Observations About Vicksburg

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Advertisements

Thieves Of History Try But They Can’t Destroy It All

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Well, I just read this week about how some of the “Thieves of History” somewhere out on the Left Coast, now want a statue of President William McKinley to be taken down. I don’t recall exactly what their problem with McKinley was, but whatever it was, they probably did not know that he had been a Brevet Major in the Union Army during the War of Northern Aggression. The thought occurred to me that the Yankee/Marxist revolution in this country is now starting to “eat its own”–something that has inevitably happened in all Leftist revolutions, from the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution and beyond. Stalin’s purges in modern times are a great example. So much for the “peace, love and tranquility” promised us by the political and theological Left. They can’t even get along with their own.

I wonder if any in Yankeeland will mourn the departure of President McKinley should his statue be removed? Will any up there protest this? Will some of them look South and expect us to help them preserve McKinley, or Lincoln or whoever, in the name of “patriotism?” If so, we can always ask them where they were when Lee, Jackson, Jeff Davis, and Beauregard were being taken down here in the South.

In fact, today, you might be accurate if you observed that groups like Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and a host of others today are little more than the modern equivalent of the Yankee/Marxist “reconstruction”troops stationed in the South after the shooting part (not the cultural part) of the War was over. I have often stated that “reconstruction is ongoing today” and their willing presence as they have sought to tear down and destroy our Southern monuments only bears this out. They are part and parcel of the current phase of “reconstruction.” And while they might not officially be “military troops” there are those in control in the Deep State that finance their depredations.

The first phase of “reconstruction” was the occupation by Yankee troops after the War, but they realized they were not about to change the minds of those they had lately fought against, so at that point, along came the Yankee school teachers and their new and revised curriculums, designed to make Southern kids feel guilty about who they and their ancestors really were. That phase is continuing even unto this day, with the public school educrats trying to construct even larger “stools of everlasting repentance” so more and more Southern kids can sit on them and reflect on the “evils” of secession and independence.

But we are finally, thank the Lord, beginning to see a bit of a backlash. New Confederate monuments, although smaller in scale, are beginning to go up–on private property, and big Confederate flags are going up in prominent places near major highways in the South–also on private property. No more putting our monuments and memorials up on Deep State turf! That’s a recipe for disaster!

And our history and heritage are being celebrated, even if the Fake News Media purposely forgets to mention it.

This is April, Confederate History Month! I’ve just read articles about a town in Georgia where the town council recognized Confederate History Month and I read about a county up in Kentucky that has done the same thing. Also received the following just yesterday–With a unanimous vote, the Union Parish Police Jury has just proclaimed April as Confederate History Month! God Save the South! This last one is in north Louisiana. And the SCV folks in Louisiana, in March, sponsored several caravan flag rallies where vehicles with Confederate flags drove back and forth across the state on major highways. You’d be surprised how many folks out on the road see that sort of thing on a Saturday afternoon. And here in Louisiana the response to that kind of thing by the pubic has been overwhelmingly positive. And in north Louisiana other events will follow later this month.

I have no doubt whatever that our modern Yankee/Marxist “reconstructionists” will continue to press their assault on our culture, history and heritage all across the South, but at least they are beginning to realize that they won’t have it all their own way and that they are not going to win some of the skirmishes they get into with us. And as this struggle continues, more Southern folks wake up and realize what is going on.

As for learning what you can do to help, get a copy of Ron Kennedy’s recent book Dixie Rising–Rules for Rebels (Shotwell Publishing, Columbia, South Carolina). And don’t forget to celebrate Confederate History Month this month. Get a Confederate flag of some kind and run it up your flagpole. Give your politically correct neighbors something to choke on!

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!

Belated Birthday Comments on Lincoln the Empire Builder

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Well, we are now into February–the beginning of Black History Month, which should end sometime around the latter part of Spring. Yesterday was Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, with all the attendant legends and myths posing as history that always accompany that. As always we will be fed all the historical bovine fertilizer that goes along with that notable event.

