Republicans No Different In 2015 Than In 1860

By Al Benson Jr.

I continue to be amazed at the number of patriotic and “conservative” sites on the Internet that express shock that the Republican Party seems to be playing along with Comrade Obama’s socialist agenda for this country. They seem to feel that the Republican Party is some great bastion of conservatism that will step up to do battle with the “liberal Democrats” in the name of God and country. Folks, that outdated notion is hogwash. Get over it! It has never been that way and it never will be. The Republican Party is almost as far to the left as today’s Democratic Party is. They are just better at hiding it. This is nothing new.

In our book, Lincoln’s Marxists, Walter D. Kennedy and I noted, on page 48, that: “The very foundation for modern-day liberalism/socialism was laid by the many and various utopian ideologues of the nineteenth century. The fact that these utopian socialists/communists found Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party to be objects worthy of their zeal and efforts speaks volumes as to why post-Appomattox America has adopted most, if not all of the early American socialist/communist goals. Universal suffrage was a dream of every socialist/communist movement in Europe and America; even Karl Marx spoke in favor of universal suffrage. The same can be said about a progressive income tax, abolition of the rights of inheritance, a system of national education, centralized banking and many other such socialist/communist measures.” And on page 50 we also noted: “The thought of Lincoln as the first American president to have had a communist sympathizer working in a key part of his administration is, and should be, shocking to all Americans. Charles Dana, who visited Marx in 1848, was an associate of Horace Greeley and an early convert to the communistic Fourierist movement. Dana served as assistant secretary of war under Edwin Stanton during the Lincoln administration, thus becoming the first communist, or at least the first communist sympathizer, to serve in a high position within the government of the United States.” And this was in a Republican administration and it was only the beginning. Then there were the socialists, notably Carl Schurz among them, who helped to write the Republican Party Platform in 1860.

There are some who inform us that the Republican Party is the party of small government. Though many of them may be sincere, they are sincerely in error—grave error, and we shouldn’t believe it. Walter Kennedy has also observed, in his recently released book Rekilling Lincoln that: “While often characterized as the homely rail-splitting lawyer from backwoods Illinois, Lincoln was in reality a high-pressure, well-connected corporate lawyer of the largest corporation in America during the early part of the nineteenth century. Although Lincoln is often depicted as a meek and humble friend of the common people and the downtrodden, in actuality Lincoln had a close association with numerous railroad barons. These railroad barons were some of the richest and most powerful men in America at that time.” Both Lincoln and his mentor, Henry Clay, were men who believed in the use of governmental power to protect special industries. And Donnie Kennedy has noted that: “…this system establishes a means whereby well-placed persons could leverage their position in government and finance for personal advantage.” Does that sound any different from today? Republicans and Democrats alike play this game and one hand washes the other.

For those still under the illusion that the Republican Establishment will combat Comrade Obama’s rampant socialism all you have to do to disabuse yourselves of that fantasy is to read an article that appeared on http://townhall.com for March 7, 2015, which was written by John Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins presents some very cogent points folks need to begin to consider. He says: “How do you think Republicans would have done in the 2014 elections if they had told the truth about what they intended to do when they took over the Senate? What if they had campaigned on working hand-in-hand with Obama to enact his illegal alien amnesty while supporting his budget priorities, confirming a new Attorney General who thinks everything Obama is doing is fine and promised they would do nothing while he illegally bans ammo, cripples the Internet, and lets the EPA run wild? Republicans are even gearing up to SAVE OBAMACARE if the Supreme Court guts the subsidies…What’s left unsaid is that he’s only able to do it because Republicans in the House and Senate are standing by impotently and allowing him to do whatever he wants.” Hawkins accuses the Republicans of “rank cowardice” in all their confrontations with Obama. Up to now, he’s called it right, but here I have to disagree with him. It’s not cowardice on their part. The problem is that the Republicans are just as much socialists as Obama is and they really have no problem with any of what he is doing. Doesn’t that thought give you the warm fuzzies? We have a Congress, no matter which party is in power, that really has no problem with socialism and they will do whatever it takes to protect Obama’s socialist agenda, all the while loudly complaining about how much they are opposed to it. Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B, your names are really Republican and Democrat, and you both work together to give this country the socialism most of us don’t want—but we’ll get it from you anyway, no matter the party label.

The legislative branch of government has sold out to the executive branch, and all of this will soon be “legitimized” by the judicial branch when they again okay Obamacare as they have done in the past, and again, the supposed system of “checks and balances” we are supposed to have with the Constitution has gone by the boards. It has gone by the boards so much in my lifetime I am beginning to wonder if it really ever existed except on paper.

We have got to begin to rethink the fable that the Republican and Democratic Parties are different than one another, that they have different worldviews and goals. It just ain’t so. They both have a One World socialist viewpoint and that’s where they are both trying to take us. You can’t depend on the Republican Party or its minions to combat Obama’s socialism/Marxism. The Republican Party exists to lead you into it without your being aware of it.

Thanks to our government “education system” the average American citizen is being rendered unfit to govern himself and he is being recreated as nothing more than a mindless zombie who is just one more cog in the government/socialist wheel. And as long as you continue to “educate” your kids in this system all you are doing is helping them to create junior socialist cogs for their One World wheel. We have got to start thinking outside of that box. We don’t have much time left. Maybe we had best start asking the Lord to remove the scales from our eyes so we can begin to see what we need to do.

“Rekilling Lincoln”

by Al Benson Jr.

Walter Donald (Donnie) Kennedy, co-author with me of Lincoln’s Marxists a major expose of Lincoln and his leftist legions, has authored another book that explodes many of the Lincoln Cult’s fabulous “historical myths” and straightens out the historical record for those that wish to know the truth.

