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.


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!

The Obama/Trump Gun Control Act of 2018

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I hate to say this, but it is beginning to look like, when push comes to shove, the Donald Trump support for the Second Amendment is starting to resemble the Platte River in Nebraska–“a mile wide and an inch deep.” Mr. Trump seems about to collapse on every Second Amendment issue now coming up and the socialists in government are just loving him for every minute of it. They are hoping to get the gun control under Trump that even eluded them while their Marxist-in-Chief, Obama sat on the throne.

A headline on Breitbart for Wednesday, February 28th said: “President Donald Trump embraced Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) gun control bill but rejected Rep. Steve Scalise’s (R-LA) push for national reciprocity during a bipartisan meeting with lawmakers Wednesday afternoon.”

The revealing part of the article was this: “The Manchin/Toomey gun control bill is the same universal background check legislation supported by Barack Obama in the wake of the heinous attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School. It is the very bill that was defeated in the Democrat-controlled Senate on April 17, 2013.”

So Trump is now endorsing a gun control bill that was embraced by Barack Obama. Maybe we should rename it The Obama/Trump Gun Control bill of 2018 because it now seems that Trump the nationalist is willing to support the same thing as Obama the Marxist.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture, or is it just me?

And, according to “Major gun-control groups on Thursday heaped praise on President Donald Trump for his advocacy for new gun-control laws during a televised meeting with top lawmakers…Trump advocated for adding proposals like extending FBI background checks to used gun sales between private parties, a ban on gun ownership for those under 21–especially ownership of assault weapons–to a bipartisan proposal to improve the current background check system. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said they were happy with Trump’s performance at the meeting.” They just oohed and aahed at Trump’s “full-throated support of gun violence prevention laws today,…”

Whether Mr. Trump realizes it or not, he is now supporting fully the means that will lead to registering everyone’s firearms of any sort with the federal government, which will lead to eventual confiscation of all guns. He is setting us on the path to eventual confiscation that Comrade Obama could only dream about! You have to wonder if he knows what he is doing. I hope not, but he’s going to do it anyway.

The Deep State and the Far Left have finally give us enough false flag shootings that they’ve gotten to Mr. Trump and he is willing to go along with whatever garbage they throw at him, supposedly to save lives.

Just think of how many lives can be saved when the feds have all the guns and they can just haul us off to the FEMA camps and not have to worry about resistance. The country will be one giant gun-free zone and if you think that will stop the killings I have a bridge in the desert in Arizona I’d love to sell you!

You have to wonder what happened to Trump on this issue. Something did. This is not the same man that spoke to CPAC a couple weeks ago and pledged to defend the Second Amendment–this is a man willing to toss all that away for the praise of the socialist gun-grabbers–so something has happened to him since that speech. We can speculate just what, but that seems an exercise in futility. Better we should spend our time contacting our senators and representatives and tell them to vote against any new gun control measures that come up and if they won’t then we better find someplace else to cast our votes.

Can anyone spell S E L L O U T ???

Just remember one thing–without the Second Amendment you have no way of protecting the other 9!

Update:  According to  “Rand Paul…introduced legislation on Thursday that would repeal a 1990 law banning guns from school zones…Paul’s bill would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990 and all amendments to that law.” If this bill makes it out of committee and gets passed it will be interesting to see what Mr. Trump will do with it. My first thought is, now that he has been turned, he will find some plausible reason to veto it. From tidbits I heard on the internet today it seems that in some way, Trump has now been compromised and may have to do what the gun grabbers want of him or they will find a way to expose whatever it is they seem to have on him. I hope I am in error, but this is how it looks at this point.

It Wasn’t All About Slavery!

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Back in February of 2013 (five years ago now, doesn’t seem all that long ago) I did an article for this blog called The Lincoln/Corwin “Keep your Slaves” Amendment. It discussed the Corwin Amendment, which many of you all probably never heard of. After all, it’s not one of those things the “historians” or the media make a big deal out of because it doesn’t fit their agenda of a “saintly” Lincoln who loved all blacks, or a treasonous South. Scroll back and read that article. It’s still there. That will save me having to restate much of it here. It was a amendment to the Constitution, introduced by Thomas Corwin of Ohio that would have kept slaves in bondage in perpetuity. The sainted Mr. Lincoln was in favor of it, had no problems with it. If you find that hard to believe then go back to February 2, 2013 on this blog and read it.

