Shouldn’t That Carl Schurz Monument Come Down?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

As some folks know, I recently did a CD lecture (a little over 37 minutes long) about the Marxist and socialist supporters and enablers of Abraham Lincoln. These were the sterling individuals (often along with their wives) that Donnie Kennedy and I wrote about in our book Lincoln’s Marxists. 

Some friends have been helping me get the word out about the new CD, which I appreciate, because people still need to be made aware of this leftist phenomena so prevalent in Mr. Lincoln’s armies. It’s still a subject that Establishment historians turn their noses up at because we are not supposed to know that much about it, much less discuss or debate it in polite company.

At any rate, polite or not, a friend up in Kansas City, Missouri had a buddy there who must have heard something about the CD because he penned a kind of humorous article about it and about the Forty Eighters in general. It was posted on https://camdenpoint.wordpress.com  and he had kind of a funny book-cover type picture with the article that portrayed socialist Carl Schurz next to the Communist hammer and sickle.

He went into some detail about Carl Schurz, his revolutionary socialist background, and also noted his wife’s socialist activity, part of which was the founding of the first kindergarten in this country. In one place he mentions about the 1848 socialist revolts in Europe and notes how Schurz and many others ended up here after their revolts fizzled in Europe. He says: “And so like many of his German compatriots who had played an important role in the failed revolution, many would soon migrate to the United States in order to continue waving the banner for their leftist cause of taking things from others by force and coercion (which sums up the modern socialism of Bernie Sanders and other politicians as well).” In spite of all the “positive’ swill written to praise the Forty Eighters as some kind of “freedom fighters,” the man who wrote this article has seen through that farce and realizes what they were really all about.

But something that really caught my attention as I read this article was a picture of a monument to Carl Schurz in New York City. And, I have to admit my guilt and confess that one of the first thoughts that came into my mind was–As long as we now seem to be on this national tear to pull down all “Civil War” monuments, wouldn’t it be only fitting and proper to pull down this monument to Carl Schurz along with all the rest? 

After all, if we have reached the point where monuments to Washington, Jefferson, and even Columbus are being threatened, why should Carl Schurz be exempt? After all, he was white. Isn’t that enough reason right there to remove a monument to him? By today’s rationale, it should be. The fact that he was a revolutionary socialist should have nothing to do with it–the main criteria for removing monuments today is whiteness!  And Schurz certainly qualifies on that count.

I’m sure that there will be many that await media confirmation that the monument to Carl Schurz in New York City has been visited by Black Lives Matter. However, should this group of worthies ever get around to visiting the Schurz monument, it will probably be to lay a wreath at the feet of Comrade Carl and to praise his devotion to “the people.”

You have to understand that, when it comes to monuments to old, dead, white guys, you will find that “some monuments are more equal than others.”

For those who would like a little more info on Carl and some of his Forty Eighter buddies, the CD Lincoln’s Marxists is still available for a cost of $8.00 (and believe me I am not making big bucks at that price). You can purchase them by writing to The Copperhead Chronicle,  P O Box 55,  Sterlington, Louisiana 71280 and sending a check or money order for $8.00 for each CD you want.

You will find out some information about some of the personalities who fought in the War of Northern Aggression on the side of the “glorious” Union that your history books, at best, only hint at, because you are not supposed to need to know any of this stuff.

And keep your eyes open to see if Black Lives Matter or Antifa ever get around to the Schurz monument.

Advertisements

About Those Slaves In The North–?

by Al Benson Jr.

We’ve been watching with bated breath for months now as those charming people in Antifa and Black Lives Matter have continued their Leftist crusade to smash and destroy all statues and monuments commemorating anyone in the South that might have been a slave owner–all the way back to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. These two Founders, they now claim, have to be “de-commemorated” because they owned slaves. Were Washington and Jefferson alive and on Facebook today they would automatically be “unfriended” for owning slaves and would never be allowed to post anything ever again.

As I have observed this continuing line of Leftist drivel, I have noted that slavery in the North has seldom been mentioned, nor have Northern slave owners been referred to. Of course that may come later as the ethnic cleansing progresses to the next level and the white race  is thoroughly purged–all except for the Marxist white professors that suggested the purging. Folks, welcome to “reconstruction” part two!

Leave it to Professor Tom DiLorenzo to come up with some interesting facts in most any area having to do with the War of Northern Aggression. This is the man that pinned Lincoln’s hide to the wall, so to speak. You really ought to read his books about Lincoln if you haven’t.

He had some interesting commentary on Lew Rockwell’s website the other day in reference to Ulysses S. Grant and James Longstreet and their friendship before the War. Professor DiLorenzo observed: “What few people know, however, is that Longstreet introduced his first cousin, Julia Dent, to Grant, and the two eventually married. Before the war, Grant lived with his in-laws and was the overseer (‘manager’ according to the National Park Service Website!) of the slaves on the family’s Missouri slave plantation. As stated in this National Park Service site…about the old plantation that was called White Haven, ‘the Dents, Grants, and an enslaved African-American workforce lived on the property.’  The slaves were not freed until they had to be after the Thirteenth Amendment became the law of the land in 1866.  How rich is it that Ulysses S. Grant’s slave plantation was called ‘White Haven’?!  So the man chosen by Lincoln to command the war ‘to end slavery’ was a former plantation overseer.” Well, does that mean that Grant’s picture should now be removed from the fifty dollar bill and replaced with, say, Denmark Vessey? If you don’t know who he was, look him up. And who will they come up with to put on the one dollar bill when Washington is forced to go the way of all slave owners? How about W. E. B. DuBois, the man who joined the Communist Party shortly before he died? That would be a logical choice for those Leftists among us who will hoot, scream, and howl about “white privilege” until they get their way, no matter how ludicrous their demands. I don’t know if they are even still making the two dollar bill. I haven’t seen one in over ten years, but Jefferson used to be on that one. Maybe if they are still printing them in some back office in the capital they could replace Jefferson with abolitionist/terrorist John Brown–with a picture of the armory at Harpers Ferry on the reverse side of the bill.

