When a Socialist Became the Secretary of the Interior

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I have noted in recent articles the impact that socialists and communists had in the history of this country well before the twentieth century–going all the way back to the 1840s. Lots of historians–so called–will seldom, if ever, acknowledge this. Even less will they make mention of the basic socialist foundations of the “conservative” Republican Party. This is history we are not supposed to be taught. And mostly, we aren’t. We have to find this out for ourselves by doing the homework.

One thing that does aid us is that more and more, the socialists are not bashful in admitting their impact on our earlier history. Where the historians ignore it, the socialists brag about it. Donnie Kennedy and I, when we wrote our book Lincoln’s Marxists, the first edition of which was called Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists found this to be true. Incidentally, the first edition of our book is still available.

I just recently came across an article entitled https://worldhistory.us/american-history/impact-of-the-forty-eightors-on-the-amer… that was quite frank in what it admitted. It was published in August of 2018. In part it noted: “For the German-American Forty-Eighters, the best political instrument to ply their revolutionary ideals was the new Republican Party…As a result, the German Forty-Eighters became a significant voting bloc in the Republican Party.

Another German Forty-Eighter, Carl Schurz, a farmer and abolitionist from Wisconsin, helped pave the way for Lincoln’s presidential victory…Schurz mobilized a large part of the German-American vote for Lincoln in the general election…Unfortunately, the German-American reputation as fighters suffered during the course of the war. Schurz, who was awarded with a command by Lincoln, led German-speaking units at the battles of Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. His soldiers retreated pell-mell in those battles.” Germans supplied around 750,000 of the Union’s 2.5 million soldiers. That was in the neighborhood of 30%. Not all of those were Forty-Eighters, but a fair number were.

The article opines that the War of Northern Aggression would have happened whether the Forty-Eighters were there or not but it says “…the outcome might have been a bit different.

As for Carl Schurz, his propensities for socialist activities continued and he ended up becoming the Secretary of the Interior in the Hays administration. Pretty lofty position for a German socialist to occupy in the federal government. In our book Lincoln’s Marxists we provided a bit of information about Schurz and his time in the Interior Department. It was not Schurz at his best.

But even more harm was done by his wife, Margarethe Meyer Schurz. It was she who introduced the idea of kindergartens into America. She was a disciple of Friedrich Frobel, the founder of the Kindergarten movement. It is worth noting that, when the socialist revolutionaries were driven out of Germany and legitimate government was restored, kindergarten were banned in that country. When I first started this blog back in November of 2011 I did an article dealing with the socialist origins of the kindergarten movement. Like so many other socialist agendas it came into existence in the 1800s, not the 1900s in this country. And our children are not the better off for it. Yet, along with the rest of the public school movement we seem to have embraced it.

Now, with Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project, along with the whole transgender movement some are beginning to see what the public schools have been doing to their children and lots of them don’t like it. Let us hope they realize they need to get their kids out of those indoctrination centers we call public schools.

It should, by now, have begun to dawn on people that a lot of the problems we have in this country were introduced here by European socialists of one stripe or another. And when they arrived they found home-grown American socialists who were more than willing to aid them in the destruction of our God-given liberties. That’s what socialism is really all about.

Communist and Socialist Influence In the “News Media” Since the 1840s


by Al Benson Jr.
Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

How many think the “news” media has only been a problem for the past few decades, from sometime around the 1950s until now? If this is what you believe then you have already swallowed half of their lie. In fact, the “news” media–so called–has been a propaganda organ of the Deep State from sometime in the 1840s. And always with a leftist slant!


If you are doing the homework you can begin to notice this in the late 1840s with some of the coverage given to the 1848 socialist and communist revolts in Europe by Horace Greeley’s paper the New York Tribune. Articles by Charles A. Dana for Greeley’s paper purported to cover what was going on at that time in Europe. What they didn’t tell you was that Dana was actually participating in those socialist revolts and then sending back “news” that made them look good. This is a tactic that has been used by the Left ever since then and it must work because lots of naive people seem to buy into such gobbledygook

.
This was particularly noticeable in the left-of-center coverage given to abolitionist/terrorist John Brown. The book John Brown’s War Against Slavery by Robert E. McGlone observed that: “To call the role of abolitionist correspondents in Kansas is to compile a list of John Brown’s admirers and disciples: James Redpath, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, William Addison Williams, Richard J. Hinton, Richard Realf, John Henry Kagi, and others. Just twenty in 1855 when he came to Kansas, Scottish-born James Redpath was a correspondent for three Republican papers, including Greeley’s New York Tribune.”


