Education Is “Reconstruction”–Even Today!

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

In his informative book Segregation–Federal Policy or Racism (Shotwell Publishing Co., Columbia, South Carolina) author John Chodes has some interesting information in chapter 6, which he entitles The Freedmen’s Bureau:  Segregation for Black Education. In this chapter he notes that the whole concept of segregation was promoted so that blacks could be “educated” (radicalized) separately from whites. This was a kind of master  plan to promote class hatred between the races. Look at it this way–one of the reasons for the War of Northern Aggression was not to free the slaves, but rather to transfer ownership from private hands to federal hands. From private hands to the Freedmen’s Bureau!

Chodes notes how the federal government was, even in the 1860s, messing around with federal control of and aid for education. The foolish idea of public, or government, schools being “ours” or somehow belonging to the people, is and has been the prevalent myth, propagated on the public at large so they will not realize that this leviathan institution was made and directed from Washington from day one. This is something we have got to get through our heads! These really were and are Government Schools!

Chodes observes, on page 34 that: “The Union League, for all its destructiveness for race relations,  was only a division of a larger organization–the Freedmen’s Bureau. It was an agency of the War Department. Its role in the post-war South was enormous and its educational projects that were put in place in the 1860s, became national models for the 20th century. Its political directives for the special treatment of blacks and the hunting down of racists is still expanding in the contemporary United States and continues to impact current national policy.”

The Union League separated the blacks from the whites and then the Freedman’s Bureau educated them differently, which laid the basic foundation for “eternal segregation.” And Chodes accurately observed that  “The primary function of the Freedmen’s Bureau was educating blacks to vote Republican and to forever hate Southern whites. Integration was unthinkable, except in some rare, showcase schools, where it was used to torment whites with radical principles of social equality.” They could teach the blacks how to vote Republican and not bother to teach the whites much about anything regarding voting because the vast majority of the whites had been disenfranchised due to “reconstruction” and could no longer vote.

Then came the Yankee/Marxist “school teachers.” These “missionaries” and they were missionaries, felt that they were “…the advance guard of a new army of invasion against the terrible South.” And here your “history” books have told you that “reconstruction” ended when all those Yankee troops departed. Well, not really. The South was still in the process of being invaded–only now it was with school teachers instead of soldiers–but the results, if more insidious, were still the same. It was never about “freeing the slaves” but it was always about changing the culture, particularly the Christian culture, of the Old South. After 150 years of this, we still haven’t figured that out yet. I begin to wonder if we ever will!

These invading “missionaries” of Yankee/Marxist “education” came down here to show us the error of our ways, and while they were assaying to do that they “…taught the negro the wildest of social, political, and religious doctrines…In teaching him not to be servile, they taught him to be insolent…” Anyone notice any of that going around today?

Chodes said that “In his autobiography, General O. O. Howard described his plan to permanently consolidate all Southern schools. This would be the prelude to nationalizing them.” Howard wanted all education, both private and public, to “become absorbed in a great free system.” Guess who would control that “great free system?”  Subtle hint: it wouldn’t be the parents! In retrospect, you have to wonder how much different this was than Karl Marx’s tenth point in the Communist Manifesto  “Free education for all children in public schools.” I don’t see much difference.

And in regard to educating white kids “…education would be the instrument for reforming the Southern mind to be sympathetic to the principles of union and liberty, and for training Southerners to be obedient to Republican Party rule. In a sense, the school was the common denominator,  the agency for nationalization of the sectionally minded South.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where all this was going–and remember, this was 1866, not 1966!

I have, over the years, often maintained that public (government) education was an integral part of “reconstruction.” Unfortunately, most Southern folks I have talked to either totally don’t get it, or they don’t even want to think about it. To that degree, “reconstruction” in the South has been a smashing success. The “missionaries” have done what the Yankee troops couldn’t.

But, whether you want to think about it or not, government schools ARE a major part of the ongoing “reconstruction” of the South, and of the rest of the country as well. If you look at the history of government schools, you will find that kids (and parents) in the North were being “reconstructed” for about a generation before they started on us. So, whatever else you want to think, government schools as we now have them, were part and parcel of “reconstruction” in the South, and that is a problem we have yet to deal with down here.

