Socialism And The 14th Amendment

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Moral decline is one of the main fruits of apostasy. It is always  accompanied by a decline in the level of personal responsibility. However, because responsibility is neglected does not mean that it has been eliminated. If rejected, it will be transferred elsewhere. If a formerly responsible people decide, one way or another, to abdicate their responsibilities and adopt a “Let Eroge (the State) do it” then you can rest assured that “George” will do it, and those that abdicated their responsibilities will live to regret what George does. Read First Samuel, chapter 8, in the Old Testament Scriptures.

After the shooting phase of the War of Northern Aggression had ceased and federal power grew, the States lost power. Now, in these latter years of insanity we live in, state governors, in order to maintain their popularity with a jaded electorate that wants everything done for them, have jumped on the “federal funds” bandwagon!  Many state governors spend more time running to Washington for “their fair share” of the collectivist federal pie than they spend at home governing their States. This political charade has turned the States into nothing more than vassals of the Deep State in Washington (just what Abraham Lincoln wanted) administering federally mandated programs in their respective federal districts–er, excuse me, I meant their States! Oh well, same difference anymore.

A few years back, a friend of mine in Illinois, Tom Parent, authored a small booklet called Local Government in which he made several cogent observations. Tom said: “…with the loss of state power, the growth of federal power threatens to destroy an important safeguard provided by the states; a safeguard upon which the American people depend greatly for their liberties: competition between the state governments!”

After the apparent part of the War of Northern Aggression was out of the way, what the abolitionist/reconstruction crowd sought to do, along with destroying the religious base of the South, was to destroy also its economic and political base. As to how they did that, read the Kennedy Brothers’ book Punished With Poverty.

The 1860’s Deep State would, therefore, end any Southern competition to the North. The concept of states’ rights necessarily embodied the idea of States in competition with one another. Under this concept of states’ rights, if one state did not deal fairly with its citizens, they could pack up and move on to a state more to their liking.

However, in Local Government Tom Parent asked the question: “But what happens if state governments become little more than federal puppets? And what happens if state laws become carbon copies of federal policy?  Where do the people move to escape  the tyranny of an all-powerful government?” Good questions all. And those living in the “reconstructed” South after the war had no real answer for such questions. Sadly, even with Trump in office, we don’t seem to today either. The situation Tom Parent mentioned is one Southern folks lived with daily. Today the entire country lives with it. As I have often said in some of these articles “reconstruction is ongoing.” So let it be stated here, one more time, federal intervention in state and local affairs did not start with the election of Franklin Roosevelt, or even in 1913, as most patriots today seem mistakenly to believe. It started with Lincoln in the 1860s!

In this context we might well question what radical Thaddeus Stevens’ true motives were in pushing so hard to get the 14th Amendment enacted into law. Vindictive and spiteful though he was, Stevens was no dummy. He had calculated the effect the “emancipation” of the slaves would have on the Republican Party. The federal constitution only allowed for three fifths of the unfree population to be counted in apportioning representatives for the Southern states. Now, if the slaves were “free” their whole number would suddenly be counted. Stevens’ calculations showed that, should Southern representatives be able to enter Congress, the Democrats would have a solid majority, and no radical Republican legislation could be enacted if such were the case. In order that such not be allowed to occur and thus damage the Republicans plans for a one party state, Southerners must not be allowed to share in the national government. At least they must not be allowed to share in it until the Constitution could be so amended as “to secure perpetual ascendancy to the party of the Union.” Stevens’ desire for basically a one party state is consistent with most socialist societies.

Stevens thought an appropriate amendment would be one that changed the basis for representation to the number of people in a particular state entitled to vote at that time. Stevens figured that would reduce the Southern congressional membership from 83 down to 46.

Stevens, from time to time, put his foot in his mouth and expressed his heart-felt desires. When the second 13th Amendment was passed on December 18, 1865, over seven months after Lincoln’s death, Stevens gave his arguments for maintaining the Republican Party in perpetual power. He said: “It is time that Congress should assert its authority and assume something of the dignity of a Roman senate.” His concept of how much power Congress should have was not in keeping with constitutional limits. But then socialists with visions of one party states are seldom fond of potential limits on their power.

Richard Nelson Current, in his book Old Thad Stevens (page 230) stated: “Now that he had suspended the checks of a tripartite system of government, at least for a time, Stevens turned to the problem of getting public opinion on his side. In his daily mail he was receiving the praises of carpetbaggers and scalawags in the South.” Current’s comments revealed how little Stevens cared for the system of checks and balances supposedly put in the Constitution.  He just worked around them to achieve his revolutionary ends, just like much of Congress does today, in which he and others sought to completely restructure the American system of government. What Stevens and others of his ilk wanted was an amendment that would forever consolidate the Northern victory over the South. Many that sought this as eagerly as Stevens were men of considerable financial means, men in the railroad and iron industries in the North. After all, they reasoned, a little corporate fascism never hurt anybody, right? At least nobody important!

One brief note here as I close this out is a further  proof that our “history” books today do not give us anything to really grapple with. I have mentioned this previously but a little repetition does no harm.  When he was formulating the 14th Amendment, one of the people Thaddeus Stevens took advice from was Robert Dale Owen, son of the well-known English socialist. Worth noting here is the fact that Stevens was willing to take advice from the son of a well-known socialist,  who also had socialist leanings himself. It seems, in our day, that what we refer to as “historians” have, for our own good, decided that we do not need to be made aware of such things. In all the American history books I read in school, and in other places as well, I have never seen the first reference to Robert Dale Owen having ever had anything to do with the 14th Amendment. After all, students having to deal with possible socialist influence on the 14th Amendment might just disrupt the “fantasy island” image of our history that our handlers have concocted for us.