And he continued: “Englishman Richard J. Hinton, another reporter for Eastern newspapers, arrived in Kansas in June 1856. He soon joined Brown’s ‘army’ and later claimed he would have been at Harpers Ferry had he been properly informed on the date of the attack. Richard Realf reported for Eastern papers and rode with (James) Lane before volunteering to serve under Brown. John H. Kagi, Brown’s second in command at Harpers Ferry reported on Kansas for the Washington National Era..Kagi was the associate editor of the Topeka Tribune…”


Then there was leftist Unitarian Thomas Wentworth Higginson, the man who was “always ready to invest money in treason.” McGlone tells us that “His ‘letters from Kansas’ ran in several Eastern and Midwestern newspapers over the signature ‘Worcester’.” Do you begin to get the idea that John Brown was top-heavy with “news” correspondents? Obviously the political and theological Left had big plans for Brown and his agenda or he would not have rated this much “news” coverage.


But McGlone hasn’t told you everything. Whether that was on purpose or not I can’t say, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. To fill in some of the missing bits of info, we need to go to Arthur Thompson’s book To The Victors Go The Myths And Monuments. Mr. Thompson can always be depended on to give some what most of the rest leave out. He notes, of Brown that: “Brown also had veteran 48ers Charles Kaiser, August Bondi, and Charles W. Lenhardt who rode with him in Kansas, and the Chartist (English socialist) Richard J. Hinton. Many short histories of Brown leave out any reference to the majority of the aforementioned men. Brown was admired by Emerson, Thoreau, Theodore Parker, Gerrit Smith, Dr. Samuel Howe, and Frederick Douglas Frederick Douglas was close enough to Brown that Brown confided in him the location of what would become the raid on Harpers Ferry. After the raid, Douglas also fled temporarily to Canada for fear that he would be prosecuted for abetting. The official story is that he was worried about guilt by association. Actually, evidence captured at the time in the possession of John Brown implicated Gerrit Smith, Joshua Giddings, and Douglas…The membership in a wide variety of conspiratorial organizations just among the men who rode with Brown indicates a broad-based influence within the Left.


So you can see that the Left had plans to use Brown and his agenda for their own purposes. Brown was the cannon fodder for part of their leftist revolution in this country. So please, you folks on the left, please don’t continue to bleat about how communism was no problem in this country until Roosevelt. You are trying to defraud us of 100 years of your active agenda in this country in the hope that we will not pick up on it. Sad to say, for you, it isn’t working anymore.

When a Communist Was the Assistant Secretary of War

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Many may look at the title of this article and complain that “this has never happened in this country.” Sorry to disappoint you, but it has–and it wasn’t in the 20th century when we had a carefully orchestrated “Cold War.” It was in the 19th century, back when they try to tell us that communism didn’t exist here. They lied to us. It did exist here, but we are not supposed to realize that fact. It doesn’t bode well for the fake historians.

The man this article is about was not a Communist Party member. But he was a communist in this worldview and he ardently supported what they were doing.

By now, those of you that have followed history know who I am writing about–Charles Anderson Dana–the assistant secretary of war under Edwin M. Stanton in the Lincoln administration. Dana was a promoter of the communist worldview going back to the days before the socialist revolts in Europe in 1848.

An interesting article on https://djdnotice.blogspot.com for October 1, 2014 said of Dana that: “Brigadier General Joseph Weydemeyer of the Union Army was a close friend of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels in the London Communist League (Assistant Secretary of War Charles A. Dana, close friend of Marx, published with Joseph Weydemeyer a number of Communist journals and also ‘The Communist Manifesto,’ commissioned by Karl Marx. As a member of the Communist/Socialist Fourier Society in America, Dana was well acquainted with Marx and Marx’s colleague in Communism, Fredrick Engels. Dana, also, was a friend of all Marxists in the Republican Party, offering assistance to them almost upon their arrival on the American continent.) So there were Marxists in the early Republican Party. Reading most of our current “historians” who would’ve guessed?

Dana was also an author of some note (all the better to propagandize you, my dear). He is reported to have written a book Stanton’s Reporter: Charles A. Dana in the Civil War. He also wrote Proudhon and His Bank of the People,: Being a Defence of the Great French Anarchist,… There’s more to the title but I am not going to print the rest out here. It’s long enough for a short paragraph.

Another book mentioned in the research I located was written by Carl J. Guarneri and is called Lincoln’s Informer: Charles A. Dana and the Inside Story of the Union War. I don’t know where this author is coming from but his book shows there is still interest in Dana. The book Horace Greeley And Other Pioneers of American Socialism by Charles Sotheran notes, on page 291 that “Horace Greeley selected the best managing editor the Tribune ever had, from among the Brook Farm Socialists. This was Charles Anderson Dana, the present editor of the New York Sun. For those who may not know, Brook Farm was a socialist experiment in communistic living that eventually went belly-up as most socialist experiments do. It has been described as a “Unitarian, Humanitarian, and Socialistic experiment.”