Advertisements

Fake News and Fake History

 

by Al Benson Jr.

We hear much about “fake news” today and, in all honesty, most of what we get from the Mainstream Media is fake news. They may get the weather report and the ball scores right because there usually isn’t a political agenda apparent in those two items, but their accuracy doesn’t go much beyond that. But, then, they are in the propaganda business, not the accuracy business.

Though it might come as a shock to many today, this is nothing new. They have been in the propaganda business since before the War of Northern Aggression. All you need to do is to see some of the “news” accounts in Northern papers of what terrorist John Brown did in the 1850s and you will begin to get the picture. Not only is what is presented, in many cases, rank propaganda, but there are significant things left out that reporters and “historians” really would rather we didn’t know about. We can’t ask the questions that need to be asked if we have no information.

The Kennedy Brothers, in their recent book Punished with Poverty published by Shotwell Publishing  www.ShotwellPublishing.com   have noted some “omissions” from the historical record. For instance: “A Mississippi Unionist stated during Reconstruction that 50% of the blacks in Mississippi died during the war. Taken at face value the prior estimate would seem unreasonable. But when viewed in  light of the events in  the ‘Devil’s Punchbowl’ at Natchez, Mississippi, it becomes believable. The ‘Devil’s Punchbowl’  was the name given to a contraband, actually concentration, camp established by the Union army after it occurpied Natchez. Over 20,000 ‘freed’ slaves died in the Union army’s concentration camp in the year following the Union army’s occupation of Natchez. The camp was walled off by the Union army to prevent escape.” Remember, these were “freed” slaves and they were now tasting their first gulp of Yankee/Marxist “freedom.” Somehow, I don’t think it was quite what they expected from “Father Abraham.” Funny, but I don’t recall reading about this in any of my “history” books. It would appear that Fake History includes not only Yankee/Marxist propaganda that is false, but also, much accurate information is simply just omitted, because, after all, students don’t really need to know all this. It might color their perception of what the “change agent” who is supposed to be a teacher is passing along to them. For those wanting to, you can check the “Devil’s Punchbowl” out on the Internet, and you will find that the Kennedys have it right.

And the Kennedys note how this is done: “National historians who act as propagandists advancing or defending the Federal Empire’s narrative about the ‘Civil War’ are quick to dismiss examples of the Federal Empire’s military using extreme measures against Southern civilians. They do this primarily by ignoring the Empire’s atrocities; if they do mention civilian deaths they dismiss it as a natural part of war– with the implicit assumption that the ‘Civil War’ was a just war made necessary by an evil South that attacked the North at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. Occasionally the Empire’s propagandists (also known as national historians)  will acknowledge a ‘few’ atrocities but insist that they were only isolated events not worthy of scholarly notice” (unless Southerners did them). Some of this information is in Punished with Poverty on pages 70-75.

Also noted and naturally left out of our “history” books, was the propensity of Yankee/Marxist generals toward a policy of extermination for Southern folks. That caring and compassionate legislator from Pennsylvania, Thaddeus Stevens, said at one point “(Treat the South) as conquered provinces and settle them with new men and exterminate or drive out the present rebels as exiles.” So where were the “present rebels” supposed to go when you had driven them off their land and out of their homes? Being a truly magnanimous Yankee, Stephens doesn’t worry about that. And another merciful Marxist type, Brig. General James H. Lane, said of the War “We believe in a war of extermination.” Some of you all should remember General Lane. I have written about him and his particular breed of vermin from abolitionist Kansas before.

In speaking of Lincoln and the Leftist radicals in Congress, the Kennedy Brothers observed: “Their goal was to exterminate enough of the native Southern population to allow the Southern part of the United States to be ‘repopulated’ with Northerners who would then support the expanding Federal empire.” Almost sounds like what modern Washington politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, have been doing to the South with the illegal immigrant situation. Of course you all understand that any similarities between the two situations are purely coincidental.