The title of Donnie’s new book is Rekilling Lincoln and it is published by Pelican Publishing in Gretna, Louisiana. There have been several good books in the last decade or so dealing with what Mr. Lincoln really was instead of what we have been told he was. I have read some of them and they are good and necessary to poke holes in the Lincoln myth. I have said, in the past, that what Lincoln’s apologists really sought to do was to enthrone Lincoln as the fourth person of the Trinity and change it to a quartet. Their object has not changed, hence books like Donnie’s new one are increasingly necessary to combat the continued apotheosis of the sainted Mr. Lincoln.

What Donnie does in this new book is to explode some of the myths surrounding Mr. Lincoln in major areas. One of these has to do with the Emancipation Proclamation, a much misquoted document which has often had major parts deleted when being presented to high school students as “evidence” that Lincoln “freed the slaves.” This is the type of twisted history we have come to expect from establishment “historians” whose agendas are more important than the truth. But folks wanting to learn the truth, be they young or old, deserve better, and Donnie, in this book, gives them better.

He has several pointed comments about this famous proclamation and he points out serious defects. He notes: The first defect is seen in the date of the first official publication of the proclamation, which was issued in September of 1862. The original document allowed time for Southern slaveholders to save their slave property by returning to the Union. By rejecting the right of secession and allowing the power of the United States to be resumed in their states, Southern slaveholders were assured that the Emancipation Proclamation was to be null and void in their state. Lincoln’s proclamation clearly stated that unless those states that were in rebellion against the United States returned to the Union by January 1, 1863, freedom would be granted to all slaves within those states.

So basically what Lincoln was saying to slave owners was “If you will only come back into the Union you can keep your slaves.” So much for the vaunted Lincolnian “compassion” for black folks! Lincoln had previously stated that his main object was to preserve the Union and if he could do it by freeing some slaves he’d do it; if he could do it by leaving the slaves in bondage he’d do it, but that was his main thrust either way. And I guess, at this point, I have a question. If the Union has to be preserved only by force, with troops and bayonets, is it worth preserving? People like Patrick Henry didn’t think so, but Lincoln did. To paraphrase what Ronald Reagan said once to a political opponent, in regard to Lincoln, “You’re no Patrick Henry.”

And Donnie continues: The second defect in the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln states that the declaration is not a measure to promote freedom by destroying slavery but rather a ‘fit and necessary war measure.’ It should be remembered that, at the time this proclamation was issued, the United States had suffered numerous serious defeats at the hands of the Confederate army. From the first major battle of the war, Manassas, in 1861, to Fredericksburg in 1862, the South had stunned the United States and the world with its ability to defend its independence. Lincoln’s war effort was in shambles, and the one great fear that ran through Washington–other than a Confederate army marching down Pennsylvania Avenue–was the recognition of the Confederacy by European nations…Having lost the advantage on the battlefield, Lincoln was forced to engage in political subterfuge to prevent one or more European nations from recognizing the Confederate States of America as a sovereign nation…The Proclamation gave the appearance that by supporting the Confederate States of America, a nation would be ‘defending slavery.’

Lincoln’s own words, in his First Inaugural Address gave the lie to what he was about to do. In that address he said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Even the Republican Party platform for 1860 said the same thing. It stated: “That the maintainance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions (this is a pseudonym for slavery) according to its own judgment exclusively is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed forces of the soil of any State or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.” Wonder if he included the invasion of the South after Fort Sumpter in that catagory.

I will do more with Rekilling Lincoln as the Lord allows, but this was a good starting point. You can begin to see that “Honest” Abe’s attitude toward slavery and slaves ain’t quite what you were taught in school that it was. If you want more of the truth of the reasons behind the “Civil War” then get this book.

The Guilt Complex Industry

by Al Benson Jr.

Marxist Cultural Genocide takes many forms, everything from destroying the cultural symbols of a people to making them feel guilty about who they are, making them ashamed to be what they are so they long to be something else.

Ever since the supposed end of the War of Northern Aggression (it never truly ended because it was a culture war) in 1865 it has been the main chore of the Yankee/Marxist propaganda mills to make sure the Southern people never felt good enough about themselves or their Cause that they would stand up and defend either their Cause or themselves. These subversive tactics ranged everywhere (and they are blatantly apparent in our day) from the removal of Confederate flags, statues and even street and park names to trying to make Southern folks feel guilty about their Southern accents. I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I once talked to a couple of nurses in a doctor’s office I visited. They noted the difference between my accent and theirs and they told me “we sound stupid.” I tried to disabuse them of such foolishness and asked them right out “who told you that you sound stupid?” No reply, but they were convinced that their Southern accents made them sound dumb, ignorant, or whatever and I could not convince them otherwise.

They even have courses in some colleges to help Southern young folks “get rid” of their Southern accents and sound just like those cookie-cutter models you see on the network “news” programs. Yuk!!! Give me a good Southern accent anytime! I guess one way to promote egalitarianism is to try to make everyone sound alike. Again, yuk! No matter what noble sounding reasons they attempt to give for this kind of thing, it is still cultural genocide. You are consciously tearing down Southern cultures and speech patterns and what are you replacing them with–a New Jersey accent? Heaven help us!

I’ve been watching much of what has gone on in Lexington and Charlottesville, Virginia recently, where Confederate flags are being removed, not allowed to fly anywhere except maybe on one day a year, or where holidays commemorating Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are being “removed” so they are no longer celebrated–but you’ll notice they are quick to celebrate Martin Luther King day or Black History month. You have to wonder in these towns what holiday will replace Lee-Jackson Day, the celebration of Che Guevarra’s birthday maybe or Fred Shuttlesworth Day? If you don’t know who these last two names are, look them up while you can still find them on the Internet, before it is “neutralized.”

