Getting Ready For Another Round of Cultural Cleansing?

by Al Benson Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Were Tariffs Indirectly a Redistribution of the Wealth?

by Al Benson Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Hidden People

by Al Benson Jr.

Some folks who have read Donnie Kennedy’s and my book Lincoln’s Marxists have intimated that we were blowing a lot of hot air when it came to the Forty-Eighters we wrote about–those socialist/communist revolutionaries from Europe that came over here after their revolts failed in Europe in 1848-49. After all, it was something they’d never read about in their “history” books, and it went against their grain to read what we said about their secular deity the Great Socialist er, sorry, I meant the Great Emancipator.

I have to admit,  the history of the Forty-Eighters has been pretty well kept out of the “history” books, and not altogether by accident. This was brought home to me recently by a friend in Georgia, L. L. Barfield, who has been both a teacher and an author. She’s on my email list so she receives all the articles I do on most anything.

Some of what I have written about the Forty-Eighters on this blog has really caught her attention because she had a Confederate ancestor who was a POW during the War. I will let her speak to this: “Today, my old friend, Al Benson, sent documented information about the Union army of the War Between the States that I had hardly known about! Grandpa Barfield (her Confederate ancestor) was twice a Union prisoner. At Fort Delaware, he was left for dead by the Union, but friends held him up and walked him away from the prison in an exchange, leaving the Union to declare in their official records that he had died!  Grandpa Barfield said that Germans were their guards and shot at random as they pleased,killing whomever they aimed at.” That sounds about right. German guards, not American guards–and the commandant of the POW camp at Fort Delaware was Albin Schoepf, one of the Forty-Eighters who was a Hungarian socialist.

Barfield has been a teacher and she said: “You should believe that I have been familiar with almost every ‘Civil War history book’ that Georgia school children have been taught from the 1950s…in the 60s…and years later in the 70s!  None of the information that Al has written in this essay was ever, ever taught or published for school children, in primary, secondary, and even on the college level, where I received a degree in Secondary Ed, majoring in history. I had heavy doses of Civil War history! I know for certain that none of this is in present public school material.” So here is a lady that is familiar with school history books in her state, at all levels.  She majored in history in college and she never saw anything about the Forty-Eighters in any of her history books. I don’t know about you but that makes me wonder. Also, another lady, awhile back sent me her old college history book and it was the same story–Nothing about the Forty-Eighters  and their influence on the early Republican Party and in the Union armies during the War–and their influence was considerable. For the general public the Forty-Eighters are the “hidden people.” You are not supposed to be aware they even existed let alone influenced one of your major political parties and that they were present during the War of Northern Aggression. If you knew that, it might change your whole outlook as to what was really going on during that war–which was hardly a “noble crusade” to free the slaves. If you do happen to find out about them, then all you are supposed to know is that a small number of them fought for “freedom” in Europe before they came here.

And Barfield has credentials. She has had five books published and at present is the chairman of an important foundation’s research and history committee, so she knows whereof she writes.  Yet she recognizes that she was never told the whole story and she did not connect her grandfather’s comments about German guards with anything until she read some of the articles on my blog spot. At that point she began to connect the dots, and the German guards at a Yankee POW camp began to make sense.

I have often said that you get more history out of biographies than you do from history books. A friend in Illinois told me this years ago and I found it to be true. The same holds true for books written about a particular subject. They go into depth in areas the history books just can’t or won’t cover.

Years ago I bought a book called Germans for a Free Missouri which dealt with articles from radical leftist papers in St. Louis, Missouri from 1857-1862. In the introduction Steven Rowan noted, quite accurately, that: “The Forty-eighters were largely religious  skeptics or freethinkers at a time when many Germans still took their confessions quite seriously.” In other words, they were unbelievers who held the Christian faith in contempt. Rowan also observed: “For better or worse, the Republican Party would be the chief channel by which the Forty-eighters entered the mainstream of American politics. Their contribution to the formation of the radical wing of that party is a story that has not yet found its historian.” He wrote that in 1983. Lincoln’s Marxists was first published in 2007, and then a second and enlarged edition was published in 2011 by Pelican Publishing in Gretna, Louisiana.  Donnie Kennedy and I have sought to make up for that history of those “hidden people” that had never been published with our book. Lord willing we have a least made a start that others can carry further.

The goal of the Forty-Eighters was to complete the socialist/communist revolution in this country that they had been unable to complete in Europe,and the Republican Party was the main vehicle that enabled them to do that. And if you think they weren’t successful just take a look at what you have in Washington today.  And as much as current Republicans claim they don’t like it, they are more than willing to go along with it, which tells you where they are really at. So start learning the history. You won’t be able to connect the dots and put it all together until you know the history–at least more of it than the “history” books will ever give you.

“Brother’s War” or European Invasion?

by Al Benson Jr.