Folks really need to read Punished with Poverty to begin to get a grasp of the plan that Yankee/Marxist politicians had and still have for the South. Those people really hanker for the death of your culture, faith, and history and they are far from bashful about promoting those ends. We have got to start learning not to be bashful about resisting them.

Ol’ Newt Finally Fesses Up About The War

by Al Benson Jr.

Over the past several decades I have heard professors from those “little ivy-covered North Koreas” we still charitably refer to as colleges and universities as well as other professional hysterians all loudly shouting that the War of Northern Aggression was fought only to free the slaves in the South. The only cause of that war was slavery, and the professional hysterians have loudly proclaimed that secession was treason and that all Southerners who fought for the Confederacy  should have been hanged as war criminals, and at the least, all of their descendants should be shot–but only after they have repented of the gross sin of slavery–but, maybe on the other hand, they should leave at least a few of them alive to they can continue to repent of and apologize for the sin of slavery. I can remember one excuse for a journalist once writing that “The Civil War was all about slavery, slavery slavery!”

Thankfully, those people’s definition of “sin” is not quite the norm, although they have been working on that problem for the past 150 years now, one of their notable vehicles for promoting that world view being the public schools in Amerika. I’d like to know where in the Holy Scriptures they find slavery condemned as the greatest sin in the world. In the Epistle to Philemon maybe?

Many of those people have made a fat living promoting the fallacy that the South fought the war only to preserve slavery and for no other reason. Now comes along ol’ Newt Gingrich and he up and bursts their bubble with the real story. Newt is supposed to be somewhat of a hysterian (historian) himself. Years ago he produced a set of videos for some educational project he was working on and in one of the videos he reproduced the scene from the movie Gettysburg in which it had Joshua Chamberlain stating that the Union Army was fighting to set other men free and that this was one of the few times in history such had ever happened. Some of you all, if you saw the movie, may remember that. It was hogwash, but you might remember it.

But that was then and this is now. In our present age of “realism” Mr. Gingrich has somewhat changed his tune. Gingrich was recently interviewed by Bill O’Reilly  and the subject of Rahm Emanuel not letting a Trump administration deport illegal aliens who had committed felonies in Chicago came up. Rahm Emanuel is a rather slippery character who is presently the mayor in that fair city and who used to be some sort of advisor to King Barack the First. At that point Gingrich piped up and said: “We fought a civil war to establish one sovereignty, the U.S. government.” You don’t say. So that’s what the War of Northern Aggression was really all about–not freeing the slaves but rather establishing  one centralized, collectivist regime in Washington!  All those folks that have written big books and given long lectures about slavery being the total cause of the war must be hating Gingrich’s guts about now. He has, albeit inadvertently, come out and admitted the real truth. And all their big books can now be shredded up for birdcage liner.

Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, who has some knowledge in this area, caught Gingrich’s comment and duly noted: “So the ‘Civil War’ was fought to abolish the Tenth Amendment after all, and to consolidate all political power in Washington, D.C. Well, Newt, as any Catholic priest would say, it’s never too late to confess.”

Given his mindset, one has to wonder why Newt Gingrich has attached himself to Donald Trump’s campaign when Trump has campaigned as being anti-establishment. Pastor Chuck Baldwin of Montana recently had an article on http://www.lewrockwell.com in which he stated: “Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon… If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration, I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about ‘draining the swamp.’ You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that’s exactly what Trump will be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.” Sadly, I have to agree. Of late Trump has been talking with Mitt Romney and Henry Kissinger–and this fact does not bode well for his anti-establishment credentials. Everyone who has a genuine concern about where this country is headed needs to keep an eye on this situation.

Illuminists, Abolitionists, Spiritualists and Apostates (and they’re all related)

by Al Benson Jr.

Just recently I have written about the Illuminati, founded on May 1, 1776 in Bavaria by Adam Weishaupt. It was and is an anti-Christian organization, one of the main functions of which was to destroy Christianity and overthrow legitimate government (not what we have today).  I noted that many historians claim this organization pretty much died out in the early 1800s and was never a serious problem after that. I wonder who taught these historians that. The evidence seems to give the lie to that convenient (for the Illuminati) little theory.

