4/9/65

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Well, today is the 153rd anniversary of Robert E. Lee’s surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Court House in Virginia.

This event, so we are told, ended the “Civil War.” As far as the professional “historians” and their appendages in the Fake News Media are concerned, that was it, the end. The South fought to preserve her right to keep slaves and lost–end of story. Unfortunately for them, it isn’t.

Robert E. Lee’s surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia did not end the War. There were still two armies in the field, Joe Johnston’s army in North Carolina, and Kirby Smith’s army of the Trans-Mississippi in Louisiana. Though these would eventually surrender, they hadn’t yet, and the lawful government of the Confederate States of America would never surrender. To this day they have never surrendered. The surrender of Lee’s army was interpreted as being the surrender of the Confederate States of America. It wasn’t!

Jeff Davis had no intention of surrendering the Confederate government. He put it all, records, and cabinet members, on the train to Danville, Virginia and sought to operate the Confederate government as the train moved South. Davis and many in the government were finally caught–and the Yankee/Marxists even lied about the events surrounding that. Be that as it may, the Confederate government never officially surrendered. Clifford Dowdey wrote about that in his book The History of the Confederacy–1832-1865, pages 411, 414.

The Yankee/Marxists, due to having more men, money, and material, overwhelmed us on the battle field–but they never forced a surrender out of us in the end!

So I guess, to satisfy the historians (hysterians) it has been promulgated abroad that the “Civil War” ended at Appomattox on April 9th. That way no one will ever be tempted to ask to see the documents showing the surrender of the Confederate States, with official signatures.

Of course, most astute followers of our history realize that the War really solved nothing and that even though the shooting part of the War has abated for now, the cultural phase of the War has been cranking up since the advent of “reconstruction” and has now reached almost fever pitch, as the Yankee/Marxists now feel they have us down for the count along with most of our monuments and flags. It will be up to us, with God’s help and our grit, as to how far down they have us, but I have the sneaky feeling it ain’t as far down and they think it should be or would like it to be. So it will be up to us, and those we educate for the future, as to how far down we are. Kind of like the picture of the heron trying to swallow the frog–except the frog has got a grip on his throat so he can’t swallow anything and the caption at the top of the picture says “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.” That’s where we are right now–so happy Appomattox Day!

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.

A Little More Jayhawker History Your School Books Inadvertently Forgot To Mention

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I’ve found it interesting, over the years, as I have perused the internet out of curiosity to see what sites it might contain that deal with Yankee/Marxist atrocities in Missouri before and during the War of Northern Aggression, the first sites that usually pop up in search engines mostly seem to deal with Lawrence, Kansas.

Could you say there was Yankee/Marxist bias on the internet? Heavens to Abigail–who would ever have thunk it??? It seems that if you are going to discover what mayhem the Yankees committed in Missouri during and before the War, you are first going to have a bit of indoctrination as to what Quantrill is supposed to have done in Lawrence, Kansas in August of 1863.

The accounts of what happened in Lawrence vary in intensity, depending on which Yankee source is passing them along. This is not surprising. On a trip through Kansas several years ago, I chanced to run into a woman who was some sort of local “historian” (hysterian might be a more appropriate word). The minute I mentioned history she opened up with a barrage about the  virtues of terrorist John Brown, ignored the excesses of Jennison’s Jayhawkers, and then proceeded to inform me that people like Jeb Stuart were nothing but terrorists! Our discussion ceased shortly after that and I was more than glad to let her go her abolitionist way. Unfortunately, this seemed, at that time, to be rather typical of eastern Kansas. Friendly territory if you didn’t deify John Brown it was not. So why should the internet be any different?

James D. Horan, in his book Desperate Men announced of Quantrill’s men that they “…sacked Lawrence, Kansas on August 13, 1863, killing one hundred and forty men, women and children.” Although Mr. Horan may not realize it, the part about Quantrill’s men killing women and children is the grist from which cow chips are made, and as such, it belongs out in the cow pasture with the rest of the bovine fertilizer. However, Horan does tell us that Quantrill’s men burned 185 buildings and five stores. In the movie Ride With the Devil, which is amazingly accurate in many areas, the first building Quantrill’s men are shown burning down is the local government school seminary. Maybe the movie’s director, Ang Lee, who is from Taiwan, knew something about out history that most Americans don’t, and that might be why the movie was yanked from theaters after only about a three week run, never to appear again except in video form–and you couldn’t get them everywhere.