One major thing guaranteed to make Southern folks ashamed of who they are is the slavery question. This has been trotted out for so long by so many that it has finally gotten old. Southerners are constantly having the slavery issue thrown in their faces. Like they never had slaves in the North? Again, do a little homework. There is still evidence on the Internet (though it may disappear shortly) that shows that slavery was a going concern in the North. Most of you have probably heard of the state of Rhode Island, but how many of you know the full name of the state? It is the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Want three guesses as to why they named it that? Anyone that informs you that they never had any slaves in the North really hopes you are dumb, and if you are that dumb, maybe he can sell you a gold brick–genuine gold at bargain basement rates! Just give him your bank account number and he’ll deposit it in your account immediately if not sooner. The major difference between slavery in the North and in the South was that the Northern folks did away with it a few years earlier than the South did. And many Northerners that had slaves sold them South and after they’d got paid for them, told Southern folks that having those slaves was a sin and they should get rid of them. If it had been such a sin then why didn’t the Northerners emancipate them instead of selling them? You see, guilt often depends on whose ox gets gored (or who makes the profit).

One way the Yankee/Marxists have been able to instill guilt into Southern folks is via the public school system. You train three or four generations of public school kids with the idea that what their ancestors fought for was inherently evil and eventually, believe it or not, you are going to come up with a batch of kids that really believes that, and they end up feeling guilty because of who they are and not because of anything they ever did. I recall talking to a pastor once who told me that “after the War Between the States the South was the most heavily brainwashed part of the country.” He was right. Having lived down here for several years (and even before that) I have seen examples of it. Iv’e met Southerners who feel so much guilt over being born in the South that they feel this compelling need to atone for that sin by embracing Abraham Lincoln and the Union flag and denouncing as traitors anyone who will not do that. Someone from Georgia did that to me once and I replied with Patrick Henry’s famous quote “If this be treason then make the most of it.” I found it ironic that he, born and raised in the South felt the compelling need to wrap himself in Lincoln and his collectivist cause while I, born and raised in the North, felt, in the words of my friend, Donnie Kennedy that “the South was right.”

This kind of cultural genocide continues today, even as I write this. There are Marxist mentalities in Washington, New York, and other environs around the country that are working overtime to destroy the culture of the South, a culture more biblically based than anything they ever grew up in. I have long contended that the Christian base of Southern culture is really what they are trying to destroy. I haven’t yet seen anything to make me change my mind. The Christian faith is really hated by those people and those people actively work at trying to destroy it.

The Cultural Genocide Marxists are at war with the Christian faith and it’s time more of the Christians woke up and realized that.

Black History, Lincoln, and Passed Over Truth

by Al Benson Jr.

Well, this month black history is supposed to be celebrated and memorialized. So is Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. Ironic that the two come together in the same month. I notice that during black history month the activities of Martin Luther King are recalled and celebrated, but little is ever said about the accomplishments of people like Booker T. Washington or George Washington Carver. This is in error, unless the real agenda for this month is to promote the civil rights movement instead of showcasing the accomplishments of blacks that really accomplished something worthwhile as Washington and Carver did.

And then there is Lincoln’s birthday. Mr. Lincoln has been promoted as the one who freed the slaves (which he didn’t) and anyone who has read the normal “history” books in the last hundred years will be led to champion him as the “great emancipator” (which he wasn’t). He is portrayed as a great friend to black people (which he wasn’t). He is portrayed is one who believed in and promoted the equality of the blacks to whites (which he didn’t). To find out where Lincoln stood on that issue you need to check out the Lincoln Douglas Debates–the first complete unexpurgated text–published by Harper Perennial in 1993. Particularly you want to check out pages 61, 63, 189, 283, and 284.

Even after you have done that you will run across people who will blithely inform you that, when he died, Lincoln’s view of blacks had “matured” and that he didn’t feel that way anymore. Horse feathers! Lincoln’s view of blacks changed little and, again, contrary to what some will tell you he had not given up on the idea of deporting the freed slaves to some other country or countries that would have them. Interestingly enough, one of the promoters of the Emancipation Proclamation was Robert Dale Owen, well-known socialist and free thinker. Donnie Kennedy and I noted this in Lincoln’s Marxists on page 41. We stated: “…Owen’s personal letter to Lincoln was very influential in Lincoln’s issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation.” You might wonder why a socialist was interested in pursuing emancipation and let me tell you, it wasn’t for the benefit of the black folks.

Donnie Kennedy, in his book Myths of American Slavery observed that: “Not only did Lincoln hold to the belief of Negro inferiority, he was also a proponent of removing the African-American population from America once they were freed…Lincoln as the archenemy of slavery, promoter of equality, and friend of oppressed African-Americans is one of the most pervasive myths in modern America.” Of course, since the winners get to write the “history” books, inconvenient facts that get in the way of the agenda need to be shoved down the “memory hole” where, hopefully, no one will bother trying to pull them out. Another book you might want to check out along these lines is How the North Promoted, Prolonged and Profited From Slavery. It was written by three reporters from a newspaper in Connecticut, who, when digging into this subject in their own area, found a lot of information they hadn’t expected to find.

So, as this month progresses, look for heart-rending tales of Lincoln’s great love and concern for the slaves and look for more heart-rending stories about Martin Luther King’s heroic struggle against black oppression in the South, but don’t hold your breath waiting for any mention of Booker T. Washington or other blacks that have contributed to society. That’s not what black history month is really all about. Much of it is about pushing a “civil rights” agenda that is so overloaded with Marxism that it almost topples. There are those out there using the blacks as cannon fodder in their own revolution, and Lincoln did the same thing. The socialists and Marxists had an abiding interest in the War of Northern Aggression and they have an abiding interest in the so-called civil rights movement today. You have to wonder who pays the tab for all these protesters that show up at different demonstrations around the country because they sure don’t pay their own way.