This brief commentary would normally have been posted on the “Great Emancipator’s” birthday. I roughed it out the previous evening, only to discover that, when I went to print it off, the printer attached to my computer had suddenly developed a case of IDS (ink deficiency syndrome). Having been able to obtain another print cartridge late on the day of his birth I am now posting this, but the date on it will be tomorrow, the 13th. In this case a day doesn’t make that much difference, seeing that we all have already been treated to 150 plus years of historic swill.

We have been informed that Lincoln inaugurated and fought a war “to free other men” and that this was the noble task of the Army of the Potomac. This romantic psychobabble was presented to us years ago in the movie Gettysburg. Actually. Lincoln inaugurated  and promoted this war to preserve the Union (under Republican control) and he really didn’t give a flip about freeing the slaves. If that happened, even partially, that was alright, but if it didn’t that was alright with him too. He said as much. And just exactly why did he want to preserve the Union? Well, because there was big tariff money to be made off the Southern states, thus forcing them to pay for the lion’s share of running the federal government so internal improvements could be made–in the North!

Although Lincoln was not a big fan of slavery, he didn’t really climb on the Emancipation Gravy Train until it was politically advantageous for him to do so. When the emancipation gig could be used to promote his (and his backer’s) agenda then Lincoln assumed the mantle of “the Great Emancipator” and the Lincoln Cult historians have made sure it was draped over his shoulders for the last 150 years. He was buried in it. I’ve seen all manner of articles over the years about how Lincoln ‘matured” in his view of blacks. It’s all rubbish! Lincoln was a flaming racist when he started out and he remained one up to and including the day Booth pulled the trigger.

Gregg Loren Durand, in his informative book America’s Caesar–Abraham Lincoln and the Birth of a Modern Empire,  originally published in 2000, noted, on page 95 that: “Lincoln’s former political opponent, Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas, had also warned the American people a month earlier that the Republican leaders who put Lincoln into office ‘are striving to break up the Union under the pretense of preserving it’  and that ‘they are struggling to overthrow the Constitution while professing undying attachment to it…and are trying to plunge the country into a cruel war as the surest means of destroying the Union upon the plea of enforcing the laws and protecting public property’.” A typically cultural Marxist approach–claim you are doing the exact opposite of what you are really doing, and if you can convince enough “useful idiots” to go along with you, then you can claim a mandate to destroy the country and create “Post-America.” While you claim to preserve, you instead destroy.

Mr. Durand noted, on page 87, that: “When at the Hampton Roads Peace Conference in February of 1865,  President Davis offered to have the Southern states return to the Union on the condition that they be allowed to exercise their rightful domestic powers, Lincoln refused saying, ‘No. Submit to me or the war goes on.’ Thus he revealed his rightful masters to be, not the American people, but the private financial interests and political aristocrats which controlled him from behind the cover of the slavery agitation. Clearly, the true purpose of the war was, as Luther Martin had warned over seventy years before, ‘the total abolition and destruction of all state governments’.” The Deep State in action in 1865! And this was to be done so that state’s rights could be replaced by one, consolidated “democracy” which “historians” have seen fit not to tell us about. But if you will observe today, the term ‘democracy” gets tossed around out there lots more than the term “republic” does. Most folks think there is no difference. So did I once. I learned I was wrong.

In other words, “Father Abraham” the “saviour of the Union” was a political fraud! Not so unlike so many of today’s politicians!  And a consolidated democracy  would fit very well into the plans  of the New World Order crowd of Lincoln’s day–and don’t think they didn’t exist, because they did. And having some of those “Forty-Eighter” generals in Lincoln’s armies fit right in with the general scheme of things. The headquarters of the NWO at the time might have been London, rather than Washington or New York, but they existed–as they still do, and their agenda for us has not changed.

