Here We Come And Here’s What We Want!

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

There was a time when immigrants came to this country from other places to make a better life for themselves and they were willing to work hard to do that. And mostly they did it. They found jobs and made a place for themselves and their families and in so doing made themselves part of this country. My grandfather was one of them. He went to work in a factory at nine years of age. His family didn’t come here and demand favors and freebies. In those days there was none of that foolishness. Immigrants came here, mostly legally, willing to work and make a better life for their families.

Today all that has changed!

Presently you have “caravans” of immigrants from Central America working their way up through Mexico and they plan to arrive on our southern border with a list of demands they expect our president to comply with forthwith so they can be comfortable here. They expect these demands to be met, or at least they say they do. They feel they are entitled to what they demand.

When Comrade Obama occupied the White (Red) House this was the kind of situation that would cause him to draw a line in the sand, and having drawn it, he would gladly invite all the illegals to cross it and he would seek to bestow upon them all the goodies he wouldn’t dream of giving to native-born American citizens because, after all, most of us were not socialist like him, and so we didn’t deserve anything. All we deserved was the privilege of footing the bill to coddle all his illegal buddies so they could live in the lap of luxury while they labored to change our culture into the one they had just “escaped” from.

However, this year’s “caravan” will be dealing with Donald Trump rather than “Madame President” which, hopefully, will be a whole different animal. If Mr. Trump ends up caving in to these freebie-hunters lots of us ain’t gonna be real happy. Right now he is talking about pulling US troops out of Syria and putting them down on our southern border–a move I will applaud if he does it.

As the “caravan” works its way to the borders of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Commiefornia they are letting us know what they expect from us. According to an article on https://canadafreepress.com one of the demands of the caravan comrades is that “They open the borders to us because we are as much citizens as the people of the countries where we are and/or travel.” In other words, these people are as much the citizens of this country as we are? That statement won’t even qualify as bovine fertilizer! The idea that some Leftist group (because that is who ultimately finances these boondoggles) can just trot up to our border and demand citizenship is way beyond laughable. It is an absurdity!!! Oh, I realize this sort of arrogant demand warms the hearts of all dedicated Leftists in this country who loathe ordinary hardworking Americans and love illegal immigrants that they can shower our largesse on.  Just think of the voting block they can turn these people into (whether they vote legally or not makes no diference) to disenfranchise normal Americans. Just think of how they will change our culture, because that culture change is a major part of their agenda. Ask Comrade Obama who, come to think of it, we haven’t seen much of lately, though his minions are assuredly active. Makes you wonder where he’s hiding out–and why?

But the “caravan crowd” has yet another point to make. They say “Our dream is to build solidarity bridges and turndown border walls imposed by greed.” No doubt they are seeking to fulfill Hillary’s dream of open borders and are happily doing their bit toward that Leftist end. The Free Press noted that this is a “..clear PR stunt orchestrated by leftist advocates.”

Who are these people to “demand” anything of us? If some of them manage, by hook or by crook to sneak into this country they will be nothing more than illegal immigrants and the only thing they will be entitled to is a free ride back to the Mexican border. Regardless of what they say and regardless of what some of our cowardly politicians spout they don’t have citizens rights here and they shouldn’t be entitled to any “free stuff” just because they have the gall to demand it.

I have heard that the governor of Texas plans to put the Texas National Guard along the Texas border with Mexico. Good for him! Let’s hope he has enough of them to do the job until Mr. Trump gets those troops back from Syria! It’s high time we quit handing over American goodies to everybody in the world that thinks they deserve them, via some “redistribution of the wealth” scam authored in Washington.

Advertisements

Sentiment For Separation In The Far West

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

As the “history” books to which government school students are subjected begin to deal with the War of Northern Aggression, they tend to make little mention of those states and territories west of the Mississippi, with the exception of Missouri and Kansas. Missouri, so we’ve been told, was chock full of greasy, “racist, hate-mongering “nativist” bushwhackers, who wanted nothing more out of life than to lie in wait so they could ambush the noble, virtuous, godly abolitionists from Kansas to whom “anti-slavery was the law of God.” Other than their presenting us with this little tidbit of historic fertilizer, they tell us almost nothing of what went on in the rest of the West. Either they haven’t done the homework or they have and hope we haven’t.

