Trump look bad. As far as the real Russian collusion of Hillary and Company with Russia, forget that. No one is interested or wants to know about it so let’s just all forget about it. Hillary and Company are way too important to pay for their sins anyway. Mueller knows  that! His “to do” list will never, never, never include any of Hillary’s “indiscretions.” She’s far too important to the Deep State to ever have those brought up–and those who do bring them up will have to be censored off the internet because they are promoting “hateful” ideas about Hillary. The  thought that she should be prosecuted for her crimes is absolutely hateful to her, and so the Deep State needs to censor all internet sites that might even look like they might lean in that direction. After all, it’s for the “good of the country” don’t you know. And to paraphrase the quote from the crooked banker in the old movie Stagecoach “what’s good for Hillary is good for the country.” Right???

So, don’t ever  think that Mueller will deal with Hillary’s Russian collusion, folks. That ain’t on the agenda and never will be. And if you know what’s good for you, you better start ignoring that. Remember, in this Deep State occupied country, our “Just Us” system can best be described as “Hillaryous.”

Those Plundering Abolitionist Preachers (do unto others before they do unto you)

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Should you have chanced to read any history at all dealing with our “Civil War” really the War of Northern Aggression, you must surely have read something about “bleeding Kansas.” I can remember reading about that in my pre-teen “history” books.

Most of what you have probably read goes into some detail (fake history?) about how the greasy, slave-owning, bushwhacking denizens of Missouri spent all their spare time (when they weren’t beating their slaves to death) raiding across the border into that pristine abolitionist wilderness called Kansas, which as we have all been taught, was the home of all loyal, virtuous, pure-as-the-driven-snow abolitionist types whose only aim in life was a holy crusade to free all slaves everywhere from bondage.

If you are like the rest of us, you were probably spoon-fed the historical hogwash that this was the only type of behavior you could ever expect from the dregs of humanity that inhabited Missouri, while those wonderful folks living across the line in Kansas would never dream of engaging in such horrible deeds.

To say that the “historians” got this backwards would probably be an undeserved act of naive charity. Most of them, then as now, got it backwards on purpose because the actual truth was revolting enough that they just knew you didn’t need to be aware of it–lest you should begin to question the veracity of Mr. Lincoln’s “holy cause.”

For all the lofty pretensions of the cause of abolitionism, Kansas was populated by some who felt it was their “holy calling” in life to raid across the border into Missouri for whatever they could get out of it for themselves. It was what some might call “abolitionism for fun and profit.” The fun was burning the homes of Missouri farmers, the profit was hauling off all the loot they could carry away from those homes before they torched them.

In his book Bloody Dawn, author Thomas Goodrich noted the character of such sterling individuals as Kansan Charles Jennison. He noted: “Actually the outbreak of civil war simply lent an aura of legitimacy  to a program Jennison had been pursuing all along.  Jennison has been characterized as cruel, heartless, cowardly, and a moral vagabond.” A charitable description!

Goodrich continued: “Whatever the opinion, Jennison and his regiment became in fact the scourge and salt of western Missouri during the first summer and winter of the war. One by one the towns along the border fell victim to their forays. Stores were looted, safes emptied, elegant homes gutted. Nor was the countryside spared. Night after night the skies over the border were aglow as barns, cabins, and crops were set ablaze. Those hapless farmers lucky enough to escape the torch watched powerlessly while the fruits of their labor were hauled off in their own wagons. Herds of cattle, horses, and sheep were likewise driven west.” And it was all for the “glorious” cause of “preserving the Union.”

Even for all of that, Jennison might have created less furor had he been a bit more selective in whom he burned out, but he was not. He was an equal opportunity plunderer. He ventured out after anyone who had loot he could steal (for the preservation of the Union). Goodrich noted that, because of Jennison’s behavior, many in Missouri who might have remained Unionists, or at least fence-straddlers, became violent enemies of Lincoln’s war effort once Jennison had ministered unto them of the healing balm of abolitionist mercy.

