The Union Leagues Created Racial Animosity

by Al Benson Jr.

The Union League, both during and after the War of Northern Aggression is one of those groups you will seldom see mentioned in the ‘history” books. In all my growing up time I never saw the merest mention of them in any history book I came across. Public school history books ignored them. Oh you read about the Ku Klux Klan and how bad they were, but nary a word about the Union League. Proof that the winners get to write the “history” books!

The Union League is not mentioned because most of its actions had a negative impact on the country–so negative that to include them in any real history book would cause many to question the pristine purity of Yankee intent. And again, I don’t impute the term “Yankee” to all Northern folks. Anyway the intent of the Union League was so negative that they were just not mentioned, just dropped from the historical narrative. In fact, if you had not had the Union League with its radical intent, you might not have even had the Ku Klux Klan. at least not in the form it took.

The Abbeville Institute, http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org had this to say, in part, about the Union League: “The Union League is one of the most cryptic of civil war and reconstruction topics even though it was a wellspring of tyranny…According to historian Christopher Phillips the leagues ‘demanded undiluted loyalty to the wartime policies of Abraham Lincoln.’ Western Loyal Leaguers (a kissin’ cousin to the Union League) believed there was no such thing as loyal opposition. Voters either supported Lincoln or they were traitors. ‘Western Loyal Leaguers fought dissent with much more than words. In central Illinois one woman claimed the Republicans ‘were forming vigilance committees to identify every man and woman not loyal to Lincoln’…In 1865, Leaguers tarred and feathered seven Ohio women including one who was a widow of a recently deceased Union soldier…”

The article continued “At the end of the war, league chapters were opened in the South to serve as rallying points for whites that had opposed the Confederacy…The new goal of the Southern leagues…was to make sure the blacks registered to vote and voted Republican…The Union League recruited members with a cult of secrecy and exaggerated promises…” Just like politicians today, promise them all manner of goodies during Southern “reconstruction” and then not deliver on any of it.

Often League members couldn’t read or write and so just voted the way they were told to. Members were indoctrinated, and basically brainwashed, into believing that their interests “were perpetually at war with the Southern whites that were falsely accused of wanting to put blacks back into slavery…” In this way the Union League fostered racial animosity. The lasting harm of this horrible lie is that it has existed and persisted right down to our day. Only now it is being perpetrated by socialist Democrats. How many times have you heard, from some well-paid black demagogue “Vote Republican and they’ll put you back in chains.” It’s all bovine fertilizer, but unfortunately it fools many blacks who have not bothered to do any homework because its so much easier to just pull the Democrat lever down in the voting booth!

According to https://heritagepost.org the Union League in the South was formed to establish the black man’s party and “so bend the negroes by secret organization to the Republican party, so they could be detached and taken entirely from under the control of the white people of the South. The Union League is the right arm of the Republican Party…the League taught in practice that the white men of the South were enemies of the negroes , and it excited the latter to deeds of disorder and interference in every way with the whites…”

In other words, the League fostered racial animosity that continues down to our day, and is even promoted by some in Congress. Do you begin to see why the activities of the Union League are continually omitted from our “history” books? One more bit of our history “down the memory hole” as it were. If you want a little more about the Union League check out a book by John Chodes called Washington’s KKK: The Union League. I believe it was published by Shotwell Publishing, Columbia, South Carolina and can be found at Amazon.com

Advertisement

Another Attack On The First Amendment

by Al Benson Jr.

According to an article on http://www.steadfastloyalty.com a new Democrat-sponsored bill to limit First Amendment rights has been introduced. The Digital Platform Commission Act would establish yet another federal agency to regulate and punish anyone who puts out “misinformation” as defined by the socialist Democrats.

In other words, and let’s be blunt about it, this is a bill to severely limit the free expression of their opposition and limit the right of the American people are able to hear, read, and learn. Misinformation will be anything socialist Democrats and socialist Republicans disagree with.

This is one you will need to contact your senators about when the bill number bursts upon the scene and let them know you want them to oppose it. If Congress passes this automatic cancellation of your First Amendment rights then China Joe Biden will appoint a commission of five people, which the Senate will have to confirm.