The Leftists are totally committed to destroying any remaining vestige of the memory of anyone in the South who owned slaves, or who even thought about it,  but strangely, up to this point, they have said nothing about Northern slave owners or slave traders, and a look at the history will show conclusively that the vast majority of slave traders came out of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York. However, the Far Left has been silent about that, at least up until now, right along with most of our “history” books. We have been propagandized into believing that slavery in this country was exclusively a Southern institution that all Southerners today should feel guilty about, and the Leftist take on all this is, shall we say, slightly less than accurate.

Even liberal Northern newspapers admit this much. An article in the Providence Journal for September 20, 2014 noted: “Among the report’s findings: Rhode Island’s  Colonial-era economy was heavily dependent on slave trading; a handful of wealthy Rhode Islanders, including members of the Brown family dominated the so-called ‘Triangle Trade’ in rum, slaves and molasses;  slave-owning was widespread in Rhode Island and other New England states during the 18th and early 19th centuries; and several of the universities early supporters, including its founder, the Rev. James Manning, and its first treasurer, John Brown, were slave owners.” They then go on to tell you that the man the university was named after was an abolitionist–as though that somehow cleanses the stain of those who were slave owners.

Now with all of the current Leftist hysteria going on about tearing down statues and monuments of people that were slave owners, I wonder, should that same game apply to Yankees who were slave owners? Should monuments (if any) and plaques that honor these men also be removed? It seems to me that what is sauce for the goose should be good for the duck also.  After all, slave owners were slave owners–North or South–right?

And, if monuments for men in the North who were slave owners need to be preserved, for whatever reasons, then so do monuments here in the South. Just a little something for us to chew on! I hope the Leftists don’t choke over their inconsistencies. Maybe we need to remind them of them before they stumble over them and hurt themselves!

Is Black Privilege At Colleges On The Way Out?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

How many of you have been treated to stories and “news” commentaries about “white privilege” until it is literally coming out the kazoo? I have heard and read about it until I am thoroughly sick and tired of it–and most of the black people that try to chastise me with their pontifications about my “white privilege” seem to drive newer cars than we do and many have college educations, which I could not afford. I have often asked the question–just who ended up with all the “privilege?” But, of course, that is the forbidden question and you are automatically “racist” for even thinking it. It is, after all, “thoughtcrime.”  Says who???

It reminds me of the German socialist Donnie Kennedy and I wrote about in Lincoln’s Marxists, who, after the War of Northern Aggression was over, lectured Confederate General Richard Taylor about how to be a “real American.” Naturally his definition of a “real American” (socialist) was somewhat different than ours was.

And so it is with this “white privilege” charade. Many of the black “liberals” (socialists) that I have run across seem to have accrued lots more “privilege” than most white folks I know. It reminded me of when we first came to North Louisiana. I had a hard time finding work at first and one day my wife went to the nearest city and inquired about how you went about getting food stamps on a temporary basis if you were out of work. The lady she talked to was black, but not unfriendly, and she explained to my wife that, in this particular area, if you were not black, you could just about forget about any help. The help was for the black folks, not for the rest of us. So I concluded from that episode, which happened several years ago now, that part of our “white privilege” here was the privilege of being refused help that folks with darker skins got automatically. So please, don’t talk to me about “white privilege” because it’s all a pile of bovine fertilizer and most folks know it even if they don’t dare say it!

Along those lines, I read a New York Times article by a Charlie Savage for August 1, 2017 about the Trump administration preparing to “…redirect sources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants…The document, an internal announcement of the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on ‘investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions’.”  Question: if this document was an internal memo, where did the New York Times get a copy of it? Another “leak?”

It seems that this investigation may be run from the division’s front office, rather than the Justice Department’s Educational Opportunities Section. That fact may indicate a serious investigation. Time will tell, so stay tuned.

The Times article noted that Roger Clegg,  who was a former official in the civil rights division under Reagan, and then under Bush, and who is now president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, has said that this new project is a “welcome” and “long overdue” development. Clegg said: “The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans as well.” It’s a good statement, but I’d disagree with him on one point. The civil rights laws were not written to protect everyone–they were written, originally, to encourage exactly what they do now–promote blacks over whites in a typical class struggle scenario–just like “reconstruction” after the War.

Lets be realistic–whites are discriminated  against, in spite of all the Leftist howling we hear from the Swamp to the contrary. I know of one company, right here in Louisiana that had a job opening a few years back. Folks from all races signed up to take the testing program for this job. I was told that the whites who took the test got higher scores than did most of the others–and when that fact became obvious to the test administrators, what they did was simply to pitch all the test results and start over with an entire new group of possible candidates, one that was more “racially inclusive” (meaning a black majority) and they went from there. So, in that particular case, having “white privilege” meant you got to be excluded from trying out for this job if you scored too high on the test. That seems to be how most of these programs work out.

So, if the Justice Department actually gets to where they can do something about this situation at the university level, then I am all for it. Naturally, the Leftists among us (and there are too many) will scream and moan because one of their pet entitlements may end up being removed (the ability to get in whether you qualify or not).  But that one has been around way too long anyway. I have seen it in operation since the 1960s, before I even had a clue as to what it was all about. I’d like to see someone finally begin to deal with it, despite all the ranting about “racism” from those on the Left, who, if the truth be known, are the real racists.