And then, to give holy unction to Jennison’s activties, along came the abolitiionist preachers. Chief among them was one James Montgomery. This worthy has been described as a Bible-toting evangelist, but in his book Quantrill of Missouri author Paul R. Petersen has painted a somewhat different picture of Montgomery’s evangelistic methods. In discussing the depredations of some of the Kansans, Petersen noted: “The people who attacked him were not Missourians;  they were Jayhawkers. These people stole from friend and foe alike, and the group that attacked Quantrill’s camp (this was even before the war commenced)  supposedly belonged to James Montgomery’s band of thieves. Montgomery was a preacher from Linn County, Kansas Territory, and a captain in James Lane’s militia. In the late  1850s he was arguably the most feared of the border marauders,  and even before the war, he led forays for plunder into Missouri.”

Petersen also noted in his book another “interesting” Kansas character, one John Ingalls, who wrote to his father back in Massachusetts telling him of conditions in Kansas. He said: “One remarkable feature of the social conditions here is a total disregard of the Sabbath…” You might wonder, with all those fiery abolitionist preachers running around there why such a situation existed. It would seem that these Kansas “preachers” were so occupied with plundering across the border in Missouri that they just had no time for services on the Lord’s Day–which says a little about the depth of their Christian commitment.

Another really virtuous Kansas character was John E. Stewart. He has been described as an “abolitionist extremist.” He enjoyed association with that saintly old murderer and terrorist, John Brown. Petersen has informed us that: “Even before the war Stewart had gotten a reputation of being associated with John Brown and James Montgomery in their deprecatory raids across the border…Before coming to Kansas he had been a Methodist minister in New Hampshire… His frequent forays across the border resulted in the Missouri  legislature placing a price on his head, and he was suspected in Kansas of ‘entertaining loose notions with regard to property in horses as well as negroes.’ As in the case of all Jayhawkers, his professed zeal for abolition caused a large proportion of the settlers to overlook these activities.”

In other words, as long as you were an abolitionist  it was perfectly alright to steal, kill, and burn. After all, didn’t the noble end of “freeing the slaves” justify the means? These people were the proto-Marxists of their day. Some sources have even reported that once some abolitionists “freed” some slaves in Missouri they brought them back to Kansas, took them south and resold them in New Orleans. But, hey, what the heck.  They were in need of some hard cash so they could buy more of John Brown’s “Beecher Bibles” to kill more Missourians  so they could “free” more Missouri slaves, so that made it all somehow legitimate in the twisted abolitionist mindset.

With men of this moral stripe, often led by preachers of the same moral stripe plundering their state, is it any wonder that so many in Missouri  decided to throw their lot in with the Confederacy?

However, don’t bother hunting for this type of history in your “history” books. Since the winners get to write the “history” books it is much more convenient for their agenda if you are taught to focus on “bleeding Kansas” rather than on plundered Missouri.

Why I Couldn’t Agree With Bruce Catton

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Over the years I have read a bit of “Civil War” history from a lot of authors with divergent opinions on many things. Somehow, though, Bruce Catton’s view of the War was just not one I could get comfortable with. It was sort of like James M. McPherson’s view of the War, and you all know who he was. If you ever read anything I wrote about the War you will recall I couldn’t get comfortable with McPherson’s worldview regarding the War and the reasons for it either. And while McPherson’s books have often been cited on the World Socialist Website in the past, I couldn’t find anything in that regard about Bruce Catton.

However, McPherson’s and Catton’s views appear quite similar when it comes to the notorious Forty-Eighters that Donnie Kennedy and I wrote about in Lincoln’s Marxists.

A friend in New Jersey recently sent me a paragraph out of Catton’s The Army of the Potomac: Glory Road, from page 172 of the book. This is one I had not read, and it probably explains why I am glad I did not make the effort. Even when you research history,  there are times when you can only stand so much propaganda and, though he probably did not intend to do it, that’s exactly what Mr. Catton gave us in this instance. I will comment here on some of what he said in this paragraph.