If people in our Congress were taking the advice of socialists in the 1860s then can we really be naïve enough to believe that our problems with socialism and communism in this country didn’t start until the first third of the 20th century?

If apostasy produced national decline and neglect, it started happening lots earlier than most  people, Christians included, will ever be willing to admit. And a final thought–if the War of Northern Aggression was responsible for the decline of orthodox Christianity in the South then what was orthodox Christianity in the South replaced with–theologically speaking? Ponder on that for awhile.

Advertisements

“Civil Rights” And Man’s Total Depravity

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

The Bible correctly notes the depraved nature of man. There are those who believe that man, left to his own devices, is, somehow “good” enough to choose to follow God of his own “free will.” A short study of the history of communism and its casualties over the years should be enough to disabuse them of man’s “goodness.” Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, chapter 3:10-11 is quite explicit in this area. It says: “As it is written, there is none righteous, no not one:  There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh God.” Lest some think this is merely Paul’s personal opinion,  note that Psalm 14:1-3 says just about the same thing.

One movement, among many others, that has manifested man’s total depravity in its ranks in the last 130 years has been the “civil rights” movement, even though it hasn’t always been called that.

Many were shocked several years ago when Rev. Ralph Abernathy’s book And The Walls Came Tumbling Down came out and in it, Abernathy admitted what many had long known, that Martin Luther King had had adulterous relationships  with various women during his time on the road. In truth, Abernathy, himself, was no paragon of sexual virtue. Many complained that Abernathy never should have written what he did–that he had, somehow, betrayed the civil rights movement with this little bit of truth.

However, let it be also noted that some of the earlier movers and shakers in the civil rights movement were far from being as pure as the driven snow as well.

Thaddeus Stevens, who foisted upon a questionable Congress the iniquitous  14th Amendment was, in regard to virtue, the spiritual grandfather of Martin Luther King.

In reference to Thaddeus Stevens, his biographer, Fawn M. Brodie wrote: “…he was an equalitarian who would pinion the Southerner for his racial bigotry and caste prejudices, but who for twenty years would live with a colored woman as his mistress…” So, what else is new?

Because of his pessimistic view of human nature, Brodie mistakenly tried to portray Stevens as a Calvinist. That Stevens may have, to some degree, recognized man’s depravity did not necessarily qualify him to take up the mantle of John Calvin! No Bible-believing Calvinist should have had a mistress. True Christian faith prohibits such behavior. Whatever Thaddeus Stevens may have professed to believe in, his actions and words were more Jacobin than Calvinist.

Martin Luther King was, over the years, known for his associations with Communists and their sympathizers. A man named Hunter Pitts O’Dell who worked as King’s staff consultant in 1960 had been identified as a Communist organizer. Upon being made “aware” of this, King announced he had discharged O’Dell. In actuality, O’Dell had been promoted and ended up running King’s New York office (sounds like King took lessons from the State Department). King then, supposedly, commenced to give O’Dell his walking papers yet a second time. A later check by UPI discovered that the oft-dismissed Mr. O’Dell was still on King’s payroll. What a surprise!

Wyatt T. (Tee) Walker, a staff aid to MLK was also editorial advisor to the Marxist-Leninist Progressive Labor Movement. And King was known to have had association with Carl Braden, another identified Communist and his front organization the Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF). So some of King’s associates were really Red, while some others were merely deep pink!

But, again, “Saint” Martin may have taken a page from the notebook of his spiritual grandfather, Thaddeus Stevens. Stevens was, in his day, no stranger to revolutionary aims, or acquaintances. Stevens, supposedly opposed to different classes of people, nonetheless, in his efforts at Southern “reconstruction” actually fostered the concept of class struggle. According to Brodie, Stevens was denounced as a “revolutionist, and Jacobin, a constitution-breaker, an American Robespierre.” All things considered, I think these are all accurate descriptions.  And as he sought to reshape the American Republic into his own image with his infamous 14th Amendment, Stevens had some assistance from an interesting source that our history books have said virtually nothing about.

According to the book Statutory History of the United States–Civil Rights, Part One  published by Chelsea House Publishers, one of the people that gave Thaddeus Stevens notable direction in regard to the 14th Amendment was none other than Robert Dale Owen, son of the well-known British socialist, Robert Owen.

The book stated, on page 215, in regard to hearings on the 14th Amendment:  “On April 21st, congressman Stevens reopened the subject with a draft amendment ‘not one of his own framing.’ The draft had actually been submitted to him by Robert Dale Owen, the English reformer (socialist) who had come to this country before the Civil War. The Owen draft covered most of the matters dealt with by the 14th Amendment.” In other words, Thad Stevens had help with the 14th Amendment from an English socialist! Let that little thought begin to sink in.

Robert Dale Owen was a man who totally rejected  the orthodox Christian foundations of this country.  Owen simply hated Christian schools because they were often (horror of horrors) run by clergymen, whom he distrusted and despised. Having rejected God and His Son, Owen put his faith for the “salvation” of America in the founding of public schools. So this anti-Christ collectivist was the man that gave Thaddeus Stevens a literary nudge with his personal draft of the 14th Amendment and its supposed “equal protection” for all under the law. I wonder how some of our Johnny-come-lately patriots would feel if they knew their prized 14th Amendment was, in part, the work of a British socialist. Well, folks, if you read this, you can’t honestly say no one ever told you.