I don’t know about you all, but I made no plans to celebrate Mr. Lincoln’s birth. And should there be any plans to commemorate it later this month, then let this article by my contribution to that–and if, for some reason, it is not appreciated, well, I won’t be a bit surprised.

Are Today’s Democrats (and many Republicans) Really Just Socialists?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I just read an article on https://patriotpost.us by columnist David Limbaugh, for February 2nd entitled Democratic Leaders, Why Do You Find Patriotism Divisive?

Although he made some insightful comments, I think Mr. Limbaugh really missed where the Democratic Party, at leadership levels, is at today. Limbaugh said: “Obviously today’s Democratic Party (at least its leadership) has a problem with raw expressions of patriotism because Democrats don’t seem to look at America through anything but their distorted prism of Balkanized identity politics.” I can’t disagree with his assessment here. In their racist world view Democratic leaders view any expression of patriotism as “white supremacy” or “homophobia” or something else dreamed up by some Ivy League Leftist professor. Professor Artemas X. Goflunk at Goofus University  has stated that all whites are racist (except him, naturally) so it must be so. After all, the good professor would never lie to us, would he? Well, yes, as a matter of fact he would–and it wouldn’t bother him in the least. After all, “the ends justify the means.”

Limbaugh stated in his article, of Democrats,  that “They have no alternative agenda; everything they tried under Obama failed. Yet they are still promoting the same destructive ideas.” Of course everything tried under Obama failed. It was intended to! Obama was a socialist and his policies were intended to drag this country into some form of third world socialism and they figured if he wasn’t able to get that thorny job done then Hillary would come along and complete the mopping-up process. Hillary was really ticked when that didn’t work out for her. She’s still ticked that all of us “deplorables” were not willing to accept her brand of beneficent socialism–and her and all her friends (and accomplices) in the FBI, the DOJ, and other government agencies are still trying to unseat that usurper, Trump, so Hillary and her minions can once again begin to force feed us what they know is really best for us. And for some reason what’s “best” for us is always something that is best financially for them. But we are beginning to figure that out, to her chagrin.

As I look at the Democratic Party today I have to conclude that, at its leadership levels, it is completely socialist, if not Marxist. The agenda they promote and claim is so good for the country should make any thinking American absolutely cringe. Had Hillary been able to steal the election, where do you think your Second Amendment rights would be today? Where do you think your private property rights would be (regulated out of existence)?

In fact, if you want to discern the end results of a Clinton victory all you have to do is check out the ten points Karl Marx promoted in The Communist Manifesto, at the behest of his Illuminist masters.

Although they would stoutly deny it, today’s Democratic leadership is headed in that direction as fast as they dare go. They have been working to turn this country into a socialist paradise as grand as that of Cuba or Venezuela and they are tired of waiting. They want their socialism here, right now. The fact that Trump and a handful or reactionary Congressmen resist them irks them to no end.

However, as I note the Far Left socialistic bent of the Democratic Party, that should not be construed to mean that the Republican Party is pure as the driven snow by any means. There are almost as many socialists in the ranks of the Republican Establishment as there are amongst the Democrats–and they’ve been there lots longer.

If you want to begin to grasp how the early Republican Party (around the time of Fremont and Lincoln) embraced the Illuminist designs  written about by Marx in The Communist Manifesto, then drag your copy of Lincoln’s Marxists, if you have one, off that dusty bookshelf and reread pages 240-251.

Unfortunately, what we now have in Washington is a Deep State Swamp, composed of both Democrats and Republicans who have a vested interest in continuing to make sure that the American suckers finish last! What we must begin to do is to grasp the truth of Deep State socialism in both parties! That’s not to say that everyone in both parties is a socialist, but, if you study the situation, you begin to notice that the proclivity toward Deep State socialism gets progressively stronger the higher into the leadership of both parties you go. This is something the public at large needs to start grasping so they might know how to defend themselves from it accordingly.