I’ve seen lines in some Western movies that talk about the War being an “Easterner’s War” and saying the West had nothing to do with it. Not quite accurate!

Historian Alvin M. Josephy Jr., in his interesting book The Civil War in the American West, has given us somewhat more detail than our students’ “history” books are wont to do. He has informed us of the political situation in Colorado, about which he has written: “In Colorado, where support for the Union was admittedly the majority sentiment, William Gilpin, the Federal territorial governor, wrote worriedly  that 7,500 people, almost one third of the population of Denver and the mining camps, were secessionists.”

The mining camps around Denver were originally started by people from Georgia–something else you were never told about. So there was a definite secessionist presence in Colorado, even though most today have no idea it existed. Josephy also informed us that: “New Mexico, with a reputation for being Free Soil and with only a handful of slaves and a total of eighty-five blacks in the whole Territory,  tacitly supported slavery in 1859 by adopting a code to protect slave owners that dismayed Northerners. Moreover, secessionists were actually in control of southern and western portions of that Territory.

Another little item that Yankee hysterians, oh pardon me, I meant historians, have left out was the racial attitudes of many in the far Western states. At one point, Oregon had voted to ban all blacks, free or slave, from entering the Territory,  and California came  close to doing the identical thing. In the election of 1860, Lincoln took the state of California by a mere 711 votes, and, although he also won in Oregon, he did it by less than 300 votes! Lincoln said it was “the closest political book-keeping that I know of.”

Josephy told us that: “In California, where almost 40% of the state’s 380,000 inhabitants were from slave states,  only seven out of fifty three newspapers had supported Lincoln.” So, you can hardly say he won by a landslide in the far West!

Josephy said: “Congressman John C. Burch called on Californians to ‘raise aloft’ the Bear Flag of the short-lived California Republic of 1845. ‘I was warmly sympathetic with the South’ another congressman,  Charles L. Scott, declared, urging his constituents to establish ‘a separate republic’.”

We have been told that areas around Los Angeles and San Bernadino were hotbeds of secessionist sympathy. So the picture is hardly as black and white as it has been painted. In fact, an ordinance of secession was actually passed by a convention of the people of Arizona at Messilla, Arizona Territory, on 16 March, 1861. The ordinance stated, in part: Resolved,  That geographically and naturally we are bound to the South, and to her we look for protection, and as the Southern states have formed a Confederacy, it is our earnest desire to be attached to that Confederacy as a Territory.

However, don’t hold your breath waiting for that one to show up in the “history” books. The folks in the West and Southwest don’t really need to know this and that it is part of their heritage and culture–do they? Just ask the historians! Mr. Josephy is honest enough to tell you about it. Most of them ignore it.

There was even, believe it or not, secessionist sentiment up in Montana. How many have ever been told that the mining town of Virginia City, in western Montana, was first named Varina City, in honor of Jefferson Davis’s wife? The name was eventually changed to Virginia City by a local judge who felt that the name Varina City was really pushing the envelope! If you ever get to Montana you should visit Virginia City. It is an interesting spot and they are trying to restore it so that it looks like it did originally.  When we were there, some of the old, original buildings were still standing, unrestored, but that’s a few years ago.

Often, the efforts of the Indians in the far West to preserve their hunting grounds and way of life and liberty were, in some cases, construed as interfering with the Yankee war effort in the East, thus giving “aid and comfort” to the Confederacy.

I am sure that, at some point, some radical Leftist “historian” will point to the poor Cheyenne souls massacred at Sand Creek by John Chivington as “Confederate sympathizers.” The Yankee/Marxist spinmeisters will, no doubt, laugh all the way to the bank about that one!

Of course, after the shooting phase of the War was over in the East, the whole, solidified, consolidated Yankee territory had to be opened up for settlement and the Indians were in the way. By that time, the Yankee/Marxists felt that if the could accomplish what they did against a civilized Christian South and get by with it, war criminals and all, then they could certainly do as much and worse to a batch of “benighted” savages–and so, according to Phil Sheridan, the only good Indian became a dead Indian. Arsonists like Sherman and Sheridan planned for their extermination.