If you look at the 14th Amendment, with its put-down of state citizenship as being inferior to national citizenship, you might almost say that such was a vital first step to relegating the states to the status of territories. In order for the “party of the Union” (Republicans) to begin to deal with the states in a territorial status, states’ rights had to be done away with. When that happens, then power reverts from the states back to the centralized national government. Look at what happened to the South after the War of Northern Aggression.

In our day, we might take this entire process a step further and say that “hate crimes” legislation, the office of “special investigations” the UN Genocide Treaty, and other such One World dinosaurs are nothing more than strides toward a kind of international “civil rights.” These things have all been promoted to gain wide public acceptance for the entire “civil rights” agenda.

Martin Luther King and his spiritual grandfather, Thaddeus Stevens, who had very similar views on sex and revolution,  have both done their part to create a “civil rights” movement that will, undoubtedly, stand as one of the major pillars of the New World Order, the Deep State. And a final thought–though some of you all will know before I even have to mention it, the one group that will have no rights whatever under this Marxian system will be white, Christian, Southerners!

Federal Precedence Over The States

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

A little review of the 14th Amendment shows us that it accomplished certain ends consistent with Yankee/Marxist revolutionary aims for both the War of Northern Aggression and for the period after that revolution.  We ought to get used to referring to it as a revolution for, in truth, it was the first American Revolution.

It was a revolution in which God-given liberties  were exchanged for “privileges and immunities” granted by an all-powerful federal government in Washington.  After the shooting phase of that revolution was over the United States played the part of Esau on a national scale. We traded our God-given birthright for a mess of federal pottage, and now we weep, as did Esau, because we do not have God’s blessing. In fact, if you read Patrick Henry, a case might be made that we did the same thing in 1787 in Philadelphia. At any rate, we don’t have God’s blessing because, in our apostasy, we don’t deserve it.

Instead of enjoying the blessings of God, we now labor under such apostate vehicles as Thaddeus Stevens’ 14th Amendment.

How many even realize that the 14th Amendment redefined citizenship in this country? Up until the War, a man was considered a citizen of the United States due to his first being a citizen of the state he lived in. A man was a United States citizen because he was first a citizen of Texas, or Louisiana, or New Jersey. His state citizenship gave him his status as a U.S. citizen.

After the adoption of the 14th Amendment, however, a man became foremost a citizen of the United States rather than of the state he lived in. His state citizenship was, to all intents and purposes, at best secondary, if even that. This was consistent with Northern revolutionary aims and opened the door for future federal intervention in the various states in areas the federal government  had no business being in.

The Kennedy Brothers, in their book The South Was Right, noted the political gyrations of Thaddeus Stevens and his Yankee/Marxist cohorts. They observed: “To secure enactment of the amendment, the Northern Congress had to accomplish the following: Declare the Southern states outside of the erstwhile indivisible Union. Deny majority rule in the Southern states by the disenfranchisement of large numbers of the white population. Require the Southern states to ratify the amendment as the price of getting back into the Union from which heretofore they had been denied the right to secede.” Did you get all that?

But they continued: “The third point could be turned into a Yankee brain-teaser.  The North, in 1866, removed the Southern states from the Union. This was the same North that in 1861 refused to allow the South to secede from the Union. This same North now declared the Southern states to be non-states. To get back into the Union (that originally the South did not want to be part of anyway,  and from which it had previously been denied the right to secede), it was required to perform the function of a state in that Union, while still  officially no longer a part of that Union, by ratifying an amendment that previously as states in the Union it had legally rejected! Words alone fail to meet the challenge of such pure Yankee logic.” Almost makes you wonder what brand of revolutionary weed Stevens and his pals had been smoking!

Some have, upon reflection, observed that the adoption of the 14th Amendment opened the door for the adoption of the 17th Amendment, the direct election of Senators by popular vote. One can, almost in overview, see an evolutionary process in this, whereby we first lose our state citizenship, then, eventually, even national citizenship, until we all finally become “citizens of the world” much like Karl Marx’s “workers of the world.” Don’t supposed there might be any connection do you?

So Thaddeus Stevens was a moving force in helping to bury the concept of state citizenship in favor of national citizenship. The naïve might be tempted to be charitable and feel that Stevens didn’t fully realize just what he was doing. Sorry, but I have a suspicious mind. Stevens, the professional South-hater, knew exactly what he was doing!

Stevens and his crowd were apostate revolutionaries of the first order. Their main agenda was to alter the American system of government, taking care to maintain the forms while changing the real substance. Unfortunately their revolution succeeded.  We today are living with the results of what they did. Whatever its faults, and they were numerous, the system of government the founders gave us died with the Southern loss of the Marxist/Lincolnist Revolution of 1861. Those who fail to recognize this have missed the boat. We hear so much talk today from sincere folks who have not been on the firing line long enough to know the difference. They shout about  “taking America back.” Back to what??? What most of them fail to realize is that what they want to take us back to is what they grew up with–the “good old days.” Won’t happen, because their “good old days” happened way after the revolution  had been accomplished. They are 150 years too late! You hear the same refrain from them regarding the public school system. They want to take it back to where it was when they grew up, not realizing that it had already been in revolutionary  mode back in the 1830s in his heyday. When something has been bad since day one, what do you “reform” it back to–pre-existence? That might not be a bad idea!

When Stevens introduced the 14th Amendment, some of the more cautious Republicans threatened to remove his third section of it, dealing with the ineligibility of former Confederate leaders to run for Congress until at least 1876. Stevens wasn’t having any of that! Through political maneuvering, at which he was a past master,  he put together a coalition of radicals and Democrats to prevent that change. He pled with them to fully retain that third section. His vindictive anti-Southern nature clearly showed as he pleaded: “It is too lenient for my hard heart. Not only to 1870, but to 18070,  every rebel who shed the blood of loyal men should be prevented from exercising any power in this government.” A true example of Northern charity and forgiveness.  Had Stevens been able to shape his vindictive attitude to conform to Biblical standards the country might have been better off.