How “History” Professors View the “Civil War”

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Many who will read this are already aware of how our current crop of “historians”–so called, view the War of Northern Aggression. However, some who read it may not be all that aware, and so this is written for those unaware ones who still labor under the naive delusion that the War was fought over slavery and that communism did not rear its ugly head in America until at least the 1930s. Well, it did rear its ugly head in the 30s–but it was the 1830s, not the 1930s. By the 1930s communism was already well established here. It’s just that no one bothered to inform the American public.

I spend considerable time on the internet scrounging around for information in those areas that concern me, and one of those areas is the record of communist and socialist infiltration in this country, both in the 19th and 20th centuries.

I recently ran across an article by Andrew Zimmerman, a professor of history at George Washington University. The article was written back in July of 2013 and, at that time, Professor Zimmerman was working on an international history of the American War of Northern Aggression. Of course he didn’t call it that.

He had some interesting commentary in his article that backed up what Donnie Kennedy and I said in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.  The title of his article was The Civil War Was a Victory for Marx and Working-Class Radicals. When I read that I thought “I wonder what some of the students in high school and college history classes would think of Zimmerman’s viewpoint if it were presented to their classes in this manner.” of course, thanks to decades of government school indoctrination that might not bother all of them, but it might bother some–and that “some” might ask embarrassing questions of their “history” teachers. To counteract that possibility the War is usually presented to our students as a noble Northern crusade to eradicate slavery in that mean old, racist, South. The fact that four slave states remained in the Union is seldom touched upon.

Zimmerman couches it in this manner, quite revelatory in its own way.  He says: “For revolutionary socialists, the Civil War was a decisive victory in an even larger struggle between democracy and private property.” The communists are really high on “democracy.” It’s one of their favorite euphemisms, but they don’t mean the same thing by it you have been taught to believe it is.

Professor Roy Colby, in his book A Communese-English Dictionary notes the communist understanding of democracy as: “a collectivistic dictatorship; a totalitarian state.” It’s interesting that the Founding Fathers all had a very dim view of Democracy. They felt it eventually led to tyranny. So what Professor Zimmerman is telling us, whether he even realizes it or not, is that the Civil War was a victory for the totalitarian state against the concept of private property. You folks that have never thought of it in those terms need to start trying to wrap your minds around that concept.

And Zimmerman, again, back up what Donnie Kennedy and I noted in Lincoln’s Marxists when he says: “Marx also followed the progress of the Civil War closely because so many of his fellow exiled European revolutionaries fought in the ranks of the Union Army. Defeated and sent into American exile after a wave of European revolutions in 1848-49, many discovered the struggle against slavery a more hopeful strategy than they have previously pursued. Revolutionary socialists were thus one of the many groups that won the Civil War. For them it was a decisive victory in an even larger struggle between democracy and private property.

How many of you have ever seen the results of the War of Northern Aggression presented in this fashion? Not many I’ll wager. What Zimmerman is telling you here, if you can begin to grasp it, is that the result of the War of Northern Aggression was a victory for communism against the right of private property–and by private property I don’t just mean slaves. Anyone who has read about Sherman’s March through Georgia and South Carolina knows the utter contempt Sherman and his “bummers” had for private property–all private property. They expended lots of time and effort destroying as much as they could in their gentle ministrations to an almost prostrate Confederacy. And they were especially hard on Christian Churches. Does that tell you anything? It should!

So communism, in one form or another, has been alive and well in this country for longer than most people care to think about. Zimmerman is probably not even aware of Donnie’s and my book, but his commentary in this article backs up just about everything we said in it, only in a little less detail.

I don’t know Professor Zimmerman, but from the way he writes I would assume he is a graduate of the University of Political Correctness. And, in his honesty,  he admits to the same things Donnie and I have written about. Seems I have read a passage in Scripture about something being confirmed in the mouths of two or three witnesses.