Lincoln stated, in his first inaugural address, on March 4, 1861 that, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Lincoln pretty much told us what the war (for him) was all about, and it wasn’t slavery. Even the vaunted Emancipation Proclamation” (actually a war and propaganda measure) did not free any slaves in the slave states remaining in the Union, nor did it free any slaves in the Confederate States where it had no legal authority. In fact, you could really say it was the “nothingburger” of the 19th century. So, given all these considerations, it’s hard to believe that “historians” and “journalists” in our day seem unable to come to grips with the naked truth that Lincoln declared war on the South so he could drag them back into the Union and hang on to all that tariff money the South had heretofore pumped into the national economy. The South had paid for 87% of the national economy, and if the South remained out of the Union, then the Union would tank in very short order and Lincoln had to get the South back into the Union so they could continue to “remit the extortion money” to Washington so Washington  would have that money to finance all those internal improvements they wanted to make up north! And those lucky Southern folks would get to pay for all that! Weren’t they just blessed???

Years ago (in 2007 to be exact) someone sent me an article by James W. King and Lt. Col. Thomas M. Nelson entitled The Ten Causes of the War Between the States. It was a good article and I hung onto it. It stated, in part,  “There were 10 political causes of the war–one of which was slavery–which was a scapegoat for all the differences that existed between the North and South. The Northern industrialists had wanted a war since about 1830 to get the South’s resources (land-cotton-coal-timber-minerals) for pennies on the dollar. All wars are economic and are always between centralists and decentralists. The North would have found an excuse to invade the South even if slavery had never existed..”

Frank Conner said pretty much the same thing in his book  The South Under Siege 1830-2000.

King and Nelson, in their article, listed the ten reasons for the war. After going over all their reasons, I had to conclude that they were right on target. They started off by listing the tariff; centralization vs. states rights and Christianity vs. Secular Humanism. This last one is one that few historians, or anyone else for that matter, take into account, yet it is one of the most important and critical. Of course that may be why it is so ignored today.

They listed cultural differences–another one most folks don’t ever give a thought to. We haven’t been taught to think along those lines and so most of these really critical issues just go over our heads. All we’ve been taught (or conditioned) to do is to react to lurid tales of Southern cruelty to slaves–as though the South was the sole proprietor of the slavery issue. It’s not! The North has a big slice of the proprietorship there, too, though most will never admit it, and neither will today’s spin media (excuse me, I meant “news’ media).

I already mentioned the North’s desire for control over Southern resources. Then there was slander of the South by Northern newspapers; New England’s attempts to instigate massive slave revolts in the South. Does Harper’s Ferry, Virginia come to mind here? Just about all those who financed the actions of terrorist John Brown in that gory undertaking were either New England or New York Unitarians and/or socialists. That fact was not lost on Southern folks.

Way down the list, at number 9, was slavery, and while it was an indirect cause, it was not the cause of the war–contrary to the propaganda being promulgated  in today’s classrooms and newsrooms.

I expect some will not appreciate it that I keep hammering at this issue, but when you have had 150 years of propaganda passing as history and news, you have to keep hammering to create cracks in that wall of false propaganda. Until our people begin to get it right about the War of Northern Aggression we will never get it right about any of the events that followed that war. That war was our French Revolution and we have never recovered from the results of it, nor the propaganda spun about it that conditions our thinking today.

Slavery was not the cause of that war. Secession was not treason. “Racism” was every bit as prominent in the North as in the South, maybe even moreso. It just didn’t get the media attention up there. And don’t tell me it didn’t exist up there. I grew up in the North.

With the divisions we have in this country today, culturally and otherwise, it would seem that we might be better off as two separate countries. I doubt that the North will ever totally be able to purge itself of its Unitarian/socialist world view. Left to its own devices, the South might have a chance. And, if push came to shove–much of the West would be better off siding with the South, because we have the same common enemies and the same desire to just be left alone, free from bureaucracy, to live our lives as we feel God intended.


For a little more on this subject please check out my book review of Gene Kizer Jr.s book Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States published on the Abbeville Institute’s website on February 27, 2018.

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 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.