However, Stevens lacked such capacity. Long after Stevens’ death, an old political opponent, Jeremiah S. Black, noted of him that: “When he died he was unequaled in this country as a lawyer. He said the smartest things ever said. But his mind, as far as his sense of obligation to God was concerned, was a howling  wilderness.” So noted Fawn Brodie in her biographical work on Stevens.

God stated in both Deuteronomy 32:35 and Romans 12:19 that vengeance belongs to Him, that man is only to execute that which God entrusts to him, and he is to leave vengeance to God. Stevens, in a manner so typical of most revolutionaries and apostates ignored this, as he did most of the rest of Scripture. With his revolutionary mindset, and for his own twisted reasons, he sought vengeance on all whites in the South, the vast majority of whom had never done him any harm.

The 14th Amendment, in its final form, dealt with four different areas. In the first, it made the radical departure of redefining citizenship as a national rather than a state matter. This was an important first step toward making the states mere vassals of the federal deity in Washington. The second section reduced representation in Southern states to a basis of the voting population only. The third section excluded Confederate leaders from office indefinitely, barring a two-thirds vote by Congress. The fourth section repudiated the Confederate debt and upheld the Union’s national debt.

Attempting to explain all the implications of this radical amendment would take more space than I can spare here and if it got too in-depth most would just quit reading. Hopefully these brief comments will give some the incentive to dig into the 14th Amendment, as well as the second 13th Amendment and the 15th Amendment to see what implications these have for us today, especially in regard to our modern “civil rights” movement.

“The Land We Love: The South And Its Heritage”

A book review by Al Benson Jr.

Dr. Boyd D. Cathey, retired registrar of the North Carolina Office of Archives and History, has written a book that can, and should, be embraced by every Southern patriot no matter where he lives. Its title is the title of this article.

The importance and tenor of Dr. Cathey’s book is described in a brief forward for the book, written by Dr. Clyde Wilson, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of History, University of South Carolina. Dr. Wilson has said: “We Southerners are blessed to have a rich story that is still powerful among us and also far beyond our borders. That history is envied and hated by postmodern Americans who have no story of their own and work to destroy the memory of ours. Defending our story is not backward or provincial but is a part of the defense of civilization as we have known it.” In reference to Dr. Cathey’s work he noted: “Herein he has erected a sturdy wall where we can gather to resist the barbarism of our time.” I have to say Amen to that. The anti-Christian and anti-Southern barbarism of our time needs to be resisted–and not only resisted but pushed back against. Dr. Cathey’s book gives us a sense of our history and heritage that will enable us to do that.

Dr. Cathey has divided his book into six parts: a defense of the South and its history; defending the symbols and monuments of our history; what the Nativity says to Southerners; eight Southern heroes and two demons; reviews of films and books; and a final brief part, with a Christian outlook, on the virtue of hope.

At the beginning of part one, Dr. Cathey notes what he called “a new reconstruction.” This is the current assault on Confederate heritage, well, not actually just current. It has been going on for some time now but has recently gotten even more rabid. He notes here, comments by Professor James McPherson, no friend of the South by any stretch of the imagination, and notes McPherson’s commentary in one of his books For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War. McPherson, possibly reluctantly, was forced to admit that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers felt they were fighting for liberty. After studying all kinds of manuscripts and thousands of letters, diaries, etc., McPherson wrote: “Southern recruits waxed most eloquently about their intention to fight against slavery than for it…that is, against their own enslavement to the North…Confederates professed to fight for liberty and independence from a tyrannical government.”

Dr. Cathey noted, on page 25, something I have written about several times–the cultural and theological difference between North and South in the 19th century. He says “In the South, orthodox, Trinitarian and Incarnational Christianity, in its various forms, has been and is still central to and pervasive in our society. This fact cannot be emphasized enough. While third and fourth generation Puritans of New England and various groups in New York and Ohio, began to veer into Unitarianism, transcendentalism, and heretical millenarian cults, the South’s popular orthodoxy inhibited deviations and hetrodoxy.”

He noted the tentative truce between North and South that lasted up until the 1950s. He observed “…the triumph of the ‘civil rights’ movement which in some ways was a frontal attack on constitutional republicanism and the rights of property, and the triumph of political correctness and cultural Marxism, all signaled the beginning of a ‘Second War of Northern Aggression’ aimed at totally reshaping and restructuring our culture and at rejecting the principles and beliefs of our ancestors.” He commented about the anti-South indoctrination in public schools and the entertainment media and through “virtual control of both political parties…” He took note of Jefferson Davis’ warning that “conflict between the South’s beliefs and victorious modernism had not ended with Appomattox.”

Dr. Cathey observed, quite astutely, that what passes today in this country for conservatism is actually what many of us refer to as “neo-conservatism” He referred to neo-conservatives as those who “made the pilgrimage from the Left into the conservative movement…” Unfortunately, with a little tweaking to make them sound more “conservative” they retained their Leftist worldview as they infiltrated the real conservative movement in this country. Today, neo-conservatives are closet globalists.

Starting on page 63 and continuing through page 74, Dr. Cathey deals with what he accurately labels “Merchants of hate” the Southern Poverty Law Center. Any Southern historian or patriot should be familiar with this group and its founder, Morris Dees. Dees and his group are infamous across the country and their checkered reputation is more than deserved.