He started out with: The nation inherited something rich and strange when the German revolutionary movement broke up in blood and proscription lists,  with the best men of a dozen German states hastening to America.   The 1848 revolts in Germany and several other European countries were socialist revolts. That being the case, it would seem that Catton is trying to tell us that the “best men” from a dozen German states were all socialists or communists, because that’s what took part in this revolution. Catton may not be aware of this–in which case you might do well to ask just what else he is unaware of. Either that or his worldview has no problem with socialists. I can’t say definitively either way.

He continues: These Germans were deadly serious about words which Americans took blithely for granted, words like liberty and like freedom and democracy.  It seems as if Catton is totally unaware of the fact that these words do not mean the same things to socialists and communists that they mean to us. When they use such terms they are not saying  what we say when we use them. Lots of ignorant people who eulogize the Forty-Eighters make this grave error. They do not understand how the Leftists use language to confuse their adversaries–and if we are not Leftists, then we are all their adversaries.

Catton says: They (the Forty-Eighters) made up a substantial part of the ground which the free-soil men had cultivated in the 1850s and when the war came they had seen the Union cause as their own cause, with freedom for the black man as one of its sure ultimate goals. This is yet another confirmation that the socialists/communists  saw the Union cause as their own. As for “freeing the slaves” their motives were hardly humanitarian no matter what they said. They were every bit as “racist” as those Southern folks they accused of “racism.” They felt that “freeing” the slaves would uproot the South and cause major problems for the Confederacy and so they endorsed it. The South was the part of the country that was the most Christian and conservative and the most opposed to the socialist designs of both the Establishment in Washington, New York and London.

As Catton wound down in this paragraph he stated:  Their leaders were men who had lost their fortunes and risked their necks, taking up arms for liberty in a land of kings who resisted change, and these leaders called the Germans to the colors as soon as Fort Sumter was bombarded.  Almost sounds as if Sumter was their signal to be up and moving!

What Catton seemed unable to grasp here is that the socialists/communists in Germany, as well as in the rest of Europe, did not fight for liberty for the common man, as we know it. They fought to centralize all the German states into one collectivist entity–with their friends in control of it! The same held true for what they sought to do all over Europe. They fought for collectivization–not liberty. And that’s what they fought for here also. They knew, at least at the leadership levels, where Lincoln was coming from and they knew they had a shot at doing here what they had failed to do in Europe, because they had a leader in Washington that agreed with them!

Until we learn to get this history straight we will continue to make the same stupid errors that we have seen, purposely or otherwise, for the last 150 years. Unfortunately, authors like Mr. Catton who end up glorifying socialists and communists don’t help us much!

It Wasn’t All About Slavery!

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Back in February of 2013 (five years ago now, doesn’t seem all that long ago) I did an article for this blog called The Lincoln/Corwin “Keep your Slaves” Amendment. It discussed the Corwin Amendment, which many of you all probably never heard of. After all, it’s not one of those things the “historians” or the media make a big deal out of because it doesn’t fit their agenda of a “saintly” Lincoln who loved all blacks, or a treasonous South. Scroll back and read that article. It’s still there. That will save me having to restate much of it here. It was a amendment to the Constitution, introduced by Thomas Corwin of Ohio that would have kept slaves in bondage in perpetuity. The sainted Mr. Lincoln was in favor of it, had no problems with it. If you find that hard to believe then go back to February 2, 2013 on this blog and read it.