Arthur Thompson in his informative book To The Victors Go The Myths And Monuments has noted on page 198 of that book that: “Charles Dana was a vice president of the National Convention of Associations. He was a member of the Proudhonian Club, nicknames the 48ers of America, composed mainly of Americans who had participated in the revolution of 1848-49 in Europe. In 1848 he spent eight months in Europe covering the revolutions for the New York Tribune, and he shared Marx’s views. Dana wrote that the purpose of the uprisings was ‘not simply to change the form of government, but to change for form of society.’ He did more than report. Dana is but one example of reporters who participated in revolutionary activities and then posed as impartial observers…This has long been a tactic of the Left, and continues to this day.” In other words, Charles Dana was part of the 19th century’s “Fake News” media. And let us never forget that it was him who hired Karl Marx to write for Greeley’s newspaper.

So here we have Charles A. Dana, writer, socialist revolutionary, and eventually Assistant Secretary of War under Edwin Stanton. And if you think Stanton was not aware of all this then you gravely underestimate Mr. Stanton. He knew! As sharp and shrewd as Stanton was he would have known all of this and still he pegged Dana as his chief informant. That should tell you something about Stanton as well as Dana. Dana was the perfect example of communist infiltration of the US government in the 19th century. We had plenty of that in the 20th century. I begin to wonder how much the 20th century infiltrators learned from Charles A. Dana.

Communism in America? Go Back to 1850

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I recently came across an article on https://www.historynet.com that was not new, but was interesting. It was originally published back in 2012, in June of that year, in Civil War Times. I used to read this magazine, but it had been my experience that it did not deal overly much with issues like this, as that was not politically correct at the time (and still isn’t).

Sarah Richardson wrote the article and it dealt with an interview it seems she had with Robin Blackburn, the author of the book An Unfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln. Blackburn is a British historian and former editor of the New Left Review so no one can accuse him of being a paranoid right winger. He brought out some interesting points about Lincoln and Marx. Richardson noted of Lincoln that “Up until the age of 21 he was working without payment for his father. On some occasions his father would hire out his son’s services and even then didn’t hand over the wages.” Blackburn seemed to think this may have affected Lincoln’s views on slavery. It’s possible but it’s hard to say for sure. Although we know from some of Lincoln’s later comments on slavery it was not a major issue in his invasion of the South. He claimed to be preserving the Union (though it was going to be a preservation by force). But he said at one point that if he could preserve the Union by freeing some slaves and not others, he would do it and if he could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves he would do that. And his “Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 freed only slaves in Confederate territory. It freed no slaves in Union-held territory.

But the American connection to Marx goes further than Lincoln. Richardson’s article stated: “Marx himself was only 30 when he was caught up in the 1848 revolution, and he edited one of Germany’s main revolutionary newspapers. At that time, he was visited by Charles Dana, an American journalist and managing editor of the New York Daily Tribune. Dana later hired him as the Tribune’s European correspondent, A lot of his research for the Tribune ended up in his famous book Das Capital, published in 1867.”

Donnie Kennedy and I, in our book Lincoln’s Marxists, the first edition of which is still available under the title Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists dealt with Mr. Dana and his communist proclivities at some length. Mr. Dana was a prime mover and shaker in the movement to promote communism in this country in the 1850s. Arthur Thompson, author of the very informative book To The Victors Go The Myths And Monuments also deals with Charles Dana on page 198,givng more info on Dana’s leftist background.

The Tribune published, over the years, something like 450 of Marx’s articles, with at least 300 published under his name, though some researchers claim his helper, Engels, wrote quite a few of these because Marx was just too lazy to write when he often needed to, so Engels stood in the breath often while Marx was daydreaming about ways to save the world (for communism).

After the revolts of 1848 ended, thousands of the leftist revolutionaries involved fled to this country. Many of those kept in contact with Marx and continued their leftist activities by writing for German-language papers in this country, which, over time, eventually influenced many Germans here toward a Marxist point of view.

Richardson noted that “There were about 200,000 German-Americans who fought for the Union, and about 40,000 were in units that had the Germain language as the medium of command.” So these people were over here, supposedly to help the North “free the slaves, and they couldn’t even speak the language. Bet your “history” books never mention any of this! And besides, the idea of leftists fighting to “free” anyone from anything is just ludicrous All you have to do in our day is look at the countries that were enslaved under communism and you begin to understand the communist concept of “freedom.” You are “free” to do what the communists tell you to do or they shoot you or put you in a “re-education” camp” until you see things their way. And if you don’t, then they shoot you!