You don’t need a whole lot of imagination to figure out the kind of individuals Biden will appoint. So now the plan is for government-appointed “experts” to decide what constitutes “misinformation.” Won’t that be fun? I don’t know if this will deal with what you are able to look up on the internet or not, but probably it will. After all, why wouldn’t anything anywhere that the powers that be disagree with be removed from the public eye as “misinformation”?

George Orwell’s “memory hole” already exists to a large degree. With a new bill like this it could well become all encompassing. At least at this point in time we can still find some opposing viewpoints out there on the net to the government hogwash they foist upon us. What would happen, for instance, if all the opposing viewpoints dealing with the War of Northern Aggression were suddenly “discovered” to be “misinformation” and therefore subject to federal removal because of that, and those who refused to comply were to be “punished”? It doesn’t take much to figure out where this draconian measure is headed if enacted. Let your senators know you will be watching what they do with this travesty!

George Orwell And Controlling “History”

by Al Benson Jr.

George Orwell said “Who controls the past controls the future and who controls the present controls the past.” Someone named Bedaant Stivasten in http://www.linkedin.com commented on Orwell’s quote. He said, in part, “Those who control the way history is recorded and told, have the power to shape people’s understanding of the past and influence their decisions for the present. For example, governments and political leaders often attempt to control the way this history is taught in schools and presented to the public in order to shape public opinion and maintain their power.”

He also noted that media outlets have this same power. They decide what stories are told and how they are told. He also observed: “While the past cannot be completely controlled, those who seek to do so must be careful not to push their narratives too far, and risk undermining their efforts.” I don’t think those trying to control the past have heeded his advice. They may be sure at this point that their brainwashed audience will blindly accept most anything they say.

I don’t know anything about this man, other than he is involved in digital marketing and has a name I can’t pronounce. But wherever he is coming from, his commentary on this subject is pretty accurate. You could almost say, in this context, that the winners in any given struggle get to write the history books dealing with it.

It has also been said on http://www.ennyman.medium.com that “When future historians write about the 20th century it would not surprise me to find it had been nicknamed ‘the century of spin’. Today more than ever we see that the battle for the minds of the people revolves around the manner in which events get interpreted, not necessarily the events themselves.” Thus wrote someone named Ed Newman, and he is also on target.

The comments of these two individuals can readily be applied to most of the “history” we have been taught in the last 150 years. We’ve been taught that the North fought the War of Northern Aggression to free the slaves. They didn’t. They fought it so Lincoln could keep his tariffs and collect his duties in Southern ports because the South was paying most of the expenses for the whole country and Lincoln didn’t want to lose that revenue. Ask almost any youngster (and I’ve done this) what that war was fought over and he will dutifully answer “slavery.” That’s what he/she was taught in school. Most adults will say the same thing because that’s what they were taught. This is a prime example of controlled (and inaccurate) history. And your future decisions about that war and its consequences will be made based on faulty history. That’s how this game works. This is how those in power today control your past–and future.

In the context of the 20th century, it might be an interesting exercise for someone to check out how many newspapers or television or radio programs are controlled or influenced by someone who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The website http://www.thefreethoughtproject.com carried an article on 6/4/2018 about how the Council on Foreign Relations advocated that the U.S. government should propagandize its own people. So typical of an organization that promotes the concept of one world government! Another article about the CFR appeared on http://www.ratherexposethem.org on 5/30/21 by William F. Jasper. This one is especially worth reading as it goes into China Joe Biden–the CFR’s man in the White House. And one final one from http://www.mintpressnews.com from 3/1/2018 by James Carey about how the CFR is pushing for a new cold war with Russia. Trump didn’t fall for this one but China Joe Biden is all in for it. But don’t expect the real story from our “news” media–only the establishment spin on the real story!

The entire intent of the CFR is to influence Americans to jettison their unique history, heritage, and culture and be willing to submerge themselves and their posterity into a socialist one world government. This is what the CFR plans for your future. And George Orwell nailed it. If people don’t understand their past and most today don’t then you can work to design your version of the future for them and they won’t realize how horrendous your plan for their future is.

Abraham Lincoln–Hero Of The Left–And Unfortunately The Right

by Al Benson Jr.