Dr. Cathey demonstrates that he understands our problem when he titles chapter 15 in this book Taking Down Our Monuments is Part of the Marxist Campaign to Transform America. You can’t say it any plainer than that. Unfortunately today, it seems that many Southern patriots can’t seem to wrap their minds around this truth. If they are ever to be effective in standing up for their heritage they need to begin to grasp who their enemies really are!

In the middle of his book, after displaying examples of all the cultural Marxist agendas arrayed against us, lest we become weary in well doing, Dr. Cathey gives us commentary about the true hope of Southern Christian patriots when he notes the Nativity of our Lord. He says: “And although our Lord and Saviour indeed came first to the Jews, and offered them His reparative Grace and Salvation, it was by no means to be limited to them. Indeed, His message was universal (as it had been to Abraham). And those Hebrews who accepted the Messiah–and those gentiles who also joined them–became the Church, the ‘New’ Israel, receptor of God’s Grace and holder of His promises and carrier of His Light unto all the world.” In these often dark days of egregious cultural Marxist offenses against our heritage and culture we need to remember that our Lord is ultimately in control of all history and therefore, our efforts to preserve our culture and present the truth to our people and others are not in vain, even if we do not live to see the results of those efforts.

In part four of his book Dr. Cathey deals with eight Southern heroes and two demons. He presents to us commentary about each of these men, from Nathaniel Macon, who was instrumental in giving us our concept of states’ rights, to James Johnston Pettigrew, who fought at Gettysburg, and who said: “Local attachments are pronounced, by the modern school of social philosophers, to be relics of barbarism, ignorance and prejudice, forgetting that prejudices are given us by the all-wise Deity, as well as reasoning faculties, and equally for some beneficent purpose…Patriotism, an attachment to, a preference for one’s own home, is still a virtue prolific of measureless good, and for its foundation rests upon enlightened prejudice.”

Also included in this section are President Jefferson Davis and Robert Lewis Dabney. Dabney was probably one of the most prescient men of his time. He understood national issues and had the foresight to see where this country would logically go as a result of the Northern victory in the war. After the war he devoted much effort to writing about the problems with public education, the womens’ rights movement and many other controversial issue of that day. Reading Dabney’s comments in many of these critical areas and then checking out where some of those issues are at in our own day, I have to conclude that Dabney had a foresight in his day that few had. He wrote to warn people of where we were headed, but few listened to him. More’s the pity, for he was right on target.

Dr. Cathey continued on with commentary about Mel Bradford and Eugene Genovese, and Senator Sam Ervin. He even had comments about movie actor Randolph Scott, born in Virginia but raised in North Carolina. I recall him from my younger days, having seen many of his Western movies (Westerns have always been my favorites). Scott quit doing movies around 1960 because he saw the new trend in movies with all the nudity and rotten language and didn’t feel he wanted to be part of all that. Who can blame him?

Then, Dr. Cathey dealt with the two demons–Abraham Lincoln and Victor Davis Hanson. I won’t go into the sainted Mr. Lincoln here. Most who will read this already know where he was coming from and over the years I have written lots of stuff about him that was far from complimentary–but then he didn’t deserve any compliments. Victor Davis Hanson doesn’t deserve any either. I remember, years ago now, reading an article someone sent me that Hanson had written explaining how beneficial Sherman’s March had been for the South. I recall reading that and thinking “He’s has to be kidding, right?” I’ve read more than enough about Sherman’s March to know what it did to the South and anyone perverse enough to regard that atrocity as beneficial has to have a very unusual sense of “beneficial” in my estimation.

Included in Dr. Cathey’s book is a section on reviews of books and films contemporary to our day. Some of these were positive, but that was a few years ago. Nowadays anything positive about the South ends up on the “cutting room floor.” I recall reading reviews for Gods and Generals back in 2003. I felt it was a good movie. The reviewers trashed it. I don’t bother doing movies anymore–there is so little I like–but when I used to go I had one criteria I usually followed–if the reviewers all hate it then it’s probably worth going to see.

Dr. Cathey did take note of Dinesh D’Souza’s latest film Death of a Nation. D’Souza is another of those new film makers who seems to believe Lincoln was somewhat of a deity who gave his life to destroy slavery in the “racist” South. I’ve read enough of D’Souza’s tortured renditions of our history to know he doesn’t grasp it, has no feel for what really happened or how folks really felt about slavery or most other questions pertaining to the South and its heritage. So, unless you are one of those folks goes can knowledgeably critique D’Souza’s film work, don’t waste your money!

Dr. Cathey critiques several books in this section, one of them one I reviewed awhile back, Rekilling Lincoln, written by my good friend, and co-author of Lincoln’s Marxists with me, Donnie Kennedy. He points out many of the important points Donnie dealt with in Rekilling Lincoln.

There is so much more important material in Dr. Cathey’s book I cannot begin to cover it all. I had to skip many things I would have loved to have commented on that would have made this review ponderous enough that no one would have read it.
Dr. Cathey’s book is a must read for anyone who sees what goes on today in regard to our heritage and history. He realizes what is happening and yet, as a Christian, he encourages us to persevere and to have hope that what we do is not in vain. This is a message I needed to hear. After almost five decades of doing what I do, with political activism and Southern heritage, often with little positive result that I can see, I tend to get discouraged at times. I need to be reminded that “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1).

This very readable book by Dr. Cathey has been published by The Scuppernong PressP O Box 1724,  Wake Forest, North Carolina  27588 http://www.scuppernongpress.com and sells for $28.00. I heartily recommend it.