Lincoln’s birthday is a great day for propagandists to get out there and spread even more of the prevarications they’ve been spreading for around 150 years now. They have to keep on running with the falsehoods. They can’t allow the next generation to get anything near the truth about Lincoln, the slavery questions, civil rights, or anything along those lines. Once they lose the propaganda edge their house of cards starts to tilt seriously–an event we can all seriously pray for.

Some Conservatives Starting To Recognize the Great Republican Con Game

by Al Benson Jr.

Awhile back I wrote an article entitled The Republican Party–There Are NO Conservative Roots There. It got a bit or circulation because some conservatives and patriots are beginning to realize that the current Republican Party is selling them out–lock, stock, and barrel. So, realizing that, they are becoming a little more open to checking out where the Republican Party might really have come from.

The Republican Party, the “Party of Lincoln” has always, with the exception of a few blips in the middle of the 20th century, been a party of big government. Their main strength has been in their deviousness in this area, their being able to fool so many people into believing that they were a party of “small government.” At many local levels this is probably true, but at real leadership levels it has never been true. It is true that the Democrats were once a party of small government, but those days are long gone also.

What we have today are two parties, much like two different wings on the same socialist turkey, but both are always pushing the turkey to fly to the left. One wing wants to turn left immediately, if not sooner, while the other wing is headed in the same direction, but wants to make the trip a little slower. The difference in the desired speed of the two wings discombobulates the turkey, but it also fools the voting public into believing that one wing actually wants to fly right, when nothing could be further from the truth.

From its inception, the Republican Party was a party of the left. You could tell that, if you understood history, by the first two presidential candidates they fielded–John C. Fremont and Abraham Lincoln. Suffice it to say that neither of them would have qualified as a bastion of the right. Both of them were enamored of socialists and outright communists, and some of the Republican candidates that followed after them had also strongly imbibed the foul wine of revolutionary socialism. You can tell that by reading some of what they said. They were big on centralized government, with all the real power in Washington.

Today’s Republican Party is no different. Oh, they will prattle about wanting less government when what they really want is less government controlled by their opposition so more of it can be controlled by them. Today’s Republican leadership is NOT against illegal aliens flooding the country, they are NOT against Obamacare (though they’d rather have it called Romneycare) and they are NOT against raising taxes on the middle class–they just want you to think they are.

I read lots of stuff on the Internet. Doing historical research tends to make one have to do that to keep up with what goes around, and what ought to go around but doesn’t–thanks to our intrepid “news” (blocking) media. There are some conservative and patriotic websites that finally seem to be waking up enough to recognize that this last big Republican victory in 2014 was hardly a victory for those of us opposed to big and unlimited government, but was, rather, a cleverly devised sham intended to keep the status quo in place while giving the illusion of “having thrown the bums out.”

Before the election, John Boehner roundly condemned (for public consumption) Obama’s illegal alien initiative that would leave most of the illegals still in the country. You got the impression from Boehner’s comments that the House was really going to go at it tooth and claw with Obama over the illegal issue. Within days of the election we found Boehner and the House more than willing to cave in and fund Obama’s illegal alien agenda through next September, all the while telling us how much they were opposed to it. It could be they really think this guy, Gruber, was right and that the American voters are just too stupid to know the difference. Or it could be that they really don’t give a hoot what we think. They, like Obama, have an agenda to fulfill for their bosses behind the scenes and they will do that no matter what we think. That’s the real reason they are there, you know. Doing the will of those that voted them into office doesn’t even begin to enter into the equation–not even worth the discussion.

So, let’s be brutally honest. The American people are about to get stiffed by both parties because both parties, at the national level and many state levels, are nothing more than socialist fronts for the internationalist crowd. All the rhetoric and hogwash thrown around to convince us differently is nothing more than bovine excrement. No one is Washington represents us, no matter what they say, and you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. All you have to do is look at how they vote! That, and a little homework, will show you where their real loyalties lie.

The real conservatives and patriotic folks in this country won nothing in the last election except the privilege of being lied to by Republican socialists instead of Democratic socialists. Big improvement, ain’t it?

Was the War of Northern Aggression a Marxist Revolution?

by Al Benson Jr.

The title of this article is asked as a rhetorical question, as Donnie Kennedy and I have already dealt in depth with this subject in our book Lincoln’s Marxists. But it does not hurt to ask it again, as many folks have not only not read our book, but they have never been confronted with some of the information that is now out there dealing with this subject. The leftist radicals in the early Republican Party were not bashful in giving away their socialist tendencies when they commented on the South and their plans for it and its people after the War.

James M. McPherson, who is by no means my favorite “historian” has dealt with some of this in an Internet article–Some Thoughts on the Civil War as the Second Revolution. McPherson seems to enjoy dealing with the subject of the War as if it were, indeed, a revolution, only he quotes the people that portray the Southerners as the revolutionaries. Needless to say, it was really the other way around. But then, a standard Marxist tactic is “condemn others and elevate yourself.”

McPherson noted the comments of future president James Garfield while he was in Congress, and he noted that: “During the first three of his seventeen years in Congress, Garfield was one of the most radical of the radical Republicans. He continued to view the Civil War and Reconstruction as a revolution that must wipe out all traces of the ancient regime in the South. In his maiden speech in the House of Representatives on January 28, 1864, he called for the confiscation of the land of Confederate planters and the redistribution of this land among the freed slaves and white Unionists in the South.” It hardly needs to be stated that such a concept is in total agreement with what Karl Marx advocated in the Communist Manifesto. This position was in total agreement with the first and fourth planks of the Communist Manifesto. Marx–sorry, I meant Garfield–then sought to excuse such Marxist confiscation on the premise that this had been done during our War for Independence with land that had belonged to the Tories. Of course a lot of the Tories had left the country, many going to Canada, and so much of their land was vacant anyway. And Garfield went on: “The leaders of this rebellion must be executed or banished from the republic…” So, was Garfield advocating mass executions of Southern leaders? Or at least their banishment so the federal government could then control the land that had been theirs? This was the same attitude as that displayed by General Sherman regarding Southerners–and it was still consistent with Marx.