Those who have done research on Abraham Lincoln and his socialist proclivities realize he has been embraced by socialists, communists, and other left-wing types. This is common knowledge among many people. What is not always common knowledge, though, is that Lincoln, with all his socialist connections, is somehow still an icon of the right. That fact displays the large probability that those on the right have been taught bad history and had their historical understanding tampered with, which weakens their position.

Lincoln’s love affair with the left has been noted in an article on 2/20/23 on http://www.jacobin.com which notes that Abraham Lincoln is a hero of the left. The article states: “From Karl Marx to Eugene Debs to 1930s American Communists, leftists have regarded Lincoln as a pro-labor hero who played a crucial role in vanquishing chattel slavery. We should celebrate him today as part of the great radical democratic tradition.” If what this writer says is true, then Lincoln would have loved China Joe Biden and what he is doing to the country now.

The writer does not claim Lincoln was a socialist, but nonetheless, he grasped the “general concept” of socialism: the primacy of labor over capital and of liberty over property. The article continued: “Proclaiming ‘communism is 20th century Americanism’ leaders increasingly paired Lincoln with black abolitionists including Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, and Sojurner Truth…” If only those people had been aware of Lincoln’s racist turn of mind they might have taken a different tack. Their “hero” would probably have balked at being placed in the company of black abolitionists.

In actuality, Abraham Lincoln never freed a single slave. His “Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in the Confederate States and it left slaves in slave states still in the Union in bondage. There were five slave states in the Union, including West Virginia, that the proclamation did not apply to. The slaves in those states were technically not freed until the passage of the 13th Amendment, which came months after Lincoln departed this mortal coil. So Lincoln was not really opposed to slavery–unless it was Confederate slavery. He was okay with Union slavery. All the hype about him being the “Great Emancipator” is something we could label as “specious humbug.”

Most on the left, and many on the right, don’t like to hear the truth about Lincoln. In an article on http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org for 3/14/22 Dr. Boyd Cathey observed: “Since then (1981) criticism of Lincoln is not acceptable, not tolerated by mainstream conservatives. Instead the conservative establishment now heralds such neo-Reconstructionist historians as Allen Guelzo or even Marxist Eric Foner (a favorite of Karl Rove). Any dissent from the virtual cannonization of Lincoln with contemporary American society comes from mostly Southern traditionalists and their allies…”

Dr. Cathey is right. When I wrote for the old National Educator newspaper back in the 1980s and 90s I did a series of articles on Lincoln and his socialist connections. The people that complained the loudest were patriotic conservatives who were ticked off at my telling the truth about their patron political saint. They didn’t want to be exposed to the blemishes of their “conservative” hero! They refused to be confronted with the facts! Many staunch conservatives today still think today he actually freed the slaves!

In an article by Claude S. Fischer on 4/5/2011 on http://www.madeinamericathebook.wordpress.com it was noted that “During just one term (plus 45 days) Lincoln managed to do the following, ‘socialist-communist acts: taxed the wealth creators…exploded deficit spending…led a federal takeover of currency and banks…forced people to work for the federal government…indulged in government giveaways to special interests…expropriated private property for redistribution…”

Joe Biden would have loved him except for his party label. But, you have to remember that in the mid 1800s the Republicans were socialists and the Democrats were conservatives. Today, both parties are socialist–Council on Foreign Relations socialists!

I

Think Only The South Had Slaves–Then You’ve Believed The Lie

by Al Benson Jr.

The slavery question in this country has been carefully crafted so that most people who read about it hear only the arguments put out by the winning side and never get the entire story. The “news” media and many pseudo-historians have a vested interest in making sure it stays that way. Historical fiction sells books that keep people from learning the truth.

An article on http://www.tracingcenter.org has observed: “A central fact obscured by post-Civil War mythologies is that the Northern U.S states were deeply implicated in slavery and the slave trade right up to the war. The slave trade in particular was dominated by the Northern maritime industry. Rhode Island alone was responsible for half of all U.S. slave voyages. James de Wolfe and his family may have been the biggest slave traders in U.S. history, but there were many others involved. For example, members of the Brown family in Providence, some of whom were prominent in the slave trade, gave substantial gifts to Rhode Island College, which was later named Brown University…”

The article continued: “The North also imported slaves, as well as transporting them and selling them in the South…While the majority of enslaved Africans arrived in Southern ports…most large colonial ports served as points of entry, and Africans were sold in Northern ports, including Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Newport, Rhode Island. While the North gradually began abolishing slavery by law starting in the 1780s, many Northern states did not act against slavery until well into the 19th century, and their laws only provided for gradual emancipation, allowing slave owners to keep their existing slaves and often their children.” This isn’t what your “history” books told you is it–if they even mentioned it?

