The Apostate Yankees “Holy” Cause

by Al Benson Jr.

An article on Charleston Athenaeum Press for May 29th by Gene Kizer noted the true pettiness of the apostate removers of history in regard to history they fail to agree with. Mr. Kizer observed: “Fort Benning’s Col. Colin Mahle proceeded with recommendations from the congressionally–mandated Naming Commission to cover or remove certain names on the Ranger Memorial associated with the Confederacy, even though they served the United States honorably…”

The article continued: “Not only did the (naming) commission dishonor the rangers commemorated, but hiding the names denies free expression of those who contributed to the memorial…Elizabeth Warren’s renaming legislation has shredded the fabric of our country. Destroying the 109 year old Confederate Memorial in Arlington is next. Over 44% of our military has traditionally been recruited in the South. But to serve today, Southerners have to accept Warren’s LIE that they have traitor blood flowing through their veins…” Don’t you wonder how many among that 44% had Confederate ancestors? How would you like to have a dollar for everyone that did? Yet Elizabeth Warren blithely informs us that their ancestors must all have been traitors! This is the woman who bragged about her Indian ancestors–the ones no one could ever find any real evidence of. Besides, the Indians fought against the US too. Does that make them traitors?

I never cease to be amazed at the brazen gall of these Yankee/Marxist types when it comes to trying to obliterate history they don’t like! And when I say “Yankee/Marxist” I am not referring to all Northern folks. Indeed, for the Yankee Marxist (but I repeat myself here) who majors in rank apostasy, the destruction of real history, culture, and heritage he/she disagrees with has been a major calling in life. The Yankee/Marxist has been working at that assiduously for well over 150 years now.

He/she seems to feel, at this point, it is probably time to administer the coup-de-gras and to totally cover up any positive Southern history by either totally removing it from public view or just claiming that all who fought for the Confederacy were just heinous traitors to the “glorious cause” of the Union–which “glorious cause” was really protecting Lincoln’s abominable tariff much more than freeing any slaves!

And they get by with this enormous charade because what passes for history in the vast majority of public (and some private) schools has seldom dealt with what the War of Northern Aggression was really all about! Our youth have been taught pseudo-history for generations now because, as Orwell said, “Who controls the past controls the future.” As I noted in a recent article, something like 14% of 8th grade students in this country have any real grasp of history. And that’s not enough! And how many kids even get US history in high school anymore? Again, not nearly enough!

So, if the 44% of young folks in the armed services are considered by our elitist “leadership” to have traitors blood in their veins, then maybe the armed forces would be better off if they just stayed at home and raised their Confederate flags in their front yards, and didn’t bother to join the armed services to defend the country. After all, our exalted “leadership” doesn’t seem to think too much of them.

If you look back at the War of Northern Aggression aka Civil War, you will find many good and noble Christian men came from and fought for the Confederacy. Many rabid apostates and socialists came from the North. Theologically speaking, the South was much more scripturally oriented than was the Unitarian/socialist–influenced North. That may be one reason that Northern “historians” don’t care to deal with the theological aspects of the War–and it did have theological aspects!

Advertisement

The Union Leagues Created Racial Animosity

by Al Benson Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Attack On The First Amendment

by Al Benson Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Al Benson Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

With The Border Crisis Looming–What About Mexico’s Political Past?

by Al Benson Jr.

The resolution that has kept our Southern border from being completely inundated with illegal aliens is about to expire. And the illegals will swarm across our border like a swarm of locusts and the Biden regime, for all its big talk about the border not being open, along with all the other lies they have told, will look the other way and do nothing about it, all the while continuing to tell us they have the situation under control. Anyone believing them has to believe in the tooth fairy as well.

Much if Mexico’s recent past has been a testimony to leftist perseverance, contrary to what some “news” sources have told us. The Mexican Communist Party was founded in 1917 as the Socialist Worker’s Party. It changed its name to the Mexican Communist Party in 1919. It was outlawed in 1925, but managed to regain its legal status in 1935. In 1924 Mexico was the first country in the Western Hemisphere to establish diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. The New York Times informed us (however much you can believe them) that the U.S. government confused Mexican nationalism with communism. Don’t kid yourself!