Land confiscation was a cardinal tenet of Marxism and it was also a favorite among the Northern elite. In his book Citizen Sherman, Michael Fellman observed: “Land confiscation as one means of displacing the Confederate leadership had been discussed widely during the war. As early as August 24, 1862, John Sherman had written his brother, ‘If we can’t depend on the loyalty of the white men of the South, I would give the land to the blacks or colonize a new set (of northern whites).’ The general too had, since 1862, threatened Southerners with dispossession, their land to be redistributed to Northern white colonists…When the inhabitants persist too long in hostility it may be both politic and right that we should banish them and appropriate their lands to a more loyal and useful population…If they want eternal war, well and good; we will dispossess them and put our friends in their place…Many people with less pertinacity have been wiped out of national existence.” Almost makes you wonder if such is a veiled threat.

And Sherman made it quite plain that he would not hesitate to practice what we today call psychological warfare on the Southern people. According to Fellman, “His army would not inflict military defeat on a Confederate army, but intentionally humiliating destruction on a peaceful, cultivated Southern landscape and her people.” Lots easier to fight mostly unarmed Southern civilians than it is Confederate soldiers that can shoot back. But this is the way Marxists fight a war. Almost makes you wonder if Lenin took lessons from Sherman.

Radical abolitionist (and Unitarian) Wendell Phillips was among the most outspoken. In his mind he insisted that the War “is primarily a social revolution. The war can only be ended by annihilating that Oligarchy which formed and rules the South and makes the war-by annihilating a state of society. The whole social system of the Gulf States must be taken to pieces.” And dear old Thaddeus Stevens, that “gentle giant” of the radical abolitionists said they had to “treat this war as a radical revolution” and “reconstruction” then needed to “revolutionize Southern institutions, habits and manners…The foundations of their institutions…must be broken up and relaid, or all our blood and treasure have been spent in vain.” So, as you can see by the statements made, the real revolutionaries in this war were not the Southern people or their leaders, but were, instead, those among the Northern elite who had imbibed the doctrines of socialism that became so clearly apparent when they spoke. What they have been describing here is nothing less than what the Communists in Russia and China did when they took over those countries–cultural genocide. Change the culture and make it totally unrecognizable to those who had lived under the old Christian culture. For “those people” the war and “reconstruction” were nothing more than exercises in Cultural Marxism–the 19th century variety.

Back in 2012, Andre M. Fleche wrote a book called The Revolution of 1861: The American Civil War in the Age of Nationalist Conflict. I haven’t yet read it so I can’t comment all that much on it, but Fleche does deal with the Forty-eighters that Donnie Kennedy and I deal with in Lincoln’s Marxists. A review by Jarret Ruminski (University of Calgary) noted that: “Fleche supports his argument for the importance of 1848 by highlighting the significant roles European revolutionaries played in shaping American nationalist debates in the years leading up to the Civil War, and showing their continued influence after its outbreak.” So Mr. Fleche also recognizes how influential the Forty-eighters in this country were before the War and how their revolutionary influence affected what went on.

More and more, the general public, and especially Southerners, need to be much more aware of just how (from a socialist perspective) the North was influenced by the Forty-eighters and how that influence affected not only the War and “reconstruction” but how it has affected everything that has gone on since then.

This demonstrates that “reconstruction” never truly ended in the South, or anywhere else in the country, but is, in fact, in operation today. Obama’s plan to “fundamentally transform the United States” is all part and parcel of it. The old (Christian) culture has to be gotten rid of and a new one instituted. If you can say anything about Obama, you can truthfully say that he is a “change agent” for the New World Order, and he has taken many of his lessons in that area from Abraham Lincoln and from “Lincoln’s Marxists.”

Centralism Trumps “Checks and Balances”

by Al Benson

Well, we’ve just had an election and it looks to most people like the good guys won for a change. However, voters need to be discerning enough to realize that not all those who appear to be good guys (Republicans) really are. Some of them are no better than the Democratic socialists, the only difference being the party label. Remember that the first two Republican candidates for president in this country, John C. Fremont and Abraham Lincoln, were both socialists in their worldviews even if they may not have officially belonged to any socialist ” Party.” You can check out the backgrounds of both of these individuals in the book Lincoln’s Marxists.

Now that we have a Republican majority in both houses Comrade Obama has stated that he will just take “executive action” in regard to making illegal immigrants part of the national culture. Will the checks and balances that are supposed to operate with our current Constitution be enough to stop him. Will Congress do what it should do or will Obama just continue to get away with his lawlessness? Most of us know the answer and it’s not pretty. Congress will fume and fuss and make great pontifications about who should do what and that will be it.

The checks and balances that one branch of government is supposed to employ under the Constitution to check the usurpations of another branch will amount to nothing. It’s all, as one Christian pastor once said–“meaningless drivel.” Always has been.

Interestingly, one of the most insightful of the Anti-Federalists in the beginning was Robert Yates, a judge from New York who was also a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. At some point Judge Yates withdrew because he felt the convention was exceeding the instructions it had been given. Yates later wrote as “Brutus” about the debates over the Constitution. Given that he had expertise as a judge he claimed that the Supreme Court was destined to become a source of almost unlimited federal over-reaching, and his insight in this area has proven correct.