If you read what passes for “history” books in this country, especially in our excuses for educational institutions that we refer to as public schools, you will find very little, if anything, having to do with the demographics involved in the War of Northern Aggression. Until Donnie Kennedy and I started doing research for our book Lincoln’s Marxists I had read only snatches here and there about the different ethnic groups that populated this country during the 1840s and 50s. Once we started researching to find out more about the infamous socialist Forty-Eighters we wrote about we found all manner of information–very little of which came from traditional “history” books. We got a lot of information from biographies, which are sometimes more historically complete than history books.

But almost nowhere, except for a brief  comment here and there, did anyone deal with the number of foreigners that ended up in the Union armies. As I have said before, on several occasions, that was almost a forbidden subject.

What started me thinking about this again was a book I picked up back in the early 1990s at a library sale in Rochester, Minnesota when we were visiting there. The book was The Desolate South–1865-1866 written by John T. Trowbridge.  I had glanced through it here and there, but never seriously, until recently. It’s not an easy read for someone with my Southern mindset.  Trowbridge came across to me as a thoroughgoing Yankee type and it seemed, as I read, that he spent about two thirds of the book trying to make the North look good and the South bad. So what else is new? The edition I have was published in 1956.

Trowbridge took a trip through the Old Confederacy shortly after the shooting part of the War ended and I think what he wrote may have been one of the first psychological shots fired at the South once the Yankee/Marxists decided they could do  better with propaganda than they had with bullets. Cartridges couldn’t kill the descendants of the Confederate soldiers–propaganda just might.

However, in his early attempt at cultural Marxism, there were some things it was not easy for him to completely cover up.  In one of his jabs at the South, he and a reporter were talking to an ex-Confederate soldier who said “The Confederate army was never whipped!  We were overpowered.”  Of course Trowbridge and his friend had a snide laugh over that, but then the ex-Confederate said “It was the foreigners! You never would have beaten us if it hadn’t been for the foreigners that made up your armies.” The soldier had noticed something that most don’t talk about–the large number of foreigners in the Union armies. Of course Trowbridge and company had to make light of that and then move on to something less controversial, and less revealing.

However, if you stop and think about it, this Confederate soldier had hit on something worth considering. Recently I came across an article by an Andy Waskie called Foreign Soldiers in the American Civil War. Mr. Waskie noted: “Based on enlistment rolls and other official reports and stated in round figures, out of approximately 2,000,000 Union soldiers enlisted during the war over two-thirds were native-born Americans.Thus, only under one-third (1/3) of all troops were non-natives…”  Now stop and think about that for just a moment. The “only under one-third” that he almost seems to dismiss with a cavalier attitude, if his figures are correct, comes to something like 660,000 foreign-born soldiers in the Union armies! Folks, for my money, that’s a lot of foreign input.

Others disagree with his figures. One site I looked at, http://www.civilwar.org  observed that: “Maybe as much as a quarter of the Union Army was made up of foreigners–men who had not been born in America. Of these, the largest group was the Germans, followed by the Irish, Canadians, and English…Often regiments would be formed consisting entirely of men from one of these countries. The polyglot nature of the Northern forces  could sometimes create confusion when officers barked orders in several languages.” in other words, you had entire regiments of Union soldiers that were German, Austrian, Hungarian or whatever, that did not even speak English, and their orders had to be given to them in their native tongues. I have never seen a history book that I can recall that even mentioned this, let alone dwelt on it.

Another site, http://www.historynet.com  noted pretty much the same. It said: “Many of these immigrants joined the Union Army; the XI Corps of the Army of the Potomac was known as ‘The Dutchman’s Corps’ because it included so many German immigrants, but it became something of a catch-all for foreign-born recruits from throughout Europe and even the Mideast…Around 25% white Americans of the Union Army were foreign-born.” Soldiers in the Union Army from the Middle East? Wonder if it was some of those Muslims that Obama has told us helped to build the country?

The website http://www.Spartacus-educational.com was a bit more revealing. Of course they are also a bit more ideological. Their site noted, quite forthrightly that: ” Abraham Lincoln, a northern opponent of slavery was elected as president in 1861. It has been pointed out that without the support of an overwhelming number of immigrants, Lincoln would have lost the election.” So you could almost say that Comrade Lincoln was the “foreigners’ president.” He owed them, and they didn’t hesitate to collect in the way of generalships, ambassadorships, etc. The Sparacus article continued: “It is estimated that over 400,000 immigrants served in the Union Army. This included 216,000 Germans and 170,000 Irish soldiers. There were several important German born military leaders such as August Willich, Carl Schurz, Alexander Schimmelfennig, Peter Osterhaus, Franz Sigel and Max Weber…” All of the inestimable gentlemen here listed were Forty-Eighter socialists except August Willich, and he was an outright communist. Donnie Kennedy and I have dealt in some detail with all of these “interesting” personalities and more in Lincoln’s Marxists.

However you parse the figures out, it seems that you had somewhere between 400,000 and 600,000 foreign-born troops in Mr. Lincoln’s armies. While we have to admit that the vast majority of these were not socialists or communists, many of their commanding officers were. All of the above mentioned socialist/communist crew were generals! And we know that August Willich was one general that lectured his men on the glories of socialism/communism. That much is on record. How many more of these socialist turkeys did the exact same thing that we have never heard about?