An article on http://www.library.providence.edu noted this commentary by Joanne Pope Mellish, Associate Professor Emerita, History Department, University of Kentucky, “Most Americans think of slavery as a solely Southern institution. In fact, the American slave trade was centered in New England, and enslaved people labored throughout the New England colonies from the mid-1600s through the American Revolution with slavery legally existing in Rhode Island until 1842…A few enslaved people still labored in New England on the eve of the Civil War–long after militant abolitionists had declared war on Southern slavery…” So you have to wonder, if this was the case, were those militant abolitionists really interested in doing away with slavery–or were they more interested in the destruction of the Southern states, with the slavery issue as a cover for their true agenda? For those who may not be able to pull up the above mentioned article by Professor Melish, she has written a book on this subject, “Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and ‘Race’ In New England 1780-1860.” It was published back in November of 2000 and you can check it out on http://www.amazon.com

Several years ago three honest reporters from Hartford, Connecticut, I think it was, wrote a book about how the North profited from and promoted the slave trade. I borrowed a copy from a friend and read it. It contained much information that has been carefully concealed over the years about the Northern complicity in the slave trade. This is not something the self-righteous Yankees want generally known–and when I talk about self-righteous Yankees I am not referring to all Northern folks.

But if you have bought the fiction that only the South was involved in the slave trade and that righteous Yankees fought a war to free the slaves then you have bought a specious lie that has no more truth in it than does belief in the tooth fairy. This whole erroneous tale is designed to make Yankees look good and all Southern folks to look bad and you should do enough homework on your own to give the lie to this tale. The truth is out there if you are willing to look. It has been covered up but you can still find it with a little digging. So do a little homework and you can tell the pseudo-historians where to go!

There Are Westerns And Then There Are Westerns

by Al Benson Jr.

I’ve noted for several years that Western movies seem to be dying out. You see one here and there, but in the main, no. This is not a new trend and I won’t go into all the reasons for it here, of which there seem to be several. I grew up in the 1950s watching Westerns both on tv and in the movies. When I got old enough, I traveled over much of the West. I was seldom disappointed–in the scenery, the people, or much of anything about the West.

Unfortunately, the world is changing. In recent years moviemakers have come to be concerned not only with domestic audiences but with the foreign market as well. Communist China has become a major consumer of American movies–and the Chinese don’t like American westerns. The free and independent attitude of the American West is something the Chinese can’t identify with, from the Communist government on down. Ordinary Chinese can’t identify with it, because for hundreds of years now, and maybe never, they have not experienced freedom and independence of thought. And their government is not about to let them see too much of that kind of thing on the silver screen! Communist regimes favor films that make communism look superior. Though with the current trends in Hollyweird, Communist regimes might learn to appreciate our movies because they tend to make our country look so negative.

It has been also observed that, as our country has grown more “diverse” and politically correct that Westerns with heroes with clean-cut images have become less popular. Nowadays if you want Western movies you better make sure your leading characters are anti-heroes with mixed motives. Can’t have people yearning for “truth, justice, and the American way.” So we’ve graduated from John Wayne to Clint Eastwood. And as much as I have enjoyed Eastwood’s movies over the years, most of the characters he has portrayed are far from pure as the driven snow! One Western movie he did, The Unforgiven, featured Gene Hackman as a psycopathic sheriff who got his kicks out of beating up on people. I never saw that picture again and don’t figure I’ve missed too much. Contrast that with what John Wayne said about a republic as a form of government in The Alamo and the difference is like night from day.