During the Cold War, in Mexico, the International Revolutionary Party (P.R.I.) claimed it was a “nationalist and progressive” alternative to communism. Again, don’t kid yourselves. A N Y Times article told us “Frieda Kahlo, when she died in 1954, received the first official homage ever accorded to an artist in Mexico’s Palace of Fine Arts. Her coffin was covered with a banner of the hammer and sickle. This was emblematic of a resurgence of Communism in Mexico, not steming from parties and unions–but from artistic, academic, and literary circles, where Marxism had begun to gain renewed vigor…” But, then, these intellectual types always seem to be among those who see something positive in communism,–as long as they don’t have to live under its iron fist.

When the Cuban Revolution began, Mexico’s PRI party didn’t condemn Fidel Castro and it abstained from an Organization of American States(OAS) vote to expel Cuba. There was definitely compromise ere. The expedition led by Castro in 1956 had set sail from Mexico, and Mexicomthen defended Cuba via diplomatic measures…Then, in the 1970s and 80s, all varieties of Marxism had become “a common language” in public universities in Mexico. Almost sounds like our colleges and universities in this country. They were definitely leaning far left at that time–and today they are so far left some people are falling off the edge!

Lopez Obrador would become the populist caudillo of the Mexican left. He ran for president in 2006 and came within a fraction of a percent of winning, so naturally, he accused the government of election fraud. The New York Times claimed the Mexican Revolution had “absorbed and transformed (and sidelined) the Russian revolution.” Actually what happened is that the Russian Revolution had taken on a more Mexican flavor that previously.

Blair Coan, in his book, The Red Web written in 1925, noted that “Mexico is today, was yesterday, and will be tomorrow, the most fertile incubator of Bolshevik revolution on the American continent.” And while many changes have occurred since he wrote his book, I think has basic premise is right on the money. Check out an interesting article on http://www.theyucatantimes.com for May 18, 2020.

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

by Al Benson Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Great Unanswered Question

by Al Benson Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

The Destruction Of A Southern Town For Expediency And “Progress”

by Al Benson Jr.

When my wife and I moved south in 2002 we ended up in a small, semirural town in North Louisiana. It was the kind of small town we wanted. Our intent was to avoid cities as much as possible. We had both grown up in small towns in the North and were not city people. The town we ended up in had one main street and about five side streets and it had a distinct small town Southern atmosphere. There was a gas station, a couple churches, a bank, market, and a couple restaurants and a hardware store on the main street.

One of the restaurants was sort of a local hangout, the kind of place you could visit on a warm afternoon, buy a glass of sweet tea or coke and just sit and visit with some of the local folks. They also served a pretty good (and .inexpensive) fried catfish dinner in the evening. My wife and I often stopped there for supper on Saturday evening. It was all ideal–for awhile.

But then came the scions of “progress and change” and nothing was ever the same again. They told us the town needed a bigger and better bridge across the river–and they were correct about that. The old bridge across the river that was there had been built in the early 1930s. It needed replacing. But the replacement we ended up with took out about a third of the town’s main street. The result was that one of the churches, the hardware store, and the two restaurants all had to go. And the local chemical company (a division of Dow Chemicals) bought from the town all the land that the church and restaurants and hardware store had previously occupied and nothing was to be built on that land. The chemical company wanted all of it to remain open space. That pretty well killed the town’s main street as far as business went and it erased the unique Southern atmosphere the town had previously had.

The mayor at that time had some grandiose plans to put all businesses out on the main highway–about five miles from where they had previously been. I’m not sure anyone ever figured out completely what he was trying to do, but he worked at it anyway–and the town completely lost its unique Southern character and became just one more shopping stop on the main highway. There were those in town that protested, but not enough of them.

My wife and I now no longer live in the town, in the house we lived in. Our health will not permit that any longer. When we still lived in that town, I ran for the town council one year, on a platform of less government and more personal responsibility. And though I didn’t win, I got a respectable number of votes for someone who had not lived their life there.