Richardson then notes that Dana, who had been responsible for getting Marx to write for Horace Greeley’s paper became the assistant secretary of war in 1862. He remained in close contact with good buddies of Marx like Joseph Weydemeyer who later became a general in the Union Army. And also mentioned “Another member of the Communist League in Germany in the 1840 was August Willich, who became a Union general.”

And she made another interesting point from her interview with Blackburn She said “Worth noting, too, that Marx and Lincoln were both influenced by German philosophy–in Lincoln’s case, as transmitted by such writers as Theodore Parker.” Parker was a noted Unitarian. And all the stuff I have read about him never mentioned anything about any German connections–but it now seems there were some.

We have got to begin to realize that communism in America was alive and well in the early 1850s here and that we have been lied to by those faux-historians that tell us you never had a problem with communism in America until the Roosevelt years. Let’s wake up and begin to do the homework ,lest we be victimized even further in our own day.

Lincoln & the Forty-Eighters

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Yesterday, March 2nd, I did an interview with Cliff Kincaid for one of his you tube presentations. It was mostly on Donnie Kennedy’s and my book Lincoln’s Marxists. Hopefully I was able to give Cliff my take on the communist influence in this country in the years both before and after 1848. I don’t do a lot of these interviews so I am always concerned that I do not do well enough on them. Cliff had read our book and so was mostly in agreement with the history of socialism in this country that we presented.

However, in doing some preliminary research for this interview, I read an article by a man who claimed that Marx’s influence on Lincoln was pretty minimal and he took to task a writer who dared to disagree with that. He claimed that Lincoln just reading Karl Marx’s articles in utopian socialist Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune would not have been enough to reinforce Lincoln’s views on socialism. While I don’t totally agree with that, I got the impression he was trying to soft-pedal Lincoln’s socialist worldview–something Lincoln-lovers dearly want to hide.

In doing more research on this I came across an article by a John Nichols published in the International Socialist Review https://isreview.org that was quite informative. The socialists do not hesitate to identify with Lincoln as he was, in a sense, one of them. Mr. Nichols noted, in part, that Greeley’s Tribune was one of the papers delivered to Lincoln’s law office in Springfield and that Lincoln was “Keenly aware of the rising tide of liberal, radical, and socialist reform movements in Europe, a tide that would peak–at least for a time–in the ‘revolutionary wave’ of 1848 and its aftermath, the young congressman joined other American Whigs in following the development of that year’s ‘Springtime of the Peoples’ which saw uprisings against monarchy and entrenched economic, social and political power in Germany, France, Hungary, Denmark and other European nations. For Lincoln, however, this was not a new interest.” That was an interesting comment there at the end. It indicated that Lincoln was familiar with the socialist upheaval going on in Europe.

Nichols continued: “Long before 1848, German radicals had begun to arrive in Illinois, where they quickly entered into the legal and political circles in which Lincoln traveled. One of them, Gustav Korner, was a student revolutionary at the University of Munich, who had been imprisoned by German authorities in the early 1830s for organizing illegal demonstrations.” Korner ended up in Illinois where “Within a decade he would pass the Illinois bar, win election to the legislature and be appointed to the state Supreme Court. Korner and Lincoln formed an alliance that would become so close that the student revolutionary from Frankfurt would eventually be one of seven personal delegates-at-large named by Lincoln to serve at the critical Republican State Convention in May 1860, which propelled the Springfield lawyer into that year’s presidential race. Through Korner, Lincoln met and befriended many of the German radicals who, after the failure of the 1848 revolution, fled to Illinois and neighboring Wisconsin. Along with Korner on Lincoln’s list of personal delegates-at-large to the 1860 convention was Friedrich Karl Franz Hecker…” He gets prominent mention in Lincoln’s Marxists.

And Nichols also noted: “The failure of the 1848 revolts, and the brutal crackdowns that followed, ;led many leading European radicals to take refuge in the United States, and Lincoln’s circle of supporters would eventually include some of Karl Max’s closest associates and intellectual sparring partners, including Joseph Weydemeyer and August Willich…Lincoln did not merely invite the 48ers to join his campaigns, he became highly engaged with their causes.”

So what do Nichols’ comments here tell you about where Lincoln was really at? It would appear that the 48er influence on Mr. Lincoln, due to his socialist proclivities, was much stronger than most writers would have us believe. When theologian James Henley Thornwell referred to “Red Republicans” back in the 1850s it would seem he knew what he was talking about. Wonder how much he knew about “Honest Abe.”

