Did Lincoln’s Theological Views Reflect His Political Actions?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

The title of this article is a legitimate question–not only for Lincoln, but for the rest of us as well. Do our political actions reflect our theology? If you look today at some of these Democrats and RINO’s that hate Trump and will do or say anything to hurt his agenda, true or not, (and most of the time it isn’t) you have to ask if what they are doing reflects their theology–and if it does–then what does it say about the god they serve?

Similar questions were not always asked about Abraham Lincoln because back then most people didn’t equate a man’s theological perspective with what he did politically. Then, as today, they should have. There is more connection there than most people realize.

I’ve dealt with Mr. Lincoln’s religious views in the past, but not for awhile, so it might not hurt to go back and refresh our memories about them. Ward H. Lamon wrote a book, published in 1872–The Life of Abraham Lincoln: from his birth to his inauguation as president. Lamon probably knew Lincoln as well as anyone. And Mr. Lamon quoted, in his book, another man who knew Lincoln as well as anyone, his law partner for years, William H. Herndon. Herndon said of Lincoln: “As to Mr. Lincoln’s religious views, he was, in short, an infidel-atheist. He did not believe that Jesus was God, nor the Son of God–was a fatalist, denied the freedom of the will. Mr. Lincoln told me a thousand times, that he did not believe the Bible was the revelation of God, as the Christian world contends.”

With a world view like that, how do you think he would deal with his political adversaries? Does the word “treacherously” come to mind?

Lew Rockwell wrote an article back in May of 2000 called The Genesis of the Civil War in which he made some interesting observations. Mr. Rockwell took pains to note that the War of Northern Aggression in the 1860s was not really a “civil war” as a civil war is one where two opposing groups are fighting for control of the same country–and that was never the South’s objective. The North wanted total control if it all–the South just wanted to separate and go its own way. Mr. Rockwell deals with that by saying: “But why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing  their production through high prices and public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South’s trading relations with other parts of the world.  In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North’s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the ‘tariff of abominations.’  Thirty years later, with the South paying for 87% of federal tarff revenue while having their livelihoods being threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to slave status, with the federal government as its master.”  Do you think no one in the North realized this? The average man may not have, but the Northern politicians and political thinkers did. What do you suppose their theological world view was? Three guesses!

And obviously Mr. Lincoln understood this. He was no dummy and, as a lobbyist for Northern railroads he would have known how this system worked. When someone asked him at one point why he did not just let the South go, his reply was “What then will become of my tariff?” So Lincoln realized the South was getting shafted–and that was okay with him, but if they seceded then he wouldn’t be getting their tariff money anymore and the North couldn’t continue to stiff them anymore and so Lincoln had to prevent that. In other words, legalized theft of Southern resources had to continue so Northern industrial interests could benefit. Whose theological persuasion do you suppose that benefited?

Lincoln made it clear his main intent was to get that Southern tariff money–no matter what. He said “My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern states under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861…I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists…” There was no proof Lincoln ever declared war to abolish slavery, it was always to “preserve the Union.” One might well ask,  For who?

Of course if Lincoln did not believe in the Bible and the truth about Jesus Christ, that means that he served another god who had an opposing theology to that found in the Scriptures. Do you think Lincoln realized all this. Commentary from his era would lead us to believe that, to some extent, he did.

Unfortunately for the North, the concept of legalized theft via the tariff, was reflected in their culture, whether they realized it or not, and some did. The rise of Unitarianism in the North and after that, the spread of socialism there, reflected a Northern theology that was justifiably repugnant to orthodox Christians in the South. Over the years, I have mentioned the theological implications of the War of Northern Aggression. Most don’t want to hear it. I have gotten reactions ranging from a stopping of the ears to outright laughter–and some of this from Christians.

But, the theological implications of that War will have to be dealt with, one way or another because, in the final analysis, the theological implications of that War will prove to be more important than the supposed slavery issue. And Lincoln’s theological world view is part and parcel of it all.