So, should you decide to hunt and peck around on the internet, you can learn an awful not about what happened in Lawrence, Kansas. This raid, battle, or whatever you choose to label it is one thing mentioned in most “history” books dealing with the War. However, these same “history” books (and I use that term loosely) almost never mention Osceola, Missouri.  In fact, most folks have probably never heard of that town unless they lived in close proximity to its location. It’s one of those supposed-to-be-forgotten places the Yankee/Marxists hope you never hear much about. Although the “history” books continue to give you grim accounts of all that supposedly happened in Lawrence, they will almost totally ignore what took place in Osceola, Missouri almost two years previous to Lawrence.

On September 23, 1861, Osceola, Missouri was attacked by Senator James H. Lane and his infamous “Lane’s Brigade.” This “brigade” was made up of Kansas cavalry and infantry, and was, according to one source, “…a ruthless band of Jayhawkers (plundering marauders) wearing United States uniforms. James H. Lane was known as the’Grim Chieftain’ for the death and destruction he brought on the people of Missouri.”

With Senator Lane, according to Paul Petersen, in Quantrill of Missouri, was the Fourth Kansas Jayhawker regiment and the Third Kansas Jayhawker regiment, the latter under the command of that plundering abolitionist preacher, “Colonel” James Montgomery. Although there were no Confederate soldiers anywhere near the town, and hence the town, as such, was no military threat, some of the local residents had the temerity to fire at the Union “soldiers” so Lane ordered the town to be shelled. After the town had pretty much been reduced to a mass of broken lumber and bricks, nine local  citizens were led to the town square, where they were given a “trial” by a Kangaroo Court of Jayhawkers, and they were then summarily shot. Petersen informed us that: “Banks were an easy target for the Jayhawkers, but the Osceola bank had prudently shipped its funds elsewhere. When Lane found little currency in the  bank, he ordered the stores, warehouses and homes ransacked. His men loaded the loot into government wagons and any other vehicles they could confiscate. Among Lane’s personal haul were a number of pianos for his home in Lawrence.” Just the spoils of war, folks. No doubt those Missouri pianos  would have given aid and comfort to any passing Confederates and so they had to be removed!

Then, in a typical Yankee/Marxist humanitarian gesture, Lane set what remained of the town on fire. Of the 800 building in town, only three are reported to have escaped the flames, and no consideration was given to the political leanings of any of the homeowners. Yankee or Secesh; if you had a home in Osceola, it got torched! One might wonder why Quantrill’s men, who supposedly burned 185 buildings in Lawrence, were given so much coverage while Lane’s men, who burned nearly 800 in Osceola, got almost none. You don’t suppose there was some historical bias involved here do you.

The loot these legalized thieves made off with from Osceola included over 300 horses, 400 head of cattle, and 200 kidnapped slaves, along with many sacks of flour, sugar, salt, and coffee. Petersen reported that: “Eyewitnesses noted that the plunder train of 150 wagons was at least a mile long. Property losses were estimated at more than a million dollars.” You have to understand, though, that all this is okay. As long as you are garbed in your new Yankee uniform it’s perfectly alright to rob, pillage, and rape (as Sherman’s men did in Georgia). It only becomes wrong when those nasty “racists” in the dirty gray uniforms do it.

Sound like a double standard? Of course, but how can you operate any other way when you have “racists” and various other “deplorables” to deal with and your mindset is avowedly Marxist? I mean, after all, what can people expect?

An interesting little sidelight to this horrific affair was the 200 “freed slaves.” Petersen has informed us that they “…were taken into Kansas and assigned to work in the fields. Their pay was anything they could steal and carry away from their former owners…” Such a deal! I’ll bet those Kansas farmers just loved to have those “freed” slaves working in their fields and it was even reported later that Senator Lane wanted payment from the farmers for providing them. If I didn’t know better I’d think that almost makes Jim Lane sound like some sort of slave trader! If one were not convinced of the utter truth, virtue and nobility of the Yankee cause such information might make him tend to think that Lane sounded slightly hypocritical. But you have to remember, Lane was a 19th century cultural Marxist and so the double standard is perfectly alright so long as his agenda is served.

You might even, should you have a suspicious mind, as I have been accused of having, be tempted to ask the question–when is slavery not slavery? The answer to that question is–when it is practiced in Kansas by abolitionists instead of in Missouri by ordinary farmers. But having been exposed to a certain amount of political correctness in our day you all how that drill goes–“War is peace; Less is more,” and so forth.