John Brown–Conspirator

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Over the years I have run into many who seem to venerate John Brown of Harpers Ferry “fame” as though he were some sort of savior for mankiind. Actually the opposite is probably closer to the truth. I have, recently, in an article on John Brown, referred to historian Otto Scott’s thoughtful work on Brown The Secret Six–The Fool As Martyr. It goes into Brown and those radicals that supported and financed his activities.

Another book I have often referred to and recommended is one by Arthur R. Thompson To The Victors Go The Myths And Monuments. Mr. Thompson has also done yeoman duty in exposing conspiracy in this country and those who are part of that conspiracy to take this country down, indeed to take all of Western Christian civilization down–for that is their ultimate goal.

John Brown was involved in that conspiracy, which still exists in our day. On page 291 of his book, Mr. Thompson tells us about John Brown’s involvement. He says: “The entire life of John Brown was involvement in conspiracy, including the conspiracy that had worked for years to destroy the social order of the country and replace it with Illuminist ideas. he named as one of the trustees of his will William Russell, the founder of the Order.” The Order he is talking about here is the Order of Skull & Bones, which some of you all must have heard of. Historian and Professor Antony Sutton wrote a book about the Order of Skull & Bones back in the 1980s called America’s Secret Establishment. It was a controversial book and Sutton had a hard time getting it published. I think he eventually self-published it.

Mr. Thompson observed that: “Since the growth of the Internet, the widespread reputation of Skull and Bones,the Order, has proliferated, with more and more people paying attention to such things, and some modern histories of Brown have dropped any references to Brown’s connections with William Russell. Apparently to refer to Russell in connection with Brown would raise some eyebrows…Brown was the first political terrorist of his kind. Before, terrorism was a part of government, either against their own people as a means of ruling them, or aainst another citizenry whom they wished to influence into some form of reaction, or tribe against tribe….In the case of Brown, he was backed by those who wanted a change in government for their own purposes. He was their instrument to wage terrorist activity to react the people into accepting war and the changes wrought by that war. And his arms were supplied by these men. Brown had conspirators in government at the state and federal level who helped him, even though his enterprise was not sanctiioned by the government. Indeed,if the federal government had done the job it was supposed to do, the army would have arrested Brown and the others in the Kansas Territory who were causing the mayhem on both sides.”

Thompson contined: “Brown hired Hugh Forbes, an Englishman who had fought under Garibaldi,to train his soldiers in 1857.In most volumes about Brown, little is mentioned about Forbes except tlhe foregoing. When looking into his background, it becomes very interesting that he linked up with Brown and subsequent events. The story of Forbes is that he was an emissary and operative of Mazzini in the United States. He was asked to come to America in that capacity and work with the emigres who had removed to the New World. Literally thousands of members of the European Carbonari front groups had moved to America after 1848. They needed to be pulled together into a cohesive organization to work for the goals of the Carbonari. Forbes was one of the main men tasked to do the job by Mazzini, if not the leader of the effort,to at least pull together the lower political levels of Carbonari influence. Forbes was pressed on Brown by his backers in the East.” So it was all not just a plot by Brown. He was part of something much bigger–one cog in the wheel of conspiracy to take this country down. And as for these European Carbonari that came over here after 1848–how many of them were the Forty-eighters Donnie Kenedy and I wrote about in Lincoln’s Marxists? I wouldn’t mind having a dollar for every one that was.

So John Brown was an integral part of the conspiracy that was working to destabilize the United States, using terrorism as part of their agenda. And if Brown was part of all that, what about the people that financed and promoted him? Were they all part of that also? Or as the man says “Will the sun rise in the East tomorrow?”

More on John Brown in the near future.

Celebrating America’s Pro-Marxist “Emancipator”

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Well. this is the day that the country celebrates the birth of the Republican Party’s first pro-Marxist president. There have been others since Lincoln but he was the first one of note. Note I said he was a “pro-Marxist”. I need to clarify that before some screaming idiot somewhere claims I said Lincoln was a Communist. That he was a socialist with a socialist worldview I do not doubt for a minute. His political proclivities all point in that direction.

In going through the latest edition of Ron and Donnie Kennedy’s seminal work The South Was Right! you will find more than enough in the way of evidence to display Lincoln’s leftism as well as showing that his “emancipating the slaves” was the stuff of which legends are made and propagated.

On page 34 of their book the Kennedys noted that: “Shortly after the South seceded the Republican controlled Congress submitted, and Lincoln supported, a Thirteenth Amendment that would guarantee the security of slavery if the South would rejoin the Union. It was called the Corwin Amendment and several Union states ratified it but it soon became apparent that the South wanted independence and the amendment died.. Had it passed slavery in the United States would have continued under Lincoln’s administration and Republican Party rule. The North’s motive for invading a sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America, was not to free their oppressed black brothers and sisters. Lincoln’s and the Republican Party’s primary aim was to secure the continuing flow of Southern wealth extracted via protective tariffs.