Conservatives Continue to Lose Because They Just Don’t Know the History

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Christians and other patriotic folks, even with Trump in office, continue to lose the battle for our culture because we just don’t know our history. And what’s worse, many of us just don’t care to learn if it goes against our preconceived notions or what we were taught in those indoctrination centers we insist on referring to as “public schools.”

I almost can’t count the times in the past ten years or so that I have gotten “alarm” bulletins from various patriotic and conservative groups that are suddenly up in arms because someone is supposedly threatening to do away with the pledge of allegiance. It seems that they literally view this pledge as being on a par with the Declaration of Independence. Folks, I’ve got a news flash for you all–it ain’t! And if it was done away with tomorrow we would not be the worse off.

According to one of these “alarm” notices that I got today (11/11/17) the Washington Post  claims the pledge is “…steeped in bigotry…origins in nativism and white nationalism.” To put it bluntly, such assertions are a crock.

I will defend our Confederate monuments. I will defend other historic statues and monuments that reflect our Christian culture. I will defend the National Anthem, written by a Christian man. I will not defend the pledge of allegiance. Why? Because I know its history and the people so frantic to defend it don’t seem to.

In our book Lincoln’s Marxists Donnie Kennedy and I have dealt with the pledge of allegiance  and its dubious “Christian” author on pages 30 and 46. If you have the book, check it out. If you haven’t bothered, maybe you should get it.

On page 30 we wrote: “For most modern day Christians it is very difficult to think of anyone being a Christian and a socialist, let alone a communist at the same time. These very same Christians will dutifully place their right hand over their heart and repeat the pledge of allegiance to the United States flag, a pledge that was written by one of America’s most notable Christian socialists, Francis Bellamy.”This man, who incidentally, was a minister in a church in Massachusetts, was the cousin of socialist Edward Bellamy. We said that: “Each time an American places his hand over his heart and recites the pledge of allegiance, he is repeating a pledge inspired by and written by a utopian socialist ideologue. Francis Bellamy’s denial of the deity of Christ, his denial of the resurrection of Christ, and his rejection of the Bible as the infallible Word of God led to his removal as a Baptist minister. Born and raised in Massachusetts, a short stay in the South  was enough to convince Bellamy  that the South was hopelessly tied to orthodox Christianity even to the point of rejecting such modern and progressive theories as evolution. Francis Bellamy believed that the defining event in American history was the Civil War, and he admitted that he desired that his pledge would reinforce everything that the arguments of Hamilton…the speeches of William H. Seward and Lincoln (and) the Civil War had accomplished.” So there is the true origin of your “pledge of allegiance”–the parting shot of “reconstruction” at the South–one nation “indivisible.” And if that is true, then your Confederate ancestors, and mine, were all traitors. So stop and reflect on that before you so eagerly recite this spurious pledge, in the name of “patriotism.”

One might  almost be led to wonder if the Washington Post’s real agenda was to get ill-informed Christians and patriots all wound up so they would expend their time and effort eagerly defending a major tenet of socialism–one nation indivisible!

How many Christians and conservatives will jump on this bandwagon and throw themselves into an effort to defend the pledge because they just don’t know the real history???  You think it ever occurs to the socialists and the One World Government crowd to get us chasing our own tails this way? Of course it does!  And we fall for it every time! They pull the same stunt on Christians with the Battle Hymn of the Republic, a thoroughly Unitarian dirge that has appeared in more Christian hymn books than I like to think about.

Until we get serious about learning our real history we will continue  to fall prey to every “hot button” issue the Leftists continue to strew in our path and waste our time and effort defending what is really socialism when we should be defending our God-given liberties.

Lincoln’s Marxists–a 37 minute lecture CD by Al Benson Jr. Hear the truth about the Marxists and socialists who fought for the Union,  why they supported Lincoln and the Northern cause, and their objectives in the U.S. today.

To purchase the Lincoln’s Marxists CD  send $8.00 to

Lincoln CD,  c/o The Copperhead Chronicle,  P O Box 55,  Sterlington, Louisiana 71280