Then, there are Westerns and there are Westerns! Many over the years looked like they were filmed on a Hollywood back lot somewhere, or even worse, in some cases like they were filmed mostly in some studio building with a few outside shots taken of the hero on a horse to make it look outdoorsy. I’ve been to the locations of some of the Westerns Ive seen over the years, and believe me, indoor filming for Westerns doesn’t cut the mustard! If you have seen the country out there, you can spot fake, indoor “scenery” in less than a New York minute.

I suppose, were they to start making more Westerns they would have to conform to today’s twisted standards. The “heroes” would all have to be non-white, preferably trans-sexuals and the heroines would all have to be lesbians in order to reflect our “diversity” a diversity where no straight whites need apply for any roles. The traditional Western seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird and anything that reflects positively on either the South or the West is simply beyond the pale–to be avoided on pain of intellectual death!

The Tucson Ring–Cheating The Apaches For Fun And Profit (Mostly Profit)

by Al Benson Jr.

The other night I watched the 1993 movie Geronimo: An American Legend. Ive seen it a couple times before and always enjoyed it. The rugged Southwestern scenery in it is something I enjoy seeing, a remembrance of my time in that part of the country, but also a reminder that I will never get to go back there. For a movie it was amazingly accurate as far as it went.

Although the movie did not deal with it, the background for much of the Apache trouble in Arizona was the infamous Tucson Ring. Odie B. Faulk, in his book The Geronimo Campaign dealt with the infamous Tucson Ring, as well as the machinations of some of the crooked Indian agents, which displayed many of the problems with the reservation system–one of America’s early problems with socialism.

Faulk noted, in part, “Then in the early 1880s, as the Chiricahuas were forced back on this reservation (San Carlos), functionaries in the Indian Bureau decreed that these proud warriors become farmers, despite the recommendations of such knowledgeable officers as Crawford, Davis and Gatewood that they be encouraged in pastoral pursuits…” That didn’t work. And anyone knowing anything about the Apaches could have told them it wouldn’t work, but trying to tell a government bureaucrat anything about what they mismanage is an exercise in utter futility.

Faulk observed that: “But it was black humor, for thereby the proud Apaches were reduced to living on rations provided for them through the Indian Office through the resident agent at each reservation–a system inviting graft, one allowing the Tucson Ring to get rich through connivance. One of (General) Crook’s aides, Captain John G. Bourke, later wrote, ‘The Tucson Ring was determined that no Apache should be put to the embarrassment of working for his own living; once let the Apaches become self-supporting, and what would become of ‘the boys?’ The Indians were aware of this system, too, knowing that rations intended for their consumption were being openly sold in neighboring towns, that they were being shorted on their allotments. The principal items of issue to them were flour and beef, but their week’s ration of flour would barely suffice for a day. The cattle sent them were held without water by the contractor until they crossed the river just before being weighed; The Government was paying a pretty stiff price for half a barrel of Gila River water delivered with each beef,’ wrote Britton Davis of this practice. In addition, the scales used were incorrect in favor of the contractors, And ‘there was not enough fat on the animals to fry a jackrabbit, many of them being mere skin and bones’ Davis asserted. He once accused the herders of actually carrying some of the cattle to the Agency on horseback, but the herders swore that all had walked.”

Faulk also noted: “The Tucson Ring likewise profited when the Apaches left the reservation. Lucrative contracts could be had for supplying grain, hay, and provisions for soldiers sent to quell uprisings. Sometimes they even wanted to benefit both from the Indians on the reservation and from more soldiers, the ‘boys’ would generate an Indian scare through their newspapers, then bombard Washington with requests for ‘protection.’ As Captain Bourke phrased it, ‘They had only to report by telegraph that the Apaches were ‘uneasy. refused to obey the orders of the agent, and a lot more stuff ofthe same kind and the Great Father would send in ten regiments to carry out the schemes of the ring, but he would never send one honest, truthful man to inquire whether the Apaches had a story or not.”

The “Great Father” in Washington had learned from what he had done to white Southerners during what was euphemistically labeled as “reconstruction” after the War of Northern Aggression that if he could get away with what he did during “reconstruction” then he could surely get away with what he did to the Indians afterward and who would dare question his great wisdom? What Washington did during “reconstruction” and to the Indians later on was an early example of a government declaring war on its own people–something this government has continued to do up to and including our own day!