Lincoln stated, in his first inaugural address, on March 4, 1861 that, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Lincoln pretty much told us what the war (for him) was all about, and it wasn’t slavery. Even the vaunted Emancipation Proclamation” (actually a war and propaganda measure) did not free any slaves in the slave states remaining in the Union, nor did it free any slaves in the Confederate States where it had no legal authority. In fact, you could really say it was the “nothingburger” of the 19th century. So, given all these considerations, it’s hard to believe that “historians” and “journalists” in our day seem unable to come to grips with the naked truth that Lincoln declared war on the South so he could drag them back into the Union and hang on to all that tariff money the South had heretofore pumped into the national economy. The South had paid for 87% of the national economy, and if the South remained out of the Union, then the Union would tank in very short order and Lincoln had to get the South back into the Union so they could continue to “remit the extortion money” to Washington so Washington  would have that money to finance all those internal improvements they wanted to make up north! And those lucky Southern folks would get to pay for all that! Weren’t they just blessed???

Years ago (in 2007 to be exact) someone sent me an article by James W. King and Lt. Col. Thomas M. Nelson entitled The Ten Causes of the War Between the States. It was a good article and I hung onto it. It stated, in part,  “There were 10 political causes of the war–one of which was slavery–which was a scapegoat for all the differences that existed between the North and South. The Northern industrialists had wanted a war since about 1830 to get the South’s resources (land-cotton-coal-timber-minerals) for pennies on the dollar. All wars are economic and are always between centralists and decentralists. The North would have found an excuse to invade the South even if slavery had never existed..”

Frank Conner said pretty much the same thing in his book  The South Under Siege 1830-2000.

King and Nelson, in their article, listed the ten reasons for the war. After going over all their reasons, I had to conclude that they were right on target. They started off by listing the tariff; centralization vs. states rights and Christianity vs. Secular Humanism. This last one is one that few historians, or anyone else for that matter, take into account, yet it is one of the most important and critical. Of course that may be why it is so ignored today.

They listed cultural differences–another one most folks don’t ever give a thought to. We haven’t been taught to think along those lines and so most of these really critical issues just go over our heads. All we’ve been taught (or conditioned) to do is to react to lurid tales of Southern cruelty to slaves–as though the South was the sole proprietor of the slavery issue. It’s not! The North has a big slice of the proprietorship there, too, though most will never admit it, and neither will today’s spin media (excuse me, I meant “news’ media).

I already mentioned the North’s desire for control over Southern resources. Then there was slander of the South by Northern newspapers; New England’s attempts to instigate massive slave revolts in the South. Does Harper’s Ferry, Virginia come to mind here? Just about all those who financed the actions of terrorist John Brown in that gory undertaking were either New England or New York Unitarians and/or socialists. That fact was not lost on Southern folks.

Way down the list, at number 9, was slavery, and while it was an indirect cause, it was not the cause of the war–contrary to the propaganda being promulgated  in today’s classrooms and newsrooms.

I expect some will not appreciate it that I keep hammering at this issue, but when you have had 150 years of propaganda passing as history and news, you have to keep hammering to create cracks in that wall of false propaganda. Until our people begin to get it right about the War of Northern Aggression we will never get it right about any of the events that followed that war. That war was our French Revolution and we have never recovered from the results of it, nor the propaganda spun about it that conditions our thinking today.

Slavery was not the cause of that war. Secession was not treason. “Racism” was every bit as prominent in the North as in the South, maybe even moreso. It just didn’t get the media attention up there. And don’t tell me it didn’t exist up there. I grew up in the North.

With the divisions we have in this country today, culturally and otherwise, it would seem that we might be better off as two separate countries. I doubt that the North will ever totally be able to purge itself of its Unitarian/socialist world view. Left to its own devices, the South might have a chance. And, if push came to shove–much of the West would be better off siding with the South, because we have the same common enemies and the same desire to just be left alone, free from bureaucracy, to live our lives as we feel God intended.

Update:

For a little more on this subject please check out my book review of Gene Kizer Jr.s book Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States published on the Abbeville Institute’s website on February 27, 2018.