The Leftists’ Paranoid Fear Of Southern Heritage

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Way back in 1988 (ancient history now) I had an article published in the National Educator dealing with the extreme efforts of the NAACP to have Confederate flags removed from the capitol buildings in several Southern states. This, just to let you all know, that attacks on Southern culture and heritage have been going on much longer than the last couple years.

Needless to say, this sort of Orwellian activity on the part of the NAACP and other anti-South organizations has continued and steadily increased unabated to this hour. The NAACP  has, for at least the past three decades, been on a prolonged feeding frenzy when it comes to anything Confederate, no matter how small or insignificant it might be.

The NAACP’s checkered history has been a wonderment to behold over the years. They’ve had problems with some of their people in high positions over the years, and during the early 1990s they seemed about to go under until some little leftist bird chirped in their ear about how attacking all things Confederate might just revive their sagging membership roles if the propaganda were presented in the right format. They were quick to pick up on this theme and have literally ridden it to death ever since. And I guess it must have put some long green in the coffers for them, as hard as they’ve pushed it. Here is a group, supposedly formed to help black folks, yet it had all white presidents until at least some time in the late 1960s. That tells you something right there.

An excellent expose of the NAACP can be found in the book Biographical Dictionary of the Left, Volume 1, by Francis X. Gannon. It was published by Western Islands back in 1969, so you might have to hunt around by now to find a copy of it. If it has been reprinted I am not aware of it.

Since the early 1990s I have read literally scores of articles dealing with the ongoing leftists agenda  of removing Confederate flags, monuments, and other symbols from government schools, public  buildings and parks and other places, and since 2015, this campaign from the Left, and other useful idiots as well, has literally reached a fever pitch. It’s like the world will end for those people unless they get every remembrance of anything Confederate removed before Trump’s attempt at a second term–something else they want to do away with!

I have taken note of this disgusting process and believe me, it’s enough to gag a maggot! It is a classic cultural Marxist exercise in ethnic cleansing.

Many people ignorantly think the federal government never really got into the education field until 1958, when Sputnik supposedly came along. They’ve not read their history. Of course if they attended government schools they were given precious little real history to read, so I suppose you can’t really blame them. If the truth were known, Washington got into public education, at least publicly, as early as 1862. At that time, the real American Revolution, the War of Northern Aggression, was going full blast and the Yankee Empire was not sure it was going to win.

According to an article in Chronicles magazine by author John Chodes several years ago, it was in this questionable atmosphere  that Congress jumped in where angels feared to tread, and passed the Morrill Act. This act just about amounted to direct federal aid for education. The stated objective of the act was to: “fund colleges that teach agriculture and the mechanic arts, via money raised through federal land-grant sales.” According to Mr. Chodes: “The true objective (of the act) was to bring the Northern perspective to the reconquered areas of the South, to teach the rebels’ children respect for national authority–to break their rebellious spirit forever.  The three R’s had absolutely nothing to do with this landmark bill.” Knowing that he who pays the piper calls the tune, is anyone really surprised?

Senator J. P. Wickersham said, in 1865, that the great majority of non-slave-holding whites in the South were “deplorably ignorant” and it was this ignorance  that helped rebel leaders to enlist so many of them in Confederate armies. Wickersham felt that as long as they remained “ignorant” they would remain the pawns of “political demagogues.” In other words, unless the Southern “poor white trash” were properly “educated” with the proper Northern perspective, they would continue to be swayed by such banal considerations as Christianity, states’ rights, constitutional government, and a whole host of other such “unenlightened” doctrines. So, if only you could give them a proper Northern education, they could then become the pawns of “enlightened” Yankee/Marxist demagogues.

Wickersham then went on to state that: “A republican form of government cannot long last without providing a system of free schools.” Read that one again folks, while you choke on it! Anyone gullible enough to swallow that brand of bovine fertilizer deserves the upset stomach he gets from it. The last thing any true republic needs is “free (government) schools” or “free education for all children in public schools” as that vaunted champion of humanity, Karl Marx, so succinctly stated in The Communist Manifesto. I hate to differ with such educational champions as Wickersham and Marx, but I don’t think the average Southerner was nearly as ignorant as these men try to make out.

Senator Morrill, in seeking to justify his authorship of the Morrill Act said: “The role of the national government is to mold the character of the American people.” Wrong, Senator!!! The “role” of the national government, or of any government at any level, is defined in Romans 13. If these politicians in the 1860s had such a statist mindset, do you wonder why we have such problems today? And some naïve people today still think that socialism in America didn’t rear its ugly head until FDR in the 1930s! As my daughter says “wake up and smell the coffee.” You are at least a 100 years off in your thinking.

Government schools will ever continue to pass off abolitionist fables to the unsuspecting as “history.” They dare not inform you of the Christian revivals that took place in the Confederate armies during the war. And they will never inform you about the Christian conviction and dedication of men like Lee, Jackson, Stuart, Davis, and many many others. All you will ever get from today’s “historians” (and I use that term quite loosely here) is tales about how these men were slave-owners and, therefore, all white supremacists. End of discussion!

But not to worry, both the leftist NAACP and the left-leaning government school system have plenty of other help in making sure the average American has no clue as to what Southern heritage and history were and are all about. One who has done yeoman duty in this coverup has been court historian James McPherson. Over the years McPherson has been a favorite of the political left, having been cited numerous times on the World Socialist Website, and having also admitted, quite proudly, that Abraham Lincoln championed the leaders of the 1848 socialist revolts in Europe, and those same socialists, in turn, supported his presidency. If you need more information in this area get a copy of Donnie Kennedy’s and my book Lincoln’s Marxists. After you read it, donate it to your local library so other folks can also learn.