In his book To The Victor Go The Myths And Monuments Arthur Thompson, CEO of the John Birch Society noted: “A popular opinion in the early 1800s was that the abolitionists were agents of England, and there were a few who viewed them as an extension of the Illuminati. The masthead of the Liberator, William Lloyd Garrison’s abolitionist newspaper, reinforced this latter idea. The initial slogan on the paper was: ‘Our Country is the world–Our Countrymen are Mankind’.” This is consistent with the worldview of the Illuminati. And Garrison’s worldview leaned very much in that direction.

In a booklet I wrote several years ago on the abolitionists as part of my Home School History Course I noted some of Garrison’s comments and observed that he sounded strongly internationalist in his outlook. Garrison said that, after the overthrow of slavery, the cause of peace would command his attention, and he concluded by saying that: “As our object is universal emancipation–to redeem woman as well as man from a servile to an equal condition–we shall go for the rights of women to their utmost extent.” Garrison’s writings could  be strongly embraced by any Marxist, then or now. What Marxist is there, or has there ever been, who was not strongly committed to universal suffrage (at least for one election), world citizenship, peace, and women’s rights?  Remember who hired Marx to write his manifesto. The Illuminist worldview shines through here for those with eyes to see.

Mr. Thompson stated that Garrison visited England in 1833, where he made some rather uncomplimentary comments about his country in general and not just about the slavery issue.  And Thompson noted: “Someone had to organize this visit to England. You did not just get off the boat and start planning your speeches. Politically motivated organizations set them up by what were called lyceums, which were associations for discussion and instruction by lectures and other means…These lyceums were copies of the Illuminist  organizations on the European continent.” Mr. Thompson duly noted Garrison’s relationship with a George Thompson, a Chartist abolitionist leader. Donnie Kennedy and I mentioned the Chartists in our book Lincoln’s Marxists. Allan Pinkerton of the famed Pinkerton Detective Agency and a friend of Lincoln had been a Chartist in Britain before he came to this country.  The Chartists were British socialists. Mr. Thompson labels them as communists, and I surely won’t dispute him. In fact he noted that: “Garrison’s relationship with Thompson was so close that he named his son George Thompson Garrison after this Englishman.” And he also observed, with all this, it was easy for many to think that the abolitionist movement may have been English in origin, but then he said: “However, this just hid the real impetus behind the abolition movement. We must not forget that the epicenter of the Conspiracy had increasingly moved out of the Continent into England after 1800. Gradually, the leadership and top minions of all the Conspiracy’s second generation organizations were ensconced in London: Mazzini, Marx, etc. From there the epicenter moved to New York in the last half of the 19th century…you see that the issue was not simply confined to anti-slavery.” Mr. Thompson is correct. The abolitionist movement was, indeed, about a lot more than freeing slaves. That was the “up front” issue for the uninitiated.

In the circles of supposed anti-slavery, Mr. Thompson also mentioned Samuel Gridley Howe, of Secret Six fame and the husband of Julia Ward Howe. I did a series of articles for my newsletter The Copperhead Chronicle a few years back on the Secret Six and one of them was on the vaunted Mr. Howe. Turns out that Howe traveled to Germany, “In the company of Albert Brisbane, the communist, and he had a knack for showing up at revolutionary insurrections in Europe. His idea to aid anti-slavery in Kansas was guns…While in Europe, Howe was the head of an American Committee in Paris, which was helped and funded by the Illuminist Lafayette and played a role in the Polish revolution in the early 1830s.” He was a friend of Henry Longfellow and Charles Sumner, who was infamous for his hatred of the South.  Sumner was a Radical Republican who advocated world government and who would eventually join the communist First International.  So, as you can see, these people had a whole other agenda than freeing the slaves. That was but one step up the ladder in their ascent to world government.

And through all of this, hidden behind the curtain that you are not supposed to pull back and look behind,  is the shadow of the Illuminati–yesterday, today, and tomorrow. More to come. I haven’t yet touched on the Spiritualists, and they are something else!

April Is Confederate Heritage Month!

by Al Benson Jr.