Did Lincoln’s Theological Views Reflect His Political Actions?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

The title of this article is a legitimate question–not only for Lincoln, but for the rest of us as well. Do our political actions reflect our theology? If you look today at some of these Democrats and RINO’s that hate Trump and will do or say anything to hurt his agenda, true or not, (and most of the time it isn’t) you have to ask if what they are doing reflects their theology–and if it does–then what does it say about the god they serve?

Similar questions were not always asked about Abraham Lincoln because back then most people didn’t equate a man’s theological perspective with what he did politically. Then, as today, they should have. There is more connection there than most people realize.

I’ve dealt with Mr. Lincoln’s religious views in the past, but not for awhile, so it might not hurt to go back and refresh our memories about them. Ward H. Lamon wrote a book, published in 1872–The Life of Abraham Lincoln: from his birth to his inauguation as president. Lamon probably knew Lincoln as well as anyone. And Mr. Lamon quoted, in his book, another man who knew Lincoln as well as anyone, his law partner for years, William H. Herndon. Herndon said of Lincoln: “As to Mr. Lincoln’s religious views, he was, in short, an infidel-atheist. He did not believe that Jesus was God, nor the Son of God–was a fatalist, denied the freedom of the will. Mr. Lincoln told me a thousand times, that he did not believe the Bible was the revelation of God, as the Christian world contends.”

With a world view like that, how do you think he would deal with his political adversaries? Does the word “treacherously” come to mind?

Lew Rockwell wrote an article back in May of 2000 called The Genesis of the Civil War in which he made some interesting observations. Mr. Rockwell took pains to note that the War of Northern Aggression in the 1860s was not really a “civil war” as a civil war is one where two opposing groups are fighting for control of the same country–and that was never the South’s objective. The North wanted total control if it all–the South just wanted to separate and go its own way. Mr. Rockwell deals with that by saying: “But why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing  their production through high prices and public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South’s trading relations with other parts of the world.  In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North’s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the ‘tariff of abominations.’  Thirty years later, with the South paying for 87% of federal tarff revenue while having their livelihoods being threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to slave status, with the federal government as its master.”  Do you think no one in the North realized this? The average man may not have, but the Northern politicians and political thinkers did. What do you suppose their theological world view was? Three guesses!

And obviously Mr. Lincoln understood this. He was no dummy and, as a lobbyist for Northern railroads he would have known how this system worked. When someone asked him at one point why he did not just let the South go, his reply was “What then will become of my tariff?” So Lincoln realized the South was getting shafted–and that was okay with him, but if they seceded then he wouldn’t be getting their tariff money anymore and the North couldn’t continue to stiff them anymore and so Lincoln had to prevent that. In other words, legalized theft of Southern resources had to continue so Northern industrial interests could benefit. Whose theological persuasion do you suppose that benefited?

Lincoln made it clear his main intent was to get that Southern tariff money–no matter what. He said “My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern states under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861…I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists…” There was no proof Lincoln ever declared war to abolish slavery, it was always to “preserve the Union.” One might well ask,  For who?

Of course if Lincoln did not believe in the Bible and the truth about Jesus Christ, that means that he served another god who had an opposing theology to that found in the Scriptures. Do you think Lincoln realized all this. Commentary from his era would lead us to believe that, to some extent, he did.

Unfortunately for the North, the concept of legalized theft via the tariff, was reflected in their culture, whether they realized it or not, and some did. The rise of Unitarianism in the North and after that, the spread of socialism there, reflected a Northern theology that was justifiably repugnant to orthodox Christians in the South. Over the years, I have mentioned the theological implications of the War of Northern Aggression. Most don’t want to hear it. I have gotten reactions ranging from a stopping of the ears to outright laughter–and some of this from Christians.

But, the theological implications of that War will have to be dealt with, one way or another because, in the final analysis, the theological implications of that War will prove to be more important than the supposed slavery issue. And Lincoln’s theological world view is part and parcel of it all.