If you don’t think the leftists have been on a mission to trash Southern culture then you obviously have not kept track of the perambulations of outfits like Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Now we have to admit that the leftists are really the “up front” guys in this cultural genocide against the South. There are people in back of them that promote and finance their attacks on the South and its heritage, people that want us and our Southern culture destroyed every bit as much as the leftists do. Lots of those people reside in the Swamp in Washington and are denizens of the Deep State. Their vision of a New World Order has no  room in it for the preservation of Southern history, heritage and culture, particularly if any of that relates to Christianity. Shorn of all their sophistry, that’s where their attack on us and our heritage is really headed. In the final analysis, that’s what it’s all about.

Smithsonian Trashes Southern Heritage

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

Many have naively thought for decades that the Smithsonian was a place where you could learn real history about events in this country and the rest of the world as well. A recent article in the Smithsonian Magazine for December of 2018 has given the lie to such foolishness.

The article can be viewed at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/costs-confederacy-special-report-180970731 If you want something to really upset your supper, this is it! It was written by Brian Palmer and Seth Freed Wessler, both of which writers have impeccable reputations with all the liberal journals in the country, the Washington Post, New York Times, Mother Jones, The Nation and others.

This article makes no pretense at objectivity. It is a thoroughgoing hit piece with Southern heritage, culture and history squarely in the crosshairs.
Their whole approach to the history of the South and of the War of Northern Aggression is that it was entirely all about slavery and white supremacy and nothing else. They visited Beauvoir, asked a lot of questions about slavery and when they were told the war was not all about slavery they rejected that information. In noting the actions of war re-enactors they saw while they were there, they noted: “Their cannons boomed, muskets cracked, men fell. The Confederates beat back the Federals. An honor guard in gray fired a deafening volley. It may have been a scripted victory for the Rebels, but it was a genuine triumph for the racist ideology known as the Lost Cause…”

From that searing commentary they go on to discuss Confederate monuments. If you understand the mysterious liberal mystique you already know where these two “gentlemen” are going. Regarding Confederate monuments, they say “First, far from simply being markers of historic events and people, as proponents argue, these memorials were created and funded by Jim Crow governments to pay homage to a slave-owning society and to serve as blunt assertions of dominance over African-Americans….A century and a half after the Civil War, American taxpayers are still helping to sustain the defeated Rebels’ racist doctrine, the Lost Cause. First advanced in 1866 by a Confederate partisan named Edward Pollard, it maintains that the Confederacy was based on a noble ideal, the Civil War was not about slavery, and slavery was benign…”

And then these two worthies show where they are really coming from. They quote Heidi Beirich, from the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama. Beirich said “Confederate sites play to the white-supremacist imagination. They are treated as sacred by white supremacists and represent what this country should be and what it would have been” if the Civil War had been lost. I hate to burst the racist bubble of these two men, but nowadays, anyone who quotes the Southern Poverty Law Center betrays their ignorance. That organization has such a checkered reputation that quotes coming from it are no longer considered credible, in fact the organization itself is hardly credible. Check them out on the internet sometime. You can really get an eyeful!

One thing I noted in this article, with all their blather about slaveowners all being “white supremacists” they don’t have a word to say about black slaveowners, of which there were a considerable number. or about Native American slaveowners, of which there were also a goodly number. That’s part of the history you are not supposed to be aware of.

They go on to complain about the amount of money spent by states to preserve Confederate monuments. No complaints about how much is spent to preserve Yankee monuments. I guess there is no problem with those expenditures, just the Confederate ones.

They visited several sites in the South where guides explained to them what the war was  all about (not slavery) but the slavery issue was the one thing they continued to harp on no matter where they went. You could tell, that, for these two, whether it was true or no, this was the issue they were going to write about–no matter what. Their minds were made up before they even started–like so much of the liberal (socialist) media in our day.

They noted that W.E.B. DuBois, one of the movers and shakers in the early NAACP was quoted as saying: “The truth of the matter would be an inscription something like this: sacred to the memory of those who fought to Perpetuate Human Slavery.” Here they are quoting a man, a dedicated leftist, who, before he passed from this mortal coil, joined the Communist Party, that great Marxist organization we all know has promoted freedom and liberty for all, right?

About two thirds of the way thorough the article they note someone else that compares the Confederacy to Nazi Germany. I could have quoted lots more of this, but reading some of their diatribe, quite frankly, was making me sick to my stomach! If people like these two display the level of what has been taught for history in our high schools and universities in this country, then no wonder we have major problems. Some kind of major study needs to be done as to what our young people are being taught for history.

If this obvious propaganda piece is the best that the Smithsonian can do then they should hang their heads in shame!

The Joint Committee on Reconstruction–or do you love Big Brother?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Many Southern folks were, quite naturally, bitter after the War of Northern Aggression was formerly (if not actually) over and the Marxist/Abolitionist cultural pogrom called “reconstruction” was foisted upon them. They’d seen their country pillaged and burned by Yankee/Marxists during the war and now they were seeing the last ounce of blood being wrung from it via “reconstruction.” Although I’ve mentioned it before it’s worth noting again–the term “reconstruction” is really a Marxist term. When Karl Marx lavished praise on Abraham Lincoln, one of the things he praised him for  was that he was fighting for “…the reconstruction of a social world.” So please, get it fixed in your minds that “reconstruction” in the South was really nothing more than Marxism in living color.