As “Brutus,” he observed that the Supreme Court, as envisioned under the Constitution, would end up becoming a source of growing abuse because they were beyond the control of both legislatures and ordinary citizens and they were in no way subject to being “corrected by any power above them.” Who is there out there that will correct them regarding their farcial ruling that Obamacare is constitutional? Where are the checks and balances in this situation? If any are present they are hidden under the political rug, never to be seen. Yates thought that the power the Court would command would be so irresistible that the judiciary would use it to make law. Gee, when has that ever happened? (Let us count the times).

That being the case, the Court could then proceed to interpret the Constitution according to the “spirit” of the law rather than the letter of the law. Looking at some of the “decisions” the Court has handed down in our lifetime, can anyone seriously doubt the concerns that Robert Yates had? In fact, if anything, his concerns could have been labeled as optimistic, because in his day, he could have had no possible concept of just how far the Court would go in promoting the agendas of radical, activist judges who would shamelessly promote their version of what they wished the Constitution had really said.

I can recall author and columnist, the late Joseph Sobran, writing on this subject years ago when he noted that the Court had found many “enumerated penumbras” in the Constitution that justified abortion, the murder of unborn babies. Many folks will ask “what’s a penumbra?” Good question. For want of being able to explain it legally, I will note that it is nothing more than the judicial version of “seeing through a glass darkly.” The lawyers see “rights” there that are never spelled out anywhere, except in their own minds. So there are no real checks and balances in play regarding the Supreme Court. It is truly a law unto itself.

Back in 2008, Dr. Clyde Wilson wrote an article called Nathaniel Macon and The Way Things Should Be in which he dealt with the career of Nathaniel Macon, the man that Macon, Georgia was named after. Macon and others in his family were quite discerning. He served with North Carolina troops in the War for Independence. Dr. Wilson noted of him that: “He was offered but refused a commission and he refused also the bounty that was paid for enlisting…In the next few years he was offered a place in the North Carolina delegation to the Continental Congress which he declined. It is noteworthy that his brother, John, voted against ratification of the new U.S. Constitution in both conventions of the sovereign people of North Carolina to consider that question; and that our State did not ratify until the first ten amendments, especially the 9th and 10th, were in place to limit the federal government.” And he commented on the new government, saying “As soon as the U.S. government went into operation, Hamilton and his Yankee friends, claiming that they were acting in behalf of ‘good government’ began to turn the government into a centralized power and a money-making machine for themselves by banks, tariffs, government bonds, and other paper swindles that would be paid for out of the pockets of the farmers who produced the tangible wealth of the country. To oppose this Macon accepted election to the U.S. House of Representatives for the Second Congress.” However, Dr. Wilson noted that “By the end of his life Macon had realized that the cause of republicanism was lost at the federal level, and also that the North was determined to exploit and rule the South. South Carolina tried in 1832 to use ‘nullification,’ state interposition, to force the federal government back within the limits of the Constitution. After he read Andrew Jackson’s proclamation against South Carolina, Macon told his friends that it was too late for nullification. The Constitution was dead. The only recourse was secession–…” These folks had it figured out by the 1830s that the Constitution was not going to work because no one was staying within the sphere of authority that was delegated to them. The checks and balances that were supposed to keep everyone where they belonged were just not being practiced. Each branch of the new government was doing what it wanted to do with no resistance from the other branches save a little breast-beating. It was only to get worse during the Lincoln administration, and worse yet during the “reconstruction” period, when Congress basically just did whatever they wanted. Johnson vetoed their indiscretions but they overrode that while the Supreme Court did little. Now we have a president (a would-be dictator for life if he could get away with it) who doesn’t even bother to consult Congress anymore. He just issues “executive orders” and rules like a Muslim potentate, so where are the checks and balances?

It’s all rhetoric, folks, that’s all it is. We have been lied to by so many for so long about so much, we wouldn’t recognize the truth if we saw it floating amongst all the political swill out there.

Three years ago, Mike Crane of Morganton, Georgia did a series in six parts called What Is States Rights? which you can still find on the Internet. Check out the website for the Southern Party of Georgia and read his comments. If that one is gone you can still find these articles on the League of the South website, probably in their archive. He observed: “In the very early days of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates, the framers of the Constitution, made a deliberate and conscious decision to discontinue a federated form of government and to replace it…let me emphasize…REPLACE IT…with a national form of government in their deliberations. Let me emphasize what this means for the concept of States Rights…By the votes of May 30, 1787 the framers of the Constitution began debating the ultimate elimination of States Rights.”

There’s a lot more to all this and I would encourage everyone to check out Mike’s articles and see what he has to say. You can bet the farm that you will never get this material from what passes for history books today.

Perpetual Union–If you can bamboozle enough people–Part Two

by Al Benson Jr.

So Chase followed in the same vein that Lincoln had–the Union existed before the states and it was indestructible and irrevocable. And once you were in, you were still in, even if you seceded–in fact you really didn’t secede, you only thought you did. Of course, then, to get back into this “Union” you had never really been out of, you had to ratify certain amendments. At this point, the logic (and I use that term loosely) of the Yankee/Marxist absolutely defies description.

You have to wonder where these people got their notion of an “indestructible” Union. Did it have anything to do with what they were smoking? When the group assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 gave us the Constitution (when it was really beyond their instructions to do so) what they did, in effect, was to secede from the Articles of Confederation and give us a whole new government–one that did not use the words “perpetual union” and one that did not forbid secession, even though I have been informed that it really did.