Truly the West was (and still is) deeply affected by the War and its aftermath in a way that has never been fully grasped. The Yankee/Marxist mindset that prevailed in Atlanta and the March to the Sea also eventually prevailed at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, a quarter of a century later–and it prevails in places like Bunkerville, Nevada and eastern Oregon to this very day. Contrary to what the “history” books tell us, this country is much the worse for the way things turned out.

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.

“Maryland, my (home schooling) Maryland”

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Home schooling is one of those things that scares the living daylights out of the Educational Establishment and the Deep State. Home schooling, and Christian education in general tend to be areas where the participants  do not always (usually) accept the Establishment version of history and/or politics.

From time to time, as they feel they can get away with it, the “change agents” in the educational bureaucracy  seek to remedy this situation by trying to find reasons to enforce new controls that will give them more power and control over home schooling, its curriculums, and its participants.

During the 1980s Rev. Paul Lindstrom, of the Church of Christian Liberty in Illinois, traveled around the country testifying in various court cases that helped and enabled parents to regain their right to home school their children which had been usurped by the Educational Establishment. By the late 1980s, home schooling was legal, in one form or another, in all the 50 united States. That fact did not, and does not, however, prevent the Establishment Education Czars from looking for any chance they can to reverse that trend–and if they can’t reverse it they can at least try to again regulate home schooling almost out of any real existence.

So it was no surprise to me when I came across an article on http://www.thefreethoughtproject.com  by Matt Agorist for March 11, 2018 that dealt with the latest attempted Establishment Educational usurpation in Maryland.

Mr. Agorist wrote: “Under the guise of preventing child abuse, lawmakers in Maryland have introduced a bill that will allow the state to intrude in the lives of innocent families, keeping tabs on them, and destroying their right to privacy. The bill, HB 1798–County Boards of Education–Home Instruction Program–Observation of Instruction and Reporting of Abuse and Neglect,  lays out some fairly ominous requirement that will persecute otherwise entirely innocent families for doing nothing other than teaching their children at home…The bill also lays out the framework for involuntary home inspections in which state agents will enter a family’s home multiple times a year–likely unannounced–and observe and inspect the homeschooling process.”

It seems as though there was a family in California that was guilty of massive child abuse and they were registered as home schoolers. So now the Education Czars in that “Sanctuary State” have automatically assumed that all home schools are probably guilty of those same abuses and need to be constantly regulated so they aren’t beating and starving their kids. It’s the same old bureaucratic “You’re guilty until you prove yourself innocent” routine that is practiced by so many government types in their efforts to gain control over other people’s lives. This is one thing politicians and bureaucrats always seek to do to justify their existence. They have to try to run everyone’s life, down to the minutest detail because, somehow, that seems to give them some sort of power trip. Being control freaks is what they live for. And it would seem that the “change agent” Educational Czars in Maryland have taken note of this instance in California and seen a real possibility in their state to assume more control over the lives of a group of people they only tolerate because the present state law forces them to.

It’s somewhat the same situation you see with all these school shootings. Some Leftist nut, usually on some exotic type of medication, kills a batch of kids and teachers in a school “gun free” zone and the bureaucratic  conclusion is that all gun owners must be potential terrorists and need to be regulated (and their weapons hopefully confiscated) as soon as possible, if not sooner!

Mr. Agorist accurately notes that: “Instead of realizing that the problem of child abuse has nothing at all to do with homeschooling,  lawmakers across the country are using this moment to demonize parents who wish to teach their children outside of the state…The audacity of the state to require that your children be inspected by them to prove that you are not guilty of child abuse is stunning and speaks to the nature of the cradle to grave mentality of the almighty controllers.” If this trend is allowed to continue it could, again, reduce the fundamental right of parents to home school their children back to the status of yet another state-regulated entity. I am sure that possibility has not been lost on the Educational Elite who seek to indoctrinate your children rather than letting you educate them.

Let’s don’t kid ourselves. This, in spite of the Establishment’s pious pleading, is not about the welfare of children–it is about who will control how they are educated and what they are taught. To educate your children is a parental right, and the Educational Elite (a major part of the Deep State Swamp) is not about to allow parents to assume this God-given responsibility  without a struggle to deprive those parents of that right.

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.