And to top off a grand day for the Jayhawkers, just before Lane’s brigade  left town, most of them got roaring drunk! But again, you have to realize, that’s okay–the Yankee uniform excuses anything–you know: “His truth is marching on” and all that! So should you be tempted to wonder, there were ample reasons for the raid on Lawrence. It was not just a random act of Southern terrorism as has been suggested. And we might well ask the question–if Lawrence was terrorism, then what, pray tell, was Osceola??? Answers anyone? I didn’t think so!

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.

“Jeff Secession”

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

In looking at what Attorney General Jeff Sessions seems to be doing in regard to having certain Swamp Creatures in Washington investigated by someone from outside of the Swamp, I would have to commend him for this effort. It seems he has been doing this quietly (probably the best way) but he has been doing it.

One problem Mr. Sessions  seems to have, though, is that he seems to believe the federal government is the last absolute word on anything, and if the feds say do it, then you better do it, no questions asked. In this rash assumption he is off base.

Those who follow what I write know that one source (among several) that I use for information is https://www.infowars.com  There are probably a dozen sites that I check out on a regular basis, but I follow Infowars because they usually get it faster than most others, and they get it right. Their sources seem to be good sources–and they must be doing something right because You Tube, Facebook, and Twitter are all trying to censor their videos and articles. You don’t draw that much ire from “the big 3” unless you are hitting the nail on the head. Of course “the big 3” are trying to censor all conservative commentary they can get by with, which tells me that when you have to censor your opposition–then you don’t have anything!

There is one news commentator on Infowars that I particularly enjoy (not that the others are not good, they are) and that is David Knight. Mr. Knight is a Christian gentleman and is not ashamed to let you know that, but he is also a Christian that knows his history. In that, he is part of a (hopefully expanding) minority. We need Christian people in the journalism and broadcasting areas that know their history and haven’t just bought, hook, line, and sinker, what they were taught in those government indoctrination centers we still charitably refer to as public schools.

On his broadcast today (March 9th) referred to some comments Jeff Sessions made about secession and nullification, and it was Mr. Knight that referred to him as “Jeff Secession.” In referring to the illegal immigration conflagration now so rife in the People’s Republic of Commiefornia, Sessions said: “There is no such thing as nullification or secession.” While I understand that Sessions was referring to states needing to obey the immigration laws, his comment here was a little out of context and did not fit the situation in California (the People’s Republic referenced above).

Sessions, like most of us, was probably taught that the War of Northern Aggression and its result forever settled the secession question once and for all. It didn’t. David Knight correctly noted that our War of Independence (the first one) from Great Britain was, after all, a war of secession. Our Declaration of Independence was a secession document. In effect, we seceded from Great Britain. I realize the politically correct don’t like to think of it in those terms, but that’s what it was. Given that fact, it surprises me no end that so many people today look at “secession” as at least a dirty word, if not outright treason. It isn’t.  There must be something lacking in their  educations. How about Truth? 

Mr. Sessions’ view of the States seems to be that they are nothing more that 50 federal districts that are responsible for carrying out federal edicts at the state level and they have no recourse but to do that. Lots of us disagree with that erroneous viewpoint and if the feds come up with some really egregious agenda that harms the states and their people, then that’s where nullification comes in, or should anyway, depending on how much intestinal fortitude state officials have (and I’ve seen lots over the years that didn’t have much).

Tom Woods had an article on http://www.lewrockwell.com for March 9th that dealt with nullification. Woods noted: “Sessions is making precisely the argument that every left-liberal outfit on earth, from ThinkProgress to the Southern Poverty Law Center, was making not ten years ago, when the modern nullification movement was getting started.”

If you want to read a good little book dealing with this, pick up Ron Kennedy’s book Nullification! Why and How published by Scuppernong Press in Wake Forest, North Carolina, but you might check out http://www.KennedyTwins.com which might be quicker.

Ron noted on page iii that “The current unconstitutional system of Federal supremacy has produced the current out of control Federal government. The remainder of this book explains why nullification is an essential unalienable right and how we can reclaim that lost right.” I seriously doubt that “Jeff Secession” would agree with this, and then I wonder–what would his take on the 10th Amendment be???

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!

Florida School Shooting–lots of people are starting to smell a rat!