Belated Birthday Comments on Lincoln the Empire Builder

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Well, we are now into February–the beginning of Black History Month, which should end sometime around the latter part of Spring. Yesterday was Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, with all the attendant legends and myths posing as history that always accompany that. As always we will be fed all the historical bovine fertilizer that goes along with that notable event.

This brief commentary would normally have been posted on the “Great Emancipator’s” birthday. I roughed it out the previous evening, only to discover that, when I went to print it off, the printer attached to my computer had suddenly developed a case of IDS (ink deficiency syndrome). Having been able to obtain another print cartridge late on the day of his birth I am now posting this, but the date on it will be tomorrow, the 13th. In this case a day doesn’t make that much difference, seeing that we all have already been treated to 150 plus years of historic swill.

We have been informed that Lincoln inaugurated and fought a war “to free other men” and that this was the noble task of the Army of the Potomac. This romantic psychobabble was presented to us years ago in the movie Gettysburg. Actually. Lincoln inaugurated  and promoted this war to preserve the Union (under Republican control) and he really didn’t give a flip about freeing the slaves. If that happened, even partially, that was alright, but if it didn’t that was alright with him too. He said as much. And just exactly why did he want to preserve the Union? Well, because there was big tariff money to be made off the Southern states, thus forcing them to pay for the lion’s share of running the federal government so internal improvements could be made–in the North!

Although Lincoln was not a big fan of slavery, he didn’t really climb on the Emancipation Gravy Train until it was politically advantageous for him to do so. When the emancipation gig could be used to promote his (and his backer’s) agenda then Lincoln assumed the mantle of “the Great Emancipator” and the Lincoln Cult historians have made sure it was draped over his shoulders for the last 150 years. He was buried in it. I’ve seen all manner of articles over the years about how Lincoln ‘matured” in his view of blacks. It’s all rubbish! Lincoln was a flaming racist when he started out and he remained one up to and including the day Booth pulled the trigger.

Gregg Loren Durand, in his informative book America’s Caesar–Abraham Lincoln and the Birth of a Modern Empire,  originally published in 2000, noted, on page 95 that: “Lincoln’s former political opponent, Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas, had also warned the American people a month earlier that the Republican leaders who put Lincoln into office ‘are striving to break up the Union under the pretense of preserving it’  and that ‘they are struggling to overthrow the Constitution while professing undying attachment to it…and are trying to plunge the country into a cruel war as the surest means of destroying the Union upon the plea of enforcing the laws and protecting public property’.” A typically cultural Marxist approach–claim you are doing the exact opposite of what you are really doing, and if you can convince enough “useful idiots” to go along with you, then you can claim a mandate to destroy the country and create “Post-America.” While you claim to preserve, you instead destroy.

Mr. Durand noted, on page 87, that: “When at the Hampton Roads Peace Conference in February of 1865,  President Davis offered to have the Southern states return to the Union on the condition that they be allowed to exercise their rightful domestic powers, Lincoln refused saying, ‘No. Submit to me or the war goes on.’ Thus he revealed his rightful masters to be, not the American people, but the private financial interests and political aristocrats which controlled him from behind the cover of the slavery agitation. Clearly, the true purpose of the war was, as Luther Martin had warned over seventy years before, ‘the total abolition and destruction of all state governments’.” The Deep State in action in 1865! And this was to be done so that state’s rights could be replaced by one, consolidated “democracy” which “historians” have seen fit not to tell us about. But if you will observe today, the term ‘democracy” gets tossed around out there lots more than the term “republic” does. Most folks think there is no difference. So did I once. I learned I was wrong.

In other words, “Father Abraham” the “saviour of the Union” was a political fraud! Not so unlike so many of today’s politicians!  And a consolidated democracy  would fit very well into the plans  of the New World Order crowd of Lincoln’s day–and don’t think they didn’t exist, because they did. And having some of those “Forty-Eighter” generals in Lincoln’s armies fit right in with the general scheme of things. The headquarters of the NWO at the time might have been London, rather than Washington or New York, but they existed–as they still do, and their agenda for us has not changed.