Many Southern and Confederate groups around the country will be celebrating Confederate Heritage month this month (April, 2016). The governor of Mississippi has, for his state, designated April as Confederate Heritage month. Several states in the South used to do this every April until the “spontaneous” events in Charleston, South Carolina last June rendered them all gutless wonders–slaves to political correctness. It seems now that most Southern governors are deathly afraid to stand up for that portion of their populations that has Confederate ancestors, and that includes some blacks and American Indians.

Some news sources have informed us that protesters marched in Jackson, Mississippi to protest the governor’s proclamation. So who were these protesters? What organizations did they represent? None of the news accounts I checked out gave any indications. I guess that we are just supposed to believe that a whole bunch of individual anti-Confederate protesters suddenly materialized in Jackson to object to Confederate Heritage month. Pigs fly, too, so they say. One thing you have to remember about these “protests”–they always come from the theological and political left and they are never spontaneous! Can anyone spell N.A.A.C.P. or Black Lives Matter? I’m sure that are other leftist groups (and groupies) out there but these two are usually in the forefront.

We are all supposed to celebrate Black History month but we can’t celebrate Confederate Heritage month. Does anyone detect just a slight double standard here?

There will be several Confederate groups celebrating Confederate Heritage month this month and they will probably be seen in many areas waving Confederate flags. If you go up to some of them and talk in a civilized manner they will probably be glad to talk with you and will impart information you may not have been able to get anywhere else.

The perpetually offended need to get used to this because, folks, we ain’t going away no matter how much you whine. If your idea of celebrating your heritage means obliterating our heritage you can forget it! We will not play that game with you. I don’t care how much you and the “newscasters” that represent you try to tell the public it’s all about preserving the legacy of slavery and “racism.” We’ve heard that hackneyed line over and over and you know what? It’s all bovine fertilizer!

Over the decades most people have, via the “educational” institutions they attended, been reprogrammed (brainwashed) into believing that the South fought the War only so she could keep her slaves and so she could keep her thumb on black people. This educational drivel has been taught in so many places that most people don’t even think anymore, they just buy into it. But then, that was the idea wasn’t it?

A gentleman I talked with several months ago noted that the Confederate flag has not changed. It was always a soldier’s flag, nothing more. What has changed is people’s perception of it–and that has been intentional educational manipulation. Have their been some people that abused and misused the flag? Sure there were. Some have also misused the US flag, or the British flag or a host of other flags. Why not just call for a ban on all of them? Or may such a project is down the road a little way and they haven’t gotten to it yet–but be patient. The advocates of One World government are nothing if not patient!

We also have people now telling us that the Christian cross is “racist” or that the New Testament in the Bible is “racist.” I guess some of these folks would really like to ban everything except the Talmud and the Koran–at least everything Christian. At root, that’s what it’s really all about.

If you get rid of white, Christian culture and its symbols in the South then you can open the door even wider for more Muslims, more illegal immigrants, more folks who will forever change the culture here into something we only used to see in big cities up north.

I submit that the true “racists” are those trying to destroy white, Christian culture in the South (and other places as well). These are the cultural Marxists whose agenda has always been the destruction of anything Christian anywhere they could get away with it. And they have gotten away with so much of it here in the South because so many  Christian churches have been neutralized by doctrine that makes them all but impotent in too many areas.

If you think it’s bad now, just wait until this odd-ball kid that shot those black folks in Charleston comes up for trial. The left, and those in the Ruling Establishment that back and promote it, will use every possible means to turn that event into an anti-Confederate extravaganza.  Confederate and Southern Heritage groups had better start getting ready, because what comes down in the next year or two won’t be pretty.

Getting Ready For Another Round of Cultural Cleansing?

by Al Benson Jr.

The article on http://www.nytimes.com for March 14th had a headline that read: “Momentum to Remove Confederate Symbols Slows or Stops.” The article, written by Alan Blinder, noted the well-synchronized push last year to get rid of Confederate symbols (he didn’t call it well-synchronized, I did).