If you can still find an original copy of the Emancipation Proclamation please take the trouble to really read it! You will find all the Northern controlled areas that had slavery in this country that were exempt from the provisions of the Emancipation Proclamation. That’s right–exempt!

As for Communist sympathy for Lincoln, even in our day, On page 270 of their book the Kennedys observed that: “Americans who oppose secession for Dixie find themselves in bed with the Communist Party of China which proclaims the right to invade its secessionist province of Taiwan. China’s Minister of Defense, Wei Fenghe, noted that ‘Abraham Lincoln is America’s greatest president. The United States is indivisible, so is China.’ The Communist leader of China pointed out that Communist China would only be doing what Lincoln did in 1861. Of special interest is the use of the word ‘indivisible’ by this communist leader. An early adocate of the United States being trasformed into an ‘indivisible’ nation was Friedrich Engels, the co-founder along with Karl Marx of modern-day communism. In a letter to a communist Union General, Joseph Weydemeyer, Engels praised the action of the North in subduing the South because it would advance the world-wide communist effort. Weydemeyer was a close friend of Karl Marx and responsible for the publication of the first copies of Marx’s Communist Manifesto in the United States.”

You can begin to see here, in case you had not noticed before, the the comunists world-wide and those among us really had and have a love affair with Mr. Lincoln. Needless to say your “history” books in this country will refuse to deal with any of this at any point. If you want real history, don’t go to the “history” books as all you will get there is the perpetuation of the Lincoln legend.

In our day we need to get past the legend and find out the real truth, even though many “conservatives” don’t really want to know it, would really like to just ignore it in favor of their wishful fables.

Years ago I was a monthly columnist for a conservative paper in California and I did a wholle series of articles for that paper on Lincoln and the War of Northern Aggression. At one point the publisher of that paper reluctantly asked me to stop writing about Lincoln because his conservative audience didn’t want to hear it and he was losing subscribers because of my exposes on Lincoln. At that point I asked myself “If the conservatives don’t want the truth, then where is this country headed?” I have to conclude that, wherever we were headed, with recent political events in this country that we have now arrived.

At any rate, if you still want some truth in the “Empire of Lies” then get the Kennedy’s book The South Was Right! from Shotwell Publishing https://www.ShotwellPublishing.com PO Box 2592 Columbia, South Carolina 29202.

Ahh, Those Yankee Slaveowners

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I have recently been given a copy of Ron and Donnie Kennedy’s classic work The South Was Right! This is the new, updated edition for 2020, published by Shotwell Publishing in Columbia, South Carolina. I had thought to do a book review of this outstanding work. However, the new updated version, with much new information, is almost 500 pages in length and so no single book review of this will suffice. What I am going to do instead is to pick out pertinent information and topics from the book and do a series of articles on that information. If some of what I present from The South Was Right! makes you a bit uncomfortable you can consider that you have been a victim of badly presented half truths as depicted in what passes for history books in most of our schools today. The Kennedy Brothers’ book, if you will take the time to read it, will correct much of the meaningless drivel you were taught as “history” but really wasn’t.

I thought a good place to start would be with the subject of Yankee slaver owners, covered in their book from pages 153-163 as part of Chapter 5. This is history you will never, and I mean never, see in your establishment “history” books because our court “historians” like their contemporaries in the “news media” have decreed that you don’t need to know this stuff–so they will make sure you don’t!

The Kennedys observe, on page 153, that: “No other issue in American history has been abused more than the history of African servitude in the South. People who dare to speak about slavery in a light other than that demanded by the neo-Marxist left will find themselves an outcast from modern ‘P.C.’ society. Nevertheless, when we look at America, we find that many names that we associate with the development of this country have been associated with slavery. The names of the Puritan Fathers of New England loom foremost in that group of slave holders. Even men such as Josiah Franklin, stepbrother of Benjamin Franklin, was associated with slavery, being active as a slave dealer in Boston. Yet the Franklin name is never held up for scorn because of the action of the Boston Franklin family. John Hancock, the most prominent signatory of the Declaration of Independence, was both a participant in a slave trading venture and a slave holder. But have you ever heard the cry to take down any monuments to John Hancock? Hancock was not the only New England signatory of the Declaration of Independence who was a slave holder. Samuel Huntington of Connecticut and Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island were also slave holders, and their names can also be found on the Declaration of Independence.” There are those useful idiots that claim no one in the North ever owned slaves. That’s a bald-faced lie and many of them know it. Their goal in life is to make sure you don’t know it!