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Years ago I read a book about the United Nations and its Leftist formation by G. Edward Griffin, who many of you will have heard of. I don’t know if Mr. Griffin is still writing, he may be, but he has an excellent website on the internet and he picks up news items you won’t get too many other places. Check him out at https://needtoknow.news

On February 20th he had a column written by J. W. Williams posted on his website Need To Know. The title of it was The Mysterious Drills and Political Agenda of the Florida Shooting. I am going to give you a few snippets of it here and then list the link because it is worth reading the entire article. If all you have been getting about this situation is what you get on the Communist News Network and the sites of that group’s fellow travelers then you really need a more accurate version.

The article notes: “The signs that this was a staged event include the numerous mistakes by the FBI, a drill on the day of the shooting, warnings that the police would try to scare the kids with blanks during a drill, and massive gun control propaganda. Drills on the day of an event are a hallmark for false flag attacks, like we saw on 9/11 and the Boston Marathon Bombing.” And then the article lists a sequence of events that should really make one think. The article stated: “Cops were called to Nikolas Cruz’ home 39 times over a 7-year period. The FBI ignored two tips and failed to investigate the warnings that Cruz intended to become a ‘professional school shooter’ and that he owned guns. There were many reports and complaints from teachers, students and neighbors about his unruly behavior and fighting…Drills have been linked to mass violent events that change the political landscape. For example, military drills were being carried out during the 9/11 attack and the Boston Marathon Bombing…David Hogg, 18, a student journalist and director of the school’s TV news station said he thought the event was a drill because it was so well coordinated. He repeatedly called for action. He said that their have been 18 school shootings this year, but that claim has been debunked” Several witnesses have said there were multiple shooters, but this seems to be something that is almost never investigated. It seems as if the standard agenda for these events calls for one lone shooter and nothing beyond that will be acknowledged or admitted. Another thing conveniently swept under the proverbial rug is the fact that just about all the shooters in these false flag events are on some kind of Pychiatric medication that doesn’t seem to work for them as it does for others who take the same medications.

There are several videos with this article, which did not print out for me, but the comment under one of them is interesting. It says: “In this video, it appears that Hogg, who has become a leader of the student activists, has been coached and is following a script or repeating messages he gets from an earpiece while talking about drills at the school.” This David Hogg has a father that is a retired FBI agent.

The radical Left is really making hay while the sun shines with this event. The article notes: “The media and anti-gun lobby are also using  Douglas High School students to push the gun control agenda, and to recruit young people to vote…They have planned a ‘March for Our Lives’ in Washington next month that is affiliated with Michael Bloomberg’s radical anti-gun group, ‘Everytown for Gun Safety’.” Do you begin to see where all this is going? The link to Mr. Griffin’s website for this article is https://needtoknow.news/2018/02/mysterious-drills-political-agenda-florida-shooting/

Several articles I picked up researching today continued in the same vein. One from http://www.bizpacreview.com stated that: “High school student Colton Haab was hailed a hero for shielding his classmates from a crazed gunman in Parkland, Florida, but said when he was invited to speak at CNN’s townhall Wednesday the network organizers weren’t interested in what he wanted to say. Haab, who is a Junior Reserve Officer’s Training Corps member, said he had expected to ask his own questions and give his own opinions on the issues of gun control and school safety, but discovered he was going to be censored by the network instead. CNN  asked me to write a speech and questions, and it ended up being all scripted” according to Haab, who supports putting armed veterans in schools. Needless to say, Haab’s suggestion of armed veterans in schools did not fit the CNN agenda of keeping all schools gun free and promoting the idea of making the rest of us all gun free. Because, shorn of all the sophistry, that’s what CNN and the political Left really want.

Without firearms you cannot protect yourselves from a potentially tyrannical  government and that’s what the Left really wants. That’s what many in the government really want. They don’t want you to be able to defend yourselves against them because they are working to rid you of your Second Amendment rights so they can assume the position of Chief Tyrants! And they are using these false flag events to do this so you will not recognize what is happening to you until it is too late!

For starters, you all need to write or call your Congress critters and tell them flat out you don’t want them voting for any new gun control measures–zip, zero, nada! Then you all need to use whatever means is available to you, letters to the editor, the internet, word of mouth, or whatever to expose this rotten game for the usurpation of our rights–because that’s what this is. Each of us needs to ask the Lord for guidance as to what He would have us do, but we all need to do something! Those who won’t use their liberty will lose their liberty. It’s as simple as that!