All this should give you some hint as to why there was so much destruction  of private property in the South during the War and why some Union soldiers went out of their way to desecrate Christian churches in the South. That was, and is, all part of the Marxist agenda–and in one form or another–it has never ceased!

The agenda was to destroy white, Christian, Southern culture, and if you have not been slumbering for the past two decades you should have figured that out. The fact that more white Southerners haven’t figured it out is a testimony to the sleeping-pill effect that public education has had in the South since its birth down here as a major part of “reconstruction.”

So lets fast-forward slightly and look at today. We see a continuing and concerted attack here, and nationally, on anything Southern, Christian, and Confederate at all levels, the political, educational and cultural. Most of what we are fed in contemporary “culture” today is a finely-tuned and refined version of cultural Marxism. The cultural Marxists are having a field day, while most Christian Southerners sleep on, waiting for a “secret imminent rapture” that will not, and I stress WILL NOT remove them from the field of battle. As the Lincoln government sought the socialists and communists from Europe to swell the ranks of its armies, so the current Marxist regime in power in Washington is seeking the admission of hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern “refugees” (terrorists) to swell the ranks of those that will water down and dilute Western Christian culture, and they are even hinting at making it a crime to say anything negative against them. These people and the illegal immigrants knocking down the borders are the storm troopers of the New World Order–and they are being and will be used in the same way Lincoln used the European socialists and communists.  See any parallels at all here?

We should learn from history–and not from the “history” we’ve been taught in school. We need to begin to dig and to find the truth for ourselves because absolutely No One that is part of the Ruling Elite wants us to grasp any of this. So ask the Lord to guide you and start doing the homework–and as you do the homework, ask Him to show you all the possible means of legitimate resistance to this One World Government agenda.

Robert Lewis Dabney and the Forty-Eighters

by Al Benson Jr.

Many in our day, some of them so-called “historians” have sought to paint the Old South as a land of bigotry, ignorance, and treason.  They do this either because of gross ignorance, which was foisted upon them in public schools, or because they have an agenda that is geared toward the total destruction of any and all Southern culture, particularly Christian Southern culture. Everything that existed before the Beatles except slavery and the “civil rights” movement must be expunged, while these must be preserved in order to promote the proper amount of “white guilt.”

Robert Lewis Dabney, one of the most remarkable of the Southern Presbyterian theologians and a man who served on Stonewall Jackson’s staff had the presence of mind to recognize what was going on in this country even before the start of the War of Northern Aggression, and he, unlike some of his contemporaries, understood  what it was really all about. With the discernment he possessed in so many areas you might almost say he was the Patrick Henry of his day.  He had that rare ability Henry had in noting what the results of various actions would be if pursued to their logical conclusions.  He correctly foresaw where both the public education movement and the women’s “rights” movement were going while theological contemporaries like Henry Ward Beecher in the North were indulging in theological  “reality shows.”

Rev. Dabney early recognized what was going on in Europe and its implications for this country, particularly the South. He noted some of this in his masterful biography of the life of Stonewall Jackson, published in 1866, and subsequently republished by Sprinkle Publications of Harrisonburg, Virginia in 1983.

In this volume of over 700 pages he observed, quite correctly, on page 159, that: “History will some day place the position of these Confederate States, in this high argument, in the clearest light of her glory.  The cause they undertook to defend was that of regulated, constitutional liberty,  and of fidelity to laws and covenants,  against the licentious violence of physical power. The assumptions they resisted were preciously those of that radical democracy, which deluged Europe with blood at the close of the eighteenth century, and which shook its thrones again in the convulsions of 1848; the agrarianism which, under the name of equality, would subject all the rights of individuals to the will of the many, and acknowledge no law nor ethics, save the lust of that mob which happens to be the larger. This power, which the old States of Europe expended such rivers of treasure and  blood to curb, at the beginning of the century, had transferred its immediate designs across the Atlantic, was consolidating itself anew in the Northern States of America, with a wealth, an organization, an audacity, an extent, to which it never aspired in the lands of its birth, and was preparing to make the United States,  after crushing all law there under its brute will, the fulcrum under whence  they should extend their lever to upheave  every legitimate throne on the Old World. Hither, by emigration, flowed the radicalism, discontent, crime, and poverty of Europe,  until the people of the Northern States became, like the rabble of imperial Rome…” Reflect on what Dabney has said here. Really, how different is it than what we are currently experiencing in this country” Does anyone see the parallels? They are amazing!

Dabney continued: “The miseries and vices of their early homes had alike taught them to mistake licence for liberty, and they were incapable of comprehending, much more of loving, the enlightened structure of English or Virginian freedom.  The first step in their vast designs was to overwhelm the Conservative States of the South.  This done, they boasted that they would proceed, first, to engross the whole of the American continent, and then to emancipate Ireland, to turn Great Britain into a democracy, to enthrone Red Republicanism in France, and