When the New England states sent delegates to Hartford, Connecticut in 1814 to consider the secession of the New England states no one said anything. Admittedly, they ended up not seceding because the War of 1812 which had New England merchants so stirred up ended. However, they were strongly considering it, as they did two other times. In those days you didn’t take trips like that just to engage in political chit-chat. Yet no one complained. No one told the New Englanders that their secession was illegal or that the supremacy clause in the Constitution forbid them from ever seceding at any time unless all the other states were willing to let them go. The right of a state to secede was accepted. Remember the secession language in the New York and Virginia ratification ordinances? But some inform us that this was all meaningless, that once you were in you could never get out unless all the states were willing to let you go. You almost wonder if there was a slight double standard in operation here–it would have been okay if the New England states did it but not if the Southern states did it.

Contrary to Chase’s “indestructible Union” theory, Professor Donald W. Livingston has written in Secession, State & Liberty that “There was a time, however, when talk about secession was a part of American politics. Indeed, the very concept of secession and self-determination of peoples, in the form being discussed today, is largely an American invention. It is no exaggeration to say that the unique contribution of the eighteenth-century American Enlightenment is not federalism but the principle that a people, under certain conditions, have a moral right to secede from an established political authority and to govern themselves.” Livingston further wrote that: “The Constitution of the United States was founded as a federative compact between the states, marking out the authority of a central government, having enumerated powers delegated to it by sovereign states which reserved for themselves the vast domain of unenumerated powers. By an act of philosophical alchemy, the Lincoln tradition has transmuted this essentially federative document into a consolidated nationalist regime…In this version, the reserved powers of the states vanish, and the states themselves are transformed into resources for and administrative units of a nationalist political project…” That is exactly where we find ourselves today, thanks to the views of men like Lincoln and Chase, who, in a political sense, “Changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator…” (Romans 1).

The Southern states, and some Northern ones, always considered the Constitution to be a compact between sovereign states. Had it been understood by them as anything but that, it is highly doubtful that many of these states, a mere thirteen years after the end of our War for Independence, would have entangled themselves in the clutches of an indissoluble union from which they could never withdraw. The Declaration of Independence was, after all, a secession document.

The Kennedy Brothers, in their groundbreaking work The South Was Right stated, on page 162: “In her act of ratification, Virginia drew a protective shield around the sovereign community and declared that sovereignty is derived from the people…The states did not intend to establish a supreme judge to rule over them. Before entering into the proposed constitutional contract, the state of Virginia (along with several other states, both north and south) declared the legal right of the sovereign community (the people of the state) to recall any delegated power if it is used in an act of oppression or injury against the people. The fact that the other states accepted the Virginia Act of Ratification without question is reason enough to maintain the assertion that they were in agreement with Virginia.”

If the Constitution is looked to as a document that forms an “indestructible” Union, then the states that ratified it have been lied to–sold a bill of goods, bought a political “gold brick’ as it were–a brick made not of gold, but of iron–that iron to forge the chains of those states that may finally realize they have been lied to and so they want out!

Secession was not illegal, was not rebellion as the Northern politicians claimed, and, as author James Street said: “The South got a raw deal.” And the Lincoln/Chase concept of “perpetual Union” is what is taught in the government schools in this country–to make sure no one ever again concludes that secession might be the answer to the problems of an ever-expanding socialist regime in Washington.

“Perpetual Union”–If you can bamboozle enough people into believing it

by Al Benson Jr.

In his rather convoluted thinking, Abraham Lincoln stated that: The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.” Some historians have noted that this association of the colonies before the Articles of Confederation was adopted, was a body that could only suggest certain courses of action, none of which had the force of law–a deliberative body–nothing more. Such facts made no difference whatever to Abraham Lincoln. They didn’t fit his agenda and so he ignored them. As far as he was concerned, it was all “the Union” even though his ethereal version of it existed in his mind before the documents that founded the Union existed. Walter Kennedy and I noted in Lincoln’s Marxists on page 109 and following, which is chapter 5 entitled Lincoln’s Mystical View of the Union that this was Lincoln’s mindset.

Sad to say, this seems to be a rather strong tack in the Yankee/Marxist mindset in general. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase also seemed to lean strongly in this direction with his view of the Union.

John Niven, in his book Salmon P. Chase–a biography also noted: Had the Confederate States by their secession from the Union given up their former identity as Sumner, Stevens and other radical politicians argued? If they had, then it would logically follow that secession was a lawful act and the Union had existed only at the sufferance of the states, an argument Lincoln dismissed as an abstraction…

It has been argued that “The South never really understood the Union.” That may be true–at least they never understood it in the sense that the Yankee did. Had they truly done so, I would submit that the Southern states never should have ratified the Constitution to begin with. Christian statesman Patrick Henry warned his fellow Virginians with common sense arguments and logic of the dangers of Virginia’s ratification of the Constitution. Virginians did not heed his words. They should have. And yet, maybe some of the mud stuck against the wall, for in Virginia’s ratification ordinances it was stated: We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected…do, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression. New York’s ratification statement pretty much says the same thing. And their ratification ordinances were accepted with this language included in them.

In other words, some states ratified the Constitution with the proviso that, should things not work out in this new union, they had the right to leave. That was the Southern understanding of this new Constitution, and it would seem that some Northern folks had the same understanding. I agree with them. Yet, suffice it to say, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, after the War of Northern Aggression (or could we call it the War of Marxist Revolution?) took a view totally opposed to that truth, as had Lincoln. Should anyone really be surprised? After all, the winners always get to redefine the “history.”

Chase noted, in 1869, that the Constitution in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. He felt that once a state or territory got into the Union, that was it. It was there for eternity unless its status was determined by a revolution, or “consent of the states.” Chase noted the language in the Articles of Confederation about a “perpetual Union.” That term, “perpetual” did not appear in the new Constitution, but rather the new document referred to a “more perfect Union.” Chase apparently took that to mean “more perpetually perfect.” If Chase was aware or either Virginia’s nor New York’s ratification terminology he kept silent about it. After all, those ratification ordinances contradicted his “indestructible Union” tomfoolery.