Then Mr. Blinder wrote: “But that was last year. Now, not even nine months after the massacre at Charleston’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, the momentum to force Confederate symbols from official display has often been slowed or stopped. In some states this year, including Alabama, lawmakers have been considering new ways to protect demonstrations of Confederate pride…the pendulum has gone in the other direction…” Mr. Blinder almost seems saddened about this. Well, after all, he does write for the New York Times–no friend of  Confederate symbols at any time.

He notes movements in at least 12 states to try to ensure that Confederate symbols and monuments are preserved and recognized. Blinder contends that “The actions that did materialize, though, emboldened defenders of Confederate heritage displays.” Speaking in Mississippi, Greg Stewart, executive director of Beauvoir, which was Jefferson Davis’ last home, stated that “Our strength right now is the result of their (the cultural Marxists) overreach.” Steward noted that many Southern folks are quite reluctant  to allow state officials to decide how to commemorate the region’s history. He said:  “We knew in Mississippi that the trick is always to keep the decision in the hands of the public.” Southerners have learned over the past couple decades how their “elected representatives” have betrayed them when it came to protecting Southern heritiage.  You just cannot trust the politicians, who are usually out to pander to the politically correct and who will sell out the heritage of their states for either votes or campaign contributions, especially if they might be harboring “presidential aspirations.”

A member of the political class noted that “we should take into account the sensitivity of all of our citizens on all issues.” What he was really saying was that you should take into account the “sensitivity” of all citizens except those wanting to preserve their Southern history and heritage. He didn’t quite say it that way but if you have watched the politcal doublespeak as I have over the years, you know that’s what he meant. Everybody should get a say but Christian, Confederate white folks. I realize that may be putting it bluntly for some, but that’s the way this game usually works. Everybody is supp0sed to have a say but us and we are just supposed to sit back in the corner and continue to feel guilty over a slavery or whatever that has been gone for 150 plus years now.

They continue to tell us we should just forget about the Confederacy and “move on.” Well, how about them following their own advice and forgetting about the slavery issue and just “moving on?” Ahh, but you see, they can’t do that–because pushing the “it was all about slavery agenda” is part of their game, part of the class struggle technique, part of the “divide and conquer” plan they have for the different races in this country, part of the agenda to destabilize both country and people, so they can continually fan the flame of “racism” so people don’t forget. Without all this Marxist class struggle baggage people might even learn to get along with each other and actually put the past in a proper perspective and move on, and that is the absolute last the Marxist agitators in Washington and around the country want. They don’t want peace and quiet–they want agitation and violence because it plays right into their program.

So I asked myself–why is this guy writing this particular article now? Nine months after the fact, things have quieted down. Why now? Is this supposed to be “marching order” for some radical Marxist group to start fanning the flames again? Are we soon supposed to be subjected to yet another round of cultural Marxism, ethnic cleansing, and whatever else the Left has decided is best for the country now?

Years ago I had a friend and mentor that was a pastor. He followed Communist activity and was, probably, in his own right, an expert on it. He made the statement once, and I never forgot it,  that when the Communists promoted a particular project, they did so for a certain amount of time and then they stopped–and if you waited about six months you would then see the Communist project promoted in the major media in this country.  On the two or three instances that I checked his timing on this he was right on the money!

So I am wondering if this current situation isn’t an extension of that same game.  We all know, or should know, that the cultural Marxists are not about to let the issue of Confederate history and symbols rest for any period of time. They haven’t been able to get rid of them all yet and they have met resistance. So why would they quit? You have to know they will be back again–and again, until they get what they want–ethnic cleansing on a grand scale, starting in the South and then working West and North. The reason they backed off was that they started to get pushback and it would have been counter-productive to continue at that point, so they backed off.  Is it getting close to the time they are supposed to renew their offensive this year? We had better keep our eyes open and exercise discernment because our adversary, like his father, prowls about “like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.”

Were Tariffs Indirectly a Redistribution of the Wealth?

by Al Benson Jr.

Those who are in a rush to paint slavery as the one and only cause of the War of Northern Aggression do not care to talk about the tariff issue. Like the presence of the Forty-Eighters in the Union Army and in the Republican Party, tariffs, as a major cause of the War is a non-subject. They’d prefer not to talk about that because to do so deflects attention from the slavery issue, and all good cultural Marxists realize that nothing, but nothing, must detract from the slavery issue.