The Great Unanswered Question

by Al Benson Jr.

I and others have asked this question for years now and have yet to even have that acknowledged. Many of us will continued to ask it until we get some sort of answer from the politically correct minions of the viewpoint that the War of Northern Aggression was fought to end slavery. If the War was fought to end slavery then why did the North not start by abolishing slavery in those states that ended up remaining in the Union, some through no fault of their own.

There were four slave states that ended up in the Union–Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware–and when West Virginia seceded from Virginia and ended up back in the Union it did so as a slave state. So that would have been five states in the Union where slavery could have been abolished if that had been the real reason for the War. Yet that didn’t happen. So we have to conclude that because it didn’t happen the real reason for the war was not freeing the slaves but something else.

The tariff question naturally comes to mind, due to the fact that the South paid over 80% of the tariffs for the entire country while the North got most of the benefit from that. The North would have been in pretty sad financial shape without the South to foot most of the bill for all the internal improvements made up north. But the politically correct don’t even want to discuss this. The tariff issue is a “dead letter” to them, meaning they can’t get any traction from that issue to promote their racist agenda to blame the South for slavery. So tariffs are ignored and the slavery issue played up to inflame the passions of black folks who are much better off in this country than they would be had their ancestors remained in Africa. It’s a classic “divide and conquer strategy” to separate the races and prevent them having an honest dialogue with one another. Were they to get together and talk, they would soon discover that the Deep State is screwing everybody in this country and the Establishment can’t have that.

Gene Kizer Jr. in his authoritative book Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States has observed that: “Clearly the North did not instigate a war to end slavery. The focus on slavery as the primary cause of the War Between the States–even indirectly–is a fraud of biblical proportions and it prevents real understanding of American history. Pulitzer Prize winning historian and Lincoln scholar David H. Donald, back in the 1960s, was concerned about the overemphasis of slavery asthe cause of the war. He said the Civil Rights Movement seems to have been the reason for stressing slavery as the cause of the war.”

Given the origins of the Civil Rights Movement that would not be surprising. Years ago now, journalist Alan Stang wrote a book called It’s Very Simple–The True Story of Civil Rights. In that book Mr. Stang delved into the leftist credentials of many in the Civil Rights Movement. Some have concluded that Lincoln didn’t have the authority to free any slaves in the Union states which is probably true. Well if he had no authority to free slaves in the Union, where in heaven’s name did he get the “authority” to free them in the Confederate States??? Lots of questions that need to be answered here and yet the politically correct and minions of Wokeism continue to ignore them because they realize they have no answers that make any kind of sense. So they continue to rant and rail about the War being fought to “end slavery” when they know all that is so much bovine fertilizer. Their fondest hope is that you don’t realize the fertilizer content of their absurdities.

The Faith (or Lack Thereof) of Abraham Lincoln

by Al Benson Jr.

I’ve written about this subject before, but not recently, and people nowadays seem to have a tendency to forget much of what they once learned. Our attention span as a people seems to be about seven minutes–the time between commercials on most television stations. What went on beyond the last commercial we often don’t remember too well. And for something we learned yesterday, forget it. It’s long gone!

What made me think of this was something I saw on the internet while looking for something else. I came across a site that said of Abraham Lincoln that he was the first “republican, Christian president.” Knowing what I know about Lincoln that almost made me choke!

Lincoln was supposedly raised in a strict Baptist family. There has even been some question in some circles about his ancestry. Some have claimed he was born in North Carolina where his mother was a servant of the Enloe family. I saw a short booklet about that once. Don’t know if that’s still among my research material or not.

Be that as it may, Lincoln never joined any church. As a young man he was noted as a skeptic and even noted for ridiculing Christian preachers and revivalists. Many who knew him for years like William Herndon and Ward Lamon rejected the idea that he was a believing Christian. Even his wife also said, at one point, that “Mr. Lincoln was not a technical Christian.”

James Adams 1783-1843, called Lincoln a deist. Lincoln was reported to have authored a manuscript that challenged orthodox Christianity and was taken from the ideas of unbeliever Thomas Paine. Some writers have pooh-poohed this but I have read enough about it to think it may well be true. Supposedly a friend after reading it, took it and threw it into the stove, telling Lincoln it would ruin his political ambitions–and in his day it would have. Today, in our apostate age, he might have gotten by with it, but not back then.