And Chase was, apparently, more than ready to accept more broad, sweeping powers for the federal government. In 1866 he observed: That the war had changed the government and the powers of government were essentially different from what they were before the war. Now there was an understatement if ever I saw one, and yet a revelation as well. He’s telling you, right flat out, that the war gave the federal government more and expanded powers–probably not constitutional ones–but not to worry, Chase’s Supreme Court would remedy that little problem.

To be continued.

Secession–Not Just Southern and Not Just Secular–Part Two

by Al Benson Jr.

Just before, and during, the War of Northern Aggression, the sentiment in favor of secession came from other areas of the country and not just from below Mason-Dixon.

In Douglas County, Illinois a meeting was held which announced that: “We regard the Emancipation Proclamation…as the entering wedge which will ultimately divide the middle and northwestern states from our mischiefmaking, puritanical, fanatical New England brethren…” Culturally, this has happened, even though Lincoln’s “mystical Union” has been held together with bayonets.

In Brown County, Indiana, a gathering was convened that put forth this sentiment: “…Our interests and inclinations will demand of us a withdrawal from political association in a common government with the New England states, who have contributed so much to every innovation upon the Constitution to our present calamity of civil war, and whose tariff legislation must ever prove oppressive to our agricultural and commercial pursuits.” Mind you, such secession sentiments are coming forth from Indiana and Illinois.

Other sources have cited secession sentiment in even the Middle Atlantic states–New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. Author William C. Wright has written that: “The secession movement was prominent in the five Middle Atlantic states. Within these five states were three types of secessionists; first, those who wanted to join the Confederacy; second, those who wished to form a central confederacy, that is, to join with the other border states and divide the United States into three separate nations; third, those who preferred to let the South go in peace rather than to use force to save the Union.”

Wright noted that Pennsylvania was the most pro-Union of these states, while New Jersey had strong economic and social ties with the South. New York was divided between the up-state region which supported the Union and the Hudson Valley and New York City areas that had ties to the South. New York City Mayor Fernando Wood had even made the proposition that New York City be made into a “free city.” Wright has duly noted that: “Together, the advocates of secession weakened the Lincoln administration’s ability to react to the Confederacy. At the same time, they offered the South hope of Northern support if war broke out.” In view of this, one might be led to wonder if this situation was the real reason for Lincoln’s actions in regard to Fort Sumter. I might also question why almost none of this type of material is ever presented in our “history” books, if such they can seriously be called. But that would be little more than a rhetorical exercise because I already know why.

The majority of people today, North and South, largely due to the abolitionist propaganda presented in our “history” books (whoever said history books had to teach real history?) and the rampant apostasy in the country as a whole, have viewed secession and the War of Northern Aggression in a strictly secular light. Many who have studied history will readily admit to the political and economic causes of the War, though some continue to persist it was all about slavery. However, most will not touch the theological reasons for secession.

However, there were many in the South that viewed secession in the same light that they viewed the biblical separation spoken of in Second Corinthians 6:14-18. They looked at an increasingly apostate and “progressive” North, while, in the main, most Southerners clung to orthodox Christianity. Informed Southerners watched much of the Northern clergy, no doubt influenced by the taint of Unitarianism, seek to deify man and to exalt the goodness of his human nature and his “free will.” It was the same sort of thing they did with abolitionist/terrorist John Brown in 1859 where Northern Unitarians claimed that Brown’s gallows was equal to Christ’s cross.

The late Professor M. E. Bradford, writing in the Southern Partisan magazine for the fourth quarter of 1991, noted that: “…Professor Bell Wiley observes, the Southern churches had always warned their communicants against ‘extreme confidence in human endeavor.’ The ordinary Southerner of 1860 did not approach the world as did those who had voted for Mr. Lincoln. They were…’as dubious of human ability in social and political matters as in the matter of salvation.’ The belief of the sovereignty of God and dependence of man was the whole of their thinking.”

In regard to Southern clergymen, Professor Bradford wrote: “Because most Southern clergymen were, during the years of sectional conflict within their denominations, convinced that apostasy and infidelity had become the dominant religions of the North.” You know something? They were right! Bradford observed that: “As the War approached, these (Southern) clergymen more and more tended to view the sectional controversy as a dispute between those who acknowledged the authority of the Scripture and those who set their own moral sense above it–in other words, between Christians and infidels.”

Thus we have another, seldom acknowledged, yet perhaps the most important dimension to the secession question–the spiritual and theological dimension. The majority probably have no interest in dealing with this aspect of the question. The “history” they’ve been taught tells them not to, but the spiritual dimension was and is here and needs to be dealt with. As someone with a Christian worldview, I believe all truth is educational and all things, ultimately, reflect someone’s theology. Everything eventually comes down to this–choose who you will serve, the Trinitarian God of the Scriptures or the World System. It has to be one or the other. Many Southern secessionists held to this view. For them, although political issues were prominent as were economic ones, their ultimate view of secession was a theological view. They viewed the doctrine of biblical separation and secession as one. In our apostate day, such a conclusion merits our serious consideration.

Bibliography

A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States
by Alexander H. Stephens (volume one)
Krause Reprint Company, New York, 1970

Democracy in America
by Alexis de Tocqueville (volume one)
Vintage Books, New York, July, 1990

The Hidden Civil War
by Wood Gray
Viking Press, New York, 1942

The Secession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States
by William C. Wright
Associated University Presses, Inc. Cranberry, New Jersey, copyright 1973

A Theological and Political View of the Doctrine of Secession
by Al Benson Jr.
The Copperhead Chronicle, Sterlington, Louisiana, copyright 1995, reprinted 2009
(booklet 30 pages)