Years ago I did an article on the War for the old Sierra Times website and mentioned how the tariff issue had affected it. I got back a sarcastic email from a typical Yankee/Marxist type that said: “Tariffs are a dead letter–period!” Suffice it to say that he and I disagreed, but I think he was more interested in influencing those who read my article than me. The thought that anyone would dare to consider any other cause for the War than slavery really ticked him off.

However, much to his chagrin, there were other causes. One of the major ones was the tariffs.

In his authoritative book The South Under Siege–1830-2000 author Frank Conner made some very good points concerning the tariff. In mentioning what Northern manufacturers wanted the federal government to do for them, Frank noted that, from the federal government they wanted “a taxpayer-funded national transportation network.”  They also wanted taxpayer subsidies and they wanted the banking laws changed so that industry would be given preference over agriculture. Frank noted that they wanted lots more than that, but those were the main items. As you can see, corporate fascism was alive and well in the 1860s and before.

Frank observed that: “To get what they wanted, the Northern capitalists  would have to transform the U.S. into a nation-state with a federal government that had enough funds to build the transportation network, and enough power to run roughshod over a recalcitrant South. The power would have to come (eventually) from a majority in Congress and a presidential administration sympathetic to the capitalists. The funding would have to come from protective tariffs on goods imported into the U.S….The Northern capitalists demanded an extremely high tariff rate covering most imports, for three reasons.  First. with a high tariff in place, the Northern manufacturers could overprice their goods in the firm knowledge that the competing low-priced British goods–with the tariffs added–would then be more expensive than theirs.  Second, the Southerners bought most of the manufactured goods imported from Britain, largely because they sold most of their cotton to Britain; thus–by paying the tariff–the Southerners paid most of the cost of running the U.S. government. (In 1860, for example, just four of the Southern states paid 50% of the total import-tariffs collected in the U.S. that year, and all of the Southern states were paying about 85% of the cost of running the federal government). By increasing the tariff rates, the North could force the South to pay most of the costs of the U.S. government’s industrialization program–a program which would benefit the North tremendously, and the South not at all.” Seems to me that a program benefiting the North at the expense of the South is, indirectly, a redistribution of the wealth. To sum up, Frank observed: “Under a government policy of high tariffs, the Northern capitalists could not lose and the South could not win.” Sort of on the idea of you being responsible for paying your neighbors property taxes for the next hundred years!

This truth that Frank so forcefully brought out was just recently reinforced in an article by Tom M. Root which appeared in Confederate Veteran magazine for March/April of 2016. The name of Mr. Root’s excellent article was Admiral Semmes and “Those People.” Mr. Root noted, on page 26 of the magazine that: “…the North was not fighting to end slavery. The Yankee was fighting to enforce involuntary union in order to continue the egregious policy of plundering the South through high protective tariffs. Despoiling the South to enrich the North was the manifest economic program of the nationalist Lincoln and the Republican Party…The inconvenient truth was the Yankee could not bear to give up his addiction to the sweets of a high tariff which had nourished Northern infrastructure for more than forty years. Secession meant economic independence and free trade for the South, but economic calamity for the North, no longer able to fatten on the imposts.”

Rabid abolitionist Charles Sumner from the great state of Taxachusetts was once asked if Massachusetts could govern Georgia  better than Georgia could. To this he responded without the least hesitation “That is Massachusetts’ mission.” That one statement alone give you more than a slight hint as to where the Yankee?Marxist mindset was really at–and Sumner wasn’t alone in that sentiment. Do you begin to see now why I call them Yankee/Marxists?

So, did the tariff contribute to redistribution of Southern wealth to the North? Of course it did. Redistribution of the wealth was and is a Marxist concept–they plot your destruction and hope you are stupid enough to be willing to pay for it–and their public education system is there to guarantee that you are.

A question people need to start asking themselves is–how influenced by Marxism was the North before the War? If you can answer that question correctly then you will be well on the way to understanding what the War was really all about.