The Kennedys continue: “When the previous paragraph was written in 1994, neo-Marxists had just begun their attacks upon Confederate monuments and Southern history. At that time the nation was warned by so-called ‘neo-Confederates’ that one day all Traditional American Values and heroes would come under assault–that day surely arrived in 2020. Rather than joining with the defenders of the South’s history, neo-conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and many others assisted the neo-Marxists in their efforts to denigrate and destroy the South’s heritage and history. Neo-conservatives did this by agreeing with the neo-Marxist’s narrative of the South fighting to preserve and promote slavery (something that came out of the mouth of Karl Marx, see Benson and Kennedy, Lincoln’s Marxists, Chapter 2) and promoting secession as treason. By not allowing the Southern narrative about these issues to be heard, censorship by exclusion, the neo-Marxists were given all the cover and encouragement needed to advance their attack upon ALL Traditional American Values. the slogan of being ‘Fair and Balanced’ seems to not apply when dealing with the people of the defeated Confederate States of America.”

As noted by the Kennedys on page 157: “If the South is an evil place because it had slaves, then so is the North. If Southerners were wrong for owning slaves, then what about the Northerners who sold them those slaves? If the South is to be castigated because a small minority of its citizens made money from slave-grown cotton, then what about the North whose textile mills made money from that same slave-grown cotton?

Back on page 108 the Kennedys noted that: “Our neo-Marxist opponents d not want to work with us–they want to exterminate us or at least our Western Christian civilization. They are full of hatred toward all traditional Western American and Christian values as well as hatred for those who believe in such values. Lists of numerous neo-Marxist attacks against conservatives is proof of their uninhibited hatred–a hatred that is shielded and under-reported by the leftist media.” It is indeed too bad that most of our people in our Southern Heritage Movement simply do not seem to grasp this. They probably watch way too much of what passes for “news” from the leftist media which inhibits their discernment.

Lord willing, we will provide more information from the latest edition of The South Was Right! as we are able.

Tariffs And Slavery

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

The professional South-haters among us, and their number, thanks to horrendous “education” is legion, insist that the War for Southern Independence aka the War of Northern Aggression, was only fought so the South could keep her slaves and for no other reason. Indeed, those folks do not even want to consider looking at any other reason for that war. Other reasons would interfere with their anti-South agenda and so no other reason than slavery for that war need ever apply because it will never be considered.

I have run into these anti-South zealots over the years. Some have even accused me of defending the South so we would be able to reinstitute slavery here should we ever desire to. What balderdash! No one in his right mind wants to reinstitute slavery–here or anywhere else–except maybe some of the political types in Washington via the programs they plan to institute by some of their legislation they hope we are all too dumb to figure out.

Awhile back Dr. Clyde Wilson did an article on https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org called Why The War Was Not About Slavery. Dr. Wilson is a historian and an expert in his field so he knows whereof he writes. His article states, in part, “Let’s consider the war and slavery. .Again and again I encounter people who say that the South Carolina secession ordinance mentions the defense of slavery and that one fact proves beyond argument that the war was caused by slavery. The first states to secede did mention a threat to slavery as a motive for secession. They also mentioned decades of economic exploitation and the seizure of the common government for the first time ever by a sectional party declaredly hostile to the Southern states. Were they to be a permanently exploited minority, they asked? this was significant to people who know their fathers and grandfathers had founded the Union for the protection and benefit of ALL the states.”

Dr. Wilson continued: “It is no surprise that they mentioned potential interference with slavery as a threat to their everyday life and their social structure. Only a few months before, John Brown and his followers had attempted just that. They murdered a number of people including a free black man who was a respected member of the Harpers Ferry community and a grand-nephew of George Washington because Brown wanted Washington’s sword as a talisman. In Brown’s baggage was a constitution making him dictator of a new black nation and a supply of pikes to be used to stab to death the slave-owner and his wife and children.” Bet your high school “history” books forgot to fill you in on some of that didn’t they?

It was noted by Dr. Wilson that slavery was not under any real threat if they just stayed in the Union. Lincoln had already told them that. He had told them that he had no intention of bothering slavery where it already existed so the idea of the Southern states seceding so they could just keep their slaves is beyond ludicrous.

Another interesting article appeared on https://www.mightytaxes.com dealt with the Corwin Amendment, which was the original version of the 13th Amendment. This article noted that “The Corwin Amendment not only protected the institution of slavery, but included language to make itself unamendable so that no future amendment to the Constitution could undo it. Essentially this first version of the 13th Amendment secured slavery as a permanent institution in America.” And who, might you ask, was this man the amendment was named after? None other than Thomas Corwin, a congressman from Ohio! That’s right, Ohio–not the heart of Dixie! That could be one reason you never see this dealt with in the “history” books. Had Mr. Corwin been from Alabama rather than Ohio you can bet this would have made it into the “history” books. But the information that a Northerner had introduced an amendment to perpetuate slavery was something the court historians long ago decided you didn’t need to be aware of. So they made sure you weren’t.