According to http://www.thegospelcoalition.org they say of Lincoln: “Well, the truth of the matter is that he was not. He was exposed to Christian influences all his life. He worked with Christian people…but Lincoln never joined a church, never was actively involved in any kind of Christian organization, in fact, had only most minimal religious profile in his own day.” When someone asked his law partner, William Herndon, about Lincoln’s religious faith, Herndon replied to the man “The less said about that the better.”

Donnie Kennedy and I had a chapter in our book Lincolns Marxists about how a freethinker viewed Lincoln. The freethinker was Col. Robert Ingersoll. This freethinker led the charge in defending Lincoln against the charge of being a Christian and instead argued that he was a freethinker. Freethinkers include atheists and agnostics. Christians they are not. I even read one place, and I did an article on this, where Lincoln was reported to be a Rosicrucian. But, then too, some evangelicals have claimed him. All the research I have done over the years has led me to the conclusion that Lincoln was far removed from the orthodox Christian faith.

The Left Continues To Peddle A Guilt Trip About Slavery

by Al Benson Jr.

Those on the political and theological left continue to try to decimate Southern culture with the slavery issue. They insist the War of Northern Aggression was fought to free the slaves (a specious lie, but they don’t care. They blame the South for slavery in this country, forgetting that there were slaves in all the 13 original colonies–a fact they hope you never check out.

But now there has been a new chip thrown into the pot, one the left didn’t figure on–blacks admitting that their ancestors were part and parcel of the African slave trade. I recently came across a site that was most informative, https://historynewsnetwork.org which observed: “Incomplete depictions of the Atlantic slave trade are, in fact, quite common. My 2003 study of 49 state U.S. history standards revealed that not one of these guides to classroom content even mentioned the key role of Africans in supplying the Atlantic slave trade. In Africa itself, however, the slave trade is remembered quite differently. Nigerians, for example, explicitly teach about their own role in the trade…In Ghana, politician and educator Samuel Sulemana Fuscini has acknowledged that his Asanti ancestors accumulated their great wealth by abducting, capturing, and kidnapping Africans and selling them as slaves.” Wonder how that statement would go over in classrooms run by leftist teachers.

The article continued: “Ghanian diplomat Kofi Anoonor has written: ‘I believe there is a great psychic shadow over Africa, and it has much to do with our guilt and denial of our role in the slave trade. We too are blameworthy in what was essentially one of the most heinous crimes in human history…All the tribes were involved–no exemptions.” Another African American stated: ‘So we really can’t blame the Europeans, we sold our own. It takes two.” The article also observed: “The white man did not introduce slavery to Africa…And by the fifteenth century men with dark skins had become quite comfortable with the concept of man as property…”

Yet another article, this one on https://www.khaynacademy.org noted this: “African societies practiced human bondage long before the Atlantic slave trade began…Furthermore, prisoners of war between different African societies oftentimes became enslaved.” That was where the Europeans got many of the slaves they brought to America, from African tribes who sold off some of their POW’s.

And an interesting article was on http://www.bbc.com that observed comments written by another African who said: “My great grandfather, Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku, was what I prefer to call a businessman, from the Igbo ethnic group of Southern Nigeria. He dealt in a number of goods including tobacco and palm produce. He also sold human beings.” And this lady lived in relatively modern times. She also added: “He had agents who captured slaves from different places and brought them to him” my father told me.”

Sandra E. Greene noted on https://research.cornell.edu that “Slavery in the U.S. ended in 1865, but in West Africa it was not legally ended until 1875, and then it stretched on unofficially until almost World War 1.”

So most of this politically correct baloney that blames all whites, and particularly Southern whites for slavery is just that–leftist baloney–for want of a better term. It is nothing but anti-white propaganda! The Africans would have continued to engage in slavery had they never sold a single slave to white American slave traders who were all from the North anyway, and many were Jews as well as Christians and agnostics.

Whites have purposely been taken on ahuge guilt trip over something that has been a practice of every race on earth! It is long past time to quit feeling guilty and to take a long look at the slavery practiced by other races every bit as much as white folks did.