I don’t know about you all, but I made no plans to celebrate Mr. Lincoln’s birth. And should there be any plans to commemorate it later this month, then let this article by my contribution to that–and if, for some reason, it is not appreciated, well, I won’t be a bit surprised.

How “History” Professors View the “Civil War”

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Many who will read this are already aware of how our current crop of “historians”–so called, view the War of Northern Aggression. However, some who read it may not be all that aware, and so this is written for those unaware ones who still labor under the naive delusion that the War was fought over slavery and that communism did not rear its ugly head in America until at least the 1930s. Well, it did rear its ugly head in the 30s–but it was the 1830s, not the 1930s. By the 1930s communism was already well established here. It’s just that no one bothered to inform the American public.

I spend considerable time on the internet scrounging around for information in those areas that concern me, and one of those areas is the record of communist and socialist infiltration in this country, both in the 19th and 20th centuries.

I recently ran across an article by Andrew Zimmerman, a professor of history at George Washington University. The article was written back in July of 2013 and, at that time, Professor Zimmerman was working on an international history of the American War of Northern Aggression. Of course he didn’t call it that.

He had some interesting commentary in his article that backed up what Donnie Kennedy and I said in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.  The title of his article was The Civil War Was a Victory for Marx and Working-Class Radicals. When I read that I thought “I wonder what some of the students in high school and college history classes would think of Zimmerman’s viewpoint if it were presented to their classes in this manner.” of course, thanks to decades of government school indoctrination that might not bother all of them, but it might bother some–and that “some” might ask embarrassing questions of their “history” teachers. To counteract that possibility the War is usually presented to our students as a noble Northern crusade to eradicate slavery in that mean old, racist, South. The fact that four slave states remained in the Union is seldom touched upon.

Zimmerman couches it in this manner, quite revelatory in its own way.  He says: “For revolutionary socialists, the Civil War was a decisive victory in an even larger struggle between democracy and private property.” The communists are really high on “democracy.” It’s one of their favorite euphemisms, but they don’t mean the same thing by it you have been taught to believe it is.

Professor Roy Colby, in his book A Communese-English Dictionary notes the communist understanding of democracy as: “a collectivistic dictatorship; a totalitarian state.” It’s interesting that the Founding Fathers all had a very dim view of Democracy. They felt it eventually led to tyranny. So what Professor Zimmerman is telling us, whether he even realizes it or not, is that the Civil War was a victory for the totalitarian state against the concept of private property. You folks that have never thought of it in those terms need to start trying to wrap your minds around that concept.

And Zimmerman, again, back up what Donnie Kennedy and I noted in Lincoln’s Marxists when he says: “Marx also followed the progress of the Civil War closely because so many of his fellow exiled European revolutionaries fought in the ranks of the Union Army. Defeated and sent into American exile after a wave of European revolutions in 1848-49, many discovered the struggle against slavery a more hopeful strategy than they have previously pursued. Revolutionary socialists were thus one of the many groups that won the Civil War. For them it was a decisive victory in an even larger struggle between democracy and private property.

How many of you have ever seen the results of the War of Northern Aggression presented in this fashion? Not many I’ll wager. What Zimmerman is telling you here, if you can begin to grasp it, is that the result of the War of Northern Aggression was a victory for communism against the right of private property–and by private property I don’t just mean slaves. Anyone who has read about Sherman’s March through Georgia and South Carolina knows the utter contempt Sherman and his “bummers” had for private property–all private property. They expended lots of time and effort destroying as much as they could in their gentle ministrations to an almost prostrate Confederacy. And they were especially hard on Christian Churches. Does that tell you anything? It should!