This same article quoted Charles Dickens when he said “The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.” I’d say that was a pretty accurate statement.

The article also observed “As you can see, in early 1861 the institution of slavery was secure in America, and Abolitionists were still largely a far-left group of ‘crazy liberals,’ so why go to war? Well, taxes of course. Just before Lincoln took office departing President Buchanan signed a tariff even worse than the Tariff of Abomination of 1832. The new tax in 1861 was called the Morrill Tariff, and it was the highest tariff in American history, taxing imports at over 45%, with iron products taxed at 50%! Victorious Republicans cheered the heavy taxes that benefitted the Northern industrialists who backed Lincoln. In Lincoln’s inaugural address he made no mention of ending slavery, but did promise to collect high taxes in imports in the South under all circumstances and without exception…The fuse had been lit on the American Civil War. While the North was willing to live with slavery in the South, there would be no such concession on taxes. The forts in Southern ports would be used to enforce tariffs and collect taxes even if the South seceded.”

Lincoln wanted his pound of financial flesh from the South no matter what. Now, again, I realize facts like this get in the way of the South-haters’ “It was all about slavery” agenda and to perpetuate that agenda they cannot afford to be confused with the facts so they ignore them. To paraphrase the comments from a former Obama flunky–“never let a bad agenda to to waste!” And they haven’t, nor do they ever intend to.

The Great Unanswered Question

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Here and there I get remarks directed at some of the historical articles I write concerning the War of Northern Aggression. Most of the comments seem to deal with the slavery issue. Some individuals with great imagination almost seem to think that the South fought that war so we could still keep slaves to this very day.

To these political worthies I have often directed this question–If the North was so gung ho as to fight against the South to free the slaves, then why did not the North first free all the slaves in states that, for one reason or another, remained part of the Union? This would included Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and the newly created state of West Virginia. That’s right–West Virginia. The newly created state of West Virginia entered the Union as a slave state, not as a free state. The response I have gotten to this question has been one of ear-shattering silence! No one wants to touch this question and so they just pretend it doesn’t exist or that they didn’t hear anyone ask it. It’s probably the most ignored question of the past several decades.

To these harbingers of Yankee righteousness I would direct the book by Gene Kizer Jr. which I reviewed a few years back Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States published by Charleston Athenaeum Press http://www.BonnieBluePublishing.com Check the internet and see if you can find it if you want the truth instead of Yankee fables. If you don’t really want the truth (and I suspect many don’t) then continue to ignore it, but if you do that, then please shut up about all this slavery foolishness!

Mr. Kizer noted on page xxiii of the introduction to his book that “Most people in the North (95-98% according to historians Lee Benson and Gavin Wright) were not abolitionists. They did not care about freeing the slaves who would then come North and be job competition. No Republican could be elected in the North on the platform of directly ending slavery but they could agitate on slavery in the West with good results. It was a hot political issue driven as much by rallying votes–vote Republican:…Lincoln himself stated in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates that the West was to be reserved for white people from all over the earth…Neither slaves nor free blacks were welcome in Lincoln’s West.”

Kizer observed a comment by Lincoln scholar Richard N. Current where Current stated: “Lincoln and his fellow Republicans, in insisting that Congress must prohibit slavery in the West, were dealing with political phantoms.” Kizer tells us that “In 1860, there were only two slaves in Kansas and 15 in Nebraska, and that was after being open to slavery for ten years. As stated above, Current did not believe slavery would have lasted another generation, even in the deep South.”

And Kizer reiterates “Slavery was not the cause of the War Between the States. Once you understand the true cause–the imminent economic annihilation of the North which was coming fast–all other actions taken by Lincoln and everybody else make infinitely more sense. Abraham Lincoln needed to start his was as quickly as he could. He needed his blockade of the South in place as fast as possible to keep Europeans and especially the English from forming trade and military alliances with the South…” Kizer also noted that: “Ramsdell states also that the North’s gaping self-inflicted wound, the Morrill Tariff, kicked in and greatly added to the panic and call for war in the North as the Northern shipping industry was largely rerouted, in one fell swoop, away from the high-tariff North and into the low-tariff South where protective tariffs were unconstitutional.”

Now I realize that Mr. Kizer’s research will never convince the professional South haters of their gross errors on the slavery issue, but at least they can never say no one told them.