The mayor with all the big plans extended the town’s debt so much the town almost ended up bankrupt. The mayor after him was a conservative and loyal American who had served in the marines, but by the time he got elected the town was so far in debt there was little he could do and I understand the current mayor is quite liberal, so we can kiss the unique Southern atmosphere of the town goodbye. It’s doubtful if it will ever return. It reminded me of the West Texas towns in some of Elmer Kelton’s novels about Texas. They were on the point of losing their unique Western identity because of what some “progressive” people wanted to do to and with them. Unfortunately, such situations are not unique to fiction. They exist in real life and we have seen them acted out.

Right now, the South and its culture and identity are under constant attack. Southern monuments, symbols, and flags are almost everywhere denigrated where once they were honored and revered. If the South loses its identity it will never get it back and it will end up being just another nonentity among the other nonentities in Wokedom. That seems to be where we are headed. I have talked with other Southern patriots who said they never thought they’d live to see what’s going on now, and I did not think I would either, but I have–and it gives me no pleasure. I could weep for my adopted country!

All that has made her unique is being flushed down the sewer in a headlong rush to be like the rest of the country–something we should not want nor want to be partakers in. Both the South and the Far West have a unique heritage–something that should be preserved, not tossed aside. They are the only unique American cultures remaining and they must be preserved. We discard them to our own hurt and the hurt of our children!

The Left Continues To Peddle A Guilt Trip About Slavery

by Al Benson Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Times They Are Changing–And Not For The Better!

by Al Benson Jr.

Some of you, like me, may be able to remember the old “Cheyenne” Western series on television. There is a channel in our area that broadcasts lots of the old Westerns that were popular in the 1950s and 60s and I watch some of them.

Recently there was one of the old “Cheyenne” series on that featured a young man who rode around with a Confederate flag tied to the barrel of his rifle. In the show he ended up dying, but in the last scene, it portrayed Cheyenne taking the young man’s rifle and wedging it in the rocks atop a hill there so it stood upright, with the Confederate flag flying in the breeze. I thought, as I viewed that final scene, no way would that ever be allowed in any television series today!

In today’s Hollyweird the Confederate flag is viewed as horribly politically incorrect and as outright treasonous by the Biden Regime. Just ask General Milley about that! Some of you all may also remember that singer Johnny Horton did a song back in the 1950s called Johnny Reb. It was, basically a tribute to the average Confederate soldier and his dogged persistence in fighting four long years for a cause he believed it–and it wasn’t the continuation of slavery–contrary to what today’s leftist and neo-con “historians” tell you.

If you want to understand that war, then read Gene Kizer’s book Slavery Was Not The Cause Of The War Between The States. I don’t recall the exact figure, but I think it was something like 6% of the Confederate soldiers owned slaves and the other 94% didn’t. To think the 94% who never owned a slave were fighting so the other 6% could keep their slaves is ludicrous! Yet that’s what today’s “historians” would have us believe.

You will never see a movie or tv series today where the owner of a Confederate flag is not portrayed as some sort of racist monster who secretly desires to re-enslave all black folks. And it is all so much rubbish. When we had our own home I had a First National Confederate flag flying in our front yard. It had nothing whatever to do with race, but was rather my way of honoring my Confederate ancestor–who did not fight to preserve slavery, but rather fought because his state was invaded.

In the old John Wayne movie, The Undefeated, the Yankee officer, played by Wayne, asked the Confederate soldier why the Southerners are still fighting the day after the war has supposedly ended and the Confederate soldier replied “because you’re here.” That’s a pretty accurate answer for a movie, but then that movie was also made back in the 1960s I believe.

For the past 40 plus years Confederate flags, symbols, and monuments have been under almost constant attack by dedicated leftists who know better and by nutty neo-cons who should know better but never seem to learn. April is Confederate History Month. That means that those who truly understand what Confederate heritage is all about (not racism) should use this opportunity to protect and promote legitimate Southern heritage.

If you live in an area that has any Southern heritage events coming up that you are aware of, go out and take part if you can. Here in North Louisiana they always have the (Confederate) Flags Across The Ouachita in April. This year it will be on April 21st at 4 pm in the afternoon on the Lea Joyner Bridge between Monroe and West Monroe, Louisiana. If you happen to be in that area come on over and help the Sons of Confederate Veterans support our Southern heritage. At least drive by if you can and let them know you appreciate what they are doing. After all, it’s your heritage they are defending!