So communism, in one form or another, has been alive and well in this country for longer than most people care to think about. Zimmerman is probably not even aware of Donnie’s and my book, but his commentary in this article backs up just about everything we said in it, only in a little less detail.

I don’t know Professor Zimmerman, but from the way he writes I would assume he is a graduate of the University of Political Correctness. And, in his honesty,  he admits to the same things Donnie and I have written about. Seems I have read a passage in Scripture about something being confirmed in the mouths of two or three witnesses.

Has Anyone Noticed?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I have watched all this fuss over Roy Moore in Alabama recently. For all the allegations (and no proof yet) everyone is just supposed to walk away from Roy Moore and vote for the liberal (socialist) Democrat. If Roy Moore manages to pull off this election in Alabama and become Alabama’s senator then he will be subject to the exact same treatment that Donald Trump has been getting for almost a year now as president. The pattern in both cases is clear. Why if I had a suspicious mind I’d almost be tempted to think that the same people had planned both campaigns against both men.

If Roy Moore manages to win and they can’t find a way to steal it from him, all he has to do is look at Donald Trump and he has to know what he is in store for–every day he is in office.

He will be yet one more vote for Donald Trump’s agenda, which Trump’s adversaries don’t want and he will also be yet another vote against any possible impeachment proceeding that may be brought against Trump for his infamous “Russian collusion nothingburger.”

The Deep State is giving Roy Moore the same treatment with all these women he is supposed to have chased as they gave Trump with his “Russian dossier.” A whole lot of hype by the prostitute press with nothing to back it up, and they realize they have nothing, so they keep picking up the same mud they threw against the wall already and slinging it against the wall again, hoping at least some of it might stick this time. They hope against hope that if they toss this hogwash enough times then enough people will believe it to make a difference.

But the media is having a problem. They have been so thoroughly discredited in the last year with out and out falsehoods and spin that almost no one except the Leftist “useful idiots” believes them anymore. Many of us haven’t believed them for decades now, seeing how they work, but they have become so transparent recently they just aren’t fooling hardly anyone anymore and people are flocking to the alternative media to get some real news.

One instance comes to mind that I have always remembered. In 1999 my wife and I attended a Confederate Alliance conference in Charleston, South Carolina. This was an attempt to get a batch of Confederate and Southern Heritage groups together so they could start to work together in certain areas where they all had a common interest and concern. I gave one of the speeches at this conference, only one among several, and I agreed with the concept being put forward.

The man who worked hard to put all this together was Craig Maus, who, like me, was a Northerner who threw his lot in with the Cause of the South.

At the end of the first day’s speeches a couple “news” people strayed in looking for someone to interview about the conference and they grabbed Craig Maus for an interview. They immediately started asking questions about race and the conference’s relationship to racial issues. Craig told them right up front that this conference had nothing to do with race, that the KKK, the Skinheads, and other such groups were not there and were not welcome there. He made it very plain.

But that wasn’t enough for them. They moved on to a couple other questions and then circled back to the race issue. Craig explained to them again that, for this group, there was no “race” issue.  That did not enter into what we were there for. And so the media people veered off again for another couple questions and then came back to the race issue from a little different angle. By this time Craig knew what these people were after and just quit playing the game. They were not going to get what they came for, or what their editors had sent them for, and so they left. But their article in the next day’s paper was loaded with innuendo–because that’s all they had; no proof or evidence of what they had come to get, just innuendo. But for our “news” media that’s often enough. It doesn’t have to be true. All the media has to do is make people think it’s true, but if you learn to read between the lines you can see that most times the “news” media really has nothing that they try to make sound like something.

They’ve done that for over a year now with Trump and they are in the process of playing the same game with Roy Moore. I hope if Roy Moore wins he senate race he realizes this because the media and their bosses will make his life a hell on earth if they can–every day he is there. Remember one thing–the media and those that pay them to do what they do don’t want “America First” they want America last. And they want YOU last!