One bitter Southerner was a man named Innes Randolph, who penned the words to a song many of us unreconstructed folks know and enjoy, entitled Oh I’m a Good Old Rebel. After mentioning his hate for “the Yankee nation” and its flag and founding documents, Randolph closed his song with: I can’t take up my musket and fight ’em (the Yankees) now no more, but I ain’t gonna love ’em now, that is certain sure. I don’t want no pardon for what I was and am. I won’t be reconstructed and I don’t care a damn.

Whether you totally agree with all of Randolph’s comments and sentiments (some Southern folks don’t completely) is not the real  He expressed a viewpoint that was, at least partially, natural to many after the war’s end. The wounds were not healed yet, it was way too soon for that–and “reconstruction”  was never intended to heal them–then or today!

“Reconstruction” was put in place to do two things. First, it was to teach the Southerners that you don’t mess with the central, collectivist regime in Washington, because, from here on, that’s where the real power is for the forseeable future–the power we today refer to as The Deep State. This was the very dubious benefit of the North having won the war–they gave us the Deep State that all Swamp Creatures today know and love.

Second, it was to do exactly as Marx said–to reconstruct the social order of the Old South, their culture and their total worldview, and to remake it over into something in accord with the gosh-awful collectivist mentality of the North. The Marxist/abolitionist/reconstructionists realized they would have a problem doing that to any extent with the Southern soldiers who had just opposed them in the war, and so they didn’t spend much time trying to preach the gospel of Northern collectivism to them. Rather, they imported government schools in from the North and mentally savaged the “rebels’ children.”

That those movers and shakers in Sodom on the Potomac felt that centralized government was now the order of the day is evident from some of their comments. Just look at Thaddeus Stevens remarks about the “perpetual ascendency of the party of the Union.” If that wasn’t a call for a one party state then no one ever heard one. And then there was the comment by Senator Justin Morrill where he said: “The role of the national government is to mold the character of the American people.” You have to wonder whoever told him that! Comments such as those of Stevens and Morrill would make any Marxist, even today, just drool with anticipation–why these men though along the exact same lines as good old Uncle Karl (Marx). The Washington Establishment was, so it appeared, already heavily addicted to the heady wine of totalitarian centralized governance, that would spread its tentacles across the country, east to west, and run everyone’s life from one seat of central power. You can see why the concept of real states’ rights was anathema to those disciples of Marx, and why Reformed or orthodox Christianity was too. Those men totally embraced the Unitarian concept of the highest power belonging not to God, but to the State (nation). So if you wonder where the concept of today’s Deep State came from, look no further!

In 1866 the Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction held hearings. Mind you, in many cases, these hearings were conducted within a year or less after the shooting part of the War was over. As with most congressional committees, much of what went on was an exercise in irrelevance. I have read a fair bit of the testimony presented in these hearings, though I probably need to go over some of it again–but at some point when I have a stronger stomach!

If you’ve ever wondered why some congressmen sound like perpetual candidates for a home in la-la land you can learn why from reading The Report Of The Joint Committee On Reconstruction.  My copy is a reprint, printed in 1969, by Negro Universities Press, a division of Greenwood Publishing Corp. in New York. Some of the questions those august legislators asked might lead you to believe they were George Orwell’s spiritual grandfathers.

On February 7, 1866, the committee took testimony from one Charles Douglas Gray of August County, Virginia. Mr. Gray was examined by a Mr. Howard, who asked, among other questions: “Do you think that those persons in the county who took up arms against the United States are beginning to regret that they stuck at Uncle Sam?” Talk about leading questions! As for who “struck” at who first, the Southern perception of that would be much different than the standard abolitionist rhetoric that passes today for history. But,  then, that difference was part of the reason for implementing “reconstruction” wasn’t it?

Howard then further questioned Mr. Gray: “How do rebels that have been pardoned there generally speak of the government of the United States–in terms of respect, or of contumely and defiance?” Come on now, how did Howard expect ex-Confederates to feel only ten month after hostilities had, in the main, ceased, warm and fuzzy toward their conquerors?

On February 8th, this same Mr. Howard examined  M. D. Corse of Alexandria, Virginia. He put to Mr. Corse this question: “To use a common expression, do you think the secessionists generally love the government of the United States?” Folks, that had to be the dumbest question of the decade! Did Howard really expect that secessionists were going to have fallen in love with the U.S. government by early 1866? That unhappy result wouldn’t come for decades yet and when it did come, it would be the result of “reconstruction’s” mandated government school system in the South. When Dr. J. B. Johnson was asked by Howard: “Does the secession part of the people generally feel kindly toward the government of the United States” Johnson replied “They manifest no opposition.” Such an understated reply was remarkable for its restraint.

As you read through this testimony you find, again and again, that one of the basic questions these “reconstruction” inquisitors asked Southerners was “Do you love (Big Brother) the government of the United States?” Some of these Southern folks thusly questioned have to have laughed up their coatsleeves at being touted with such inane questions. This was the 19th century version of “Hey, the federal government has  just shafted you and your family–don’t you just love us for it?”

However, some Southern replies to some of these questions were serious and more than a bit revealing–if you know the real history. A Jaquelin M. Wood was examined by Mr. Howard on February 9th and was asked the question: “How do they regard Robert E. Lee?” The answer was “They look upon him as the greatest man of the nation, and the best man…They often say they were conquered by numbers, by the influence of foreigners.” The question was also asked, and it was a leading question,–how did Southerners feel about the number of Yankee troops in the field. And the reply was “Yes; there was more than they calculated upon in the first place. They account for it by saying that Foreigners reinforced the Yankees…” Now where do you suppose those foreigners all were, and where did they come from? You don’t supposed some of them could have been the Marxist/socialist Forty-Eighters from Europe do you? Oh probably not–after all, our current “historians” hardly even mention “those people.”