What Is The West?

by Al Benson Jr.

Folks who have followed my writing for awhile will recognize that what I write below will be a little different than much of what I usually do. I have written about the South for decades now and I love the South. I love the palmetto and palm trees, the Spanish moss, the abundant  wildlife, the bayous, and the wonderful hospitality of Southern people who, even though we were from the North originally, once they found out we understood their history and were willing to defend that history and heritage, opened their arms to us and literally made us “one of them.” So now we live in North Louisiana and we have never regretted the move south. This is home and we are content with it. No complaints!

But along with that, both my wife and I also love the West. We have traveled much there and before I was married I spent parts of several years in the West, including one year that I lived in Oklahoma for part of the year. Oklahoma is still a favorite spot. I was trying to eke out a living painting western scenery. I wasn’t good enough to make a go of that but I still enjoyed it.

When I went “back east” I worked near a bunch of young guys who enjoyed my paintings and when once they got an art show up they wanted me to put some of my stuff in it, which I did. They also wanted me, as someone who had spent time in the West, to submit something written about my impressions of the West. Most of them had never been there except for the big cities and they all look alike to me no matter where they are. I never spent any time in or near cities I didn’t have to, had no interest in them, except for Santa Fe, New Mexico, and it was different.

At any rate, what is below was what I gave them to print up, with some minor modifications. Some of you all that live in the West may be able to identify with some of what I say here.

The West is many things to many people. To those who have never experienced it,  I can only say that they have missed something that will not long remain even as it is now.

The West, to me, is more than a geographical location (like the South).  It is more than the beautiful state of Texas, which most easterners seem to think all westerners come from. It is more than the dry, burned out desert most who have never seen it think it is. They have not learned that there is beauty even in the desert if you know how to look for it.

The West is a place, but it is more (like the South). It is an atmosphere, an enigma, a way of life, and a people. As a way of life, it is something that can be carried far beyond its geographical boundaries.

The West is dark thunderheads far off over the canyon, it is the Prairie Dog Fork of the Red River at flood, it’s Monument Valley at night and the Painted Desert at noon. It’s the flat (but sometimes rolling)  country of the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles and it’s the majestic peace of the high plains country on the Platte River in Wyoming. It is a land so big that when you stand in it you feel small, and you have to realize within your deepest being that God created it and that man,  mighty though he would like to think he is, is only one small finite part of it.

The West is also people. It’s the old cowboy at the Pawhuska (Oklahoma) rodeo, who upon hearing the announcer reveal the name of the next contestant  in the saddle bronc riding, shouted “That’s my cousin Homer. He cain’t ride nothin’, He’ll get throwed first jump out the gate.” And he did! It’s the man in the store in Guymon, Oklahoma who, when asked if it was always this windy around here, replied “Hell no. Sometimes it gets windier.” It’s the ancient Indian at Taos Pueblo in New Mexico, who, when the smart-alec tourist tried to talk him into letting him into the pueblo for nothing, proceeded to charge him three times as much as he’d charged me to get in. The irate tourist tried to explain to him how, forty years ago, he’d gotten into the pueblo for nothing. After his ten minute (but ineffectual) tirade, the old Indian simply answered “Times change.”

For me the west did not really end each time I recrossed the Mississippi River. Thankfully, living in North Louisiana, we don’t have to recross the Mississippi to go east anymore.

For me, the West is a great deal of all I have seen, felt, lived and experienced during my numerous times in it. The deepness of its experience (like that of the South) is not something that leaves you upon the crossing of a boundary line. You, like many easterners, hate it and never go back (it’s not “green” enough for you) or you love it and continue to go back. There is no middle ground, the same as there is no middle ground with Confederate and Southern heritage. You either live it wherever you go, or you’ve never truly experienced it at all.

Bigotry Against White Southerners Is ALWAYS In Season

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

As most honest people realize by now, liberals, socialists, and communists are all cultural Marxists, which means, for them, that it is perfectly permissible to do unto others what they condemn others (usually unrighteously) for doing unto them. In fact, for them, it’s mandatory.  For them, their day is not complete unless they are actively assailing someone on the political or religious Right, while blaming those folks for even daring to defend themselves. “Condemn others and elevate yourself” is their watchword.

I read an interesting article on The Hill by Jacqueline Thomsen for November 12th, 2017, the headline for which was Poll: Nearly half of white Southerners feel like they’re under attack.  All I can say to that is–it’s about time! White Southerners are under attack–and have been now for decades. Their culture, their history, their faith, even their Southern accents, are and have been under assault for longer than I care to think about. Most of them have been totally oblivious to it. It would really be nice if some of  them, lots more of them, were starting to wake up and smell the coffee. It would be really nice to think they are finally starting to get the picture and beginning to push back!

Thomsen observed that “Nearly half of white Americans living in the South feel like they’re under attack, a new Winthrop University poll found. Forty six percent of white Southerners said they agree or strongly agree that white people are under attack in the U.S….And 30 percent of all respondents in the poll agreed when asked if America needs to protect and preserve its white European heritage. More than half the respondents disagreed with this statement. Forty percent of respondents said they believed that Confederate statues should remain as is.” However, 25 percent said some sort of plaque should be added to “contextualize” (adulterate) the meaning of the statue. I wonder if that 25 percent would feel the same way about a statue of Martin Luther King Jr or socialist Carl Schurz.

Problem is, you don’t dare try to “contextualize” anyone else’s history but that of the white folks. To do that to anyone else’s statues or cultural monuments would be politically incorrect (racist), but it’s perfectly okay to do it to those of the white folks. In fact, it’s part of the game. It’s called cultural genocide if you do it to anyone but white folks, but for the white folks it’s perfectly okay to do it. You see, it’s open season on them 24/7, all year. It’s good that some of them are finally beginning to wake up and realize what’s being done to them.

I have read so much Marxist drivel from college professors and other PH.Ds (piled higher and deeper) about how all whites should be ashamed of being white and should work to repudiate their “whiteness” while taking pains to embrace every other pagan culture out there to express their “solidarity” with the world, that it just about makes me sick. The Lord made all people who and what they are, and to openly repudiate what the Lord created, the way He created it, is a repudiation of God and His perfect plan. Not that this would bother some of those people. The same principle is true for those people that want sex changes. They refuse to be satisfied with what God made the way He made it, so they plan to improve on it. They seem to think they have more wisdom than God, which is untrue, not that you could convince them of it.

The same situation holds true for Southern accents. An article I read in The Washington Times for November 7th, by David Keene, noted, of a person he wrote about “…he could never vote for Mr. Carter (back in 1976) because of his ‘Southern accent’.” As a Southerner, he “talked funny.” Now I had my problems with Jimmy Carter and I didn’t vote for him, but it sure wasn’t  because of him, as a Southerner, “talking funny.” His politics were much too cozy with those of David Rockefeller and the Trilateral Commission to suit me.

Could it be said that not voting for a person because you don’t like the way he talks makes you a bigot? Well, in the world of the cultural Marxist it doesn’t seem to–unless, of course, you are a Southerner! And if that happens to be the case, then, to those people, you are automatically a bigot–from the first breath you draw!

Over the years I’ve been called a racist, an anti-Semite, an Islamaphobe, and a “deplorable” as well as several other things I do not care to list here. Most of these epithets are designed to stifle reasonable debate or discussion. Folks who get called these names need to realize that fact and keep talking anyway. When folks throw some of these names at me, I don’t let it stop me from saying what I have to say, and that bothers some of them, because nasty names are supposed to shut you up and they don’t always. I just tell them–I don’t care what you call me. Just don’t call me late for supper.

Rewriting Your History By Destroying Your National Anthem–what they didn’t tell you

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

In my most recent article about the destruction of Southern history (and eventually all real US history) I noted that part of that destruction was the promotion of the “reality show” mentality and the promotion of continual sports extravaganzas. People can now watch continuous wall-to-wall sports programs literally every weekend as well as about three nights per week–giving them no time to think about anything of any greater depth than the batting averages of their favorite baseball players or the running yardage of their favorite football players. And then we have basketball, track, hockey, tiddly-winks and a host of others also.

And while there is nothing wrong with a little recreational viewing of various sports events  (I like to watch a good rodeo once in awhile myself) it has gotten to the point in this country now where the sports events are almost a form of idolatry.

Hopefully, some of that may be starting to change as some people begin to be rudely awakened to where some of our “sports” figures may really be at. They make millions of dollars a year and are able to live in the lifestyle of the rich and famous, yet when it comes to the National Anthem of the country where they have been so blessed, they can’t be bothered to stand up. In fact, they take the trouble to kneel in protest to that National Anthem. You have to wonder where some of these guys are politically–if they are even able to define a political thought. Patriotic they ain’t–somewhat Leftwing many of them may well be. And what about those that encourage them to participate in this inane stuff? You have to wonder how many of these encouragers have any leverage with the ball clubs these guys play for. Might be a good question for debate sometime.

So now we have many of these athletic “rocket scientists” kneeling in opposition to standing while the National Anthem is being played. They seem to feel that this country “oppresses” people of color and they buy into this “white privilege” claptrap. All I can say is, that with the millions many of them make every year, I’ve often had the thought that I wouldn’t mind being as financially “Oppressed” as they are. I suppose I shouldn’t say it, but I will anyway–people who make millions each year and still gripe about being “oppressed” are a batch of ingrates!

Why are they protesting the National Anthem? From the cultural Marxist viewpoint, there are several reasons, all of them part of the cultural Marxist agenda.

In the first place, the Anthem’s author, Francis Scott Key, was from the area around Frederick, Maryland. Back when Key was alive Maryland was considered a Southern state. Francis Scott Key was a Southerner. Reason One.

Key was born on a plantation in what was, at that point in history, Frederick County, Maryland. And Key’s family were (gasp! horror of horrors–slave owners!) That says most of it right there. Anyone who was a slave owner in the 1800s is, today, automatically beyond the pale–not even fit to be talked about except in a highly critical manner. Reason Two.

Francis Scott Key was a devout Episcopalian. As a youngster he had actually considered becoming an Episcopal priest, but ended up becoming a lawyer instead. I wonder if he ever reflected on his choice. He was active in his church. He helped found two Episcopal seminaries and was associated with the American Bible Society. So Francis Scott Key was a Christian. There’s Reason Three right there!

If you understand the mentality and the workings of the Shadow Government types in our day, you begin to see that there is a lot more to this protest against the National Anthem than you have been told about.

Key was a Southerner, a Christian, and was opposed to the radical abolitionism of the William Lloyd Garrison types. Therefore, he must be completely denigrated in front of what the Establishment feels are us stupid “deplorables” so we won’t gripe too much as they try to rewrite yet one more part of our history and try to replace our National Anthem with I want the world to sing (Obama’s first choice) or Kumbiya, or the Communist Internationale  or some other worthy Marxist ditty. Because changing our history and our perspective on our history is what all of this is really all about–and they are not above using some of the “useful idiots” in the NFL to accomplish that.

So, as you can begin to perceive, there is lots more involved here than a batch of spoiled brat athletes getting their panties in a twist. This is part of the planned assault on our culture, heritage, Christian faith, and history. We had better start to wake up to that fact. That might even involve starting to go to church on the Lord’s Day instead of just climbing out of bed and flipping on ESPN, which you might just be better off if you didn’t bother with!

Shouldn’t That Carl Schurz Monument Come Down?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Education Is “Reconstruction”–Even Today!

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Those Slaves In The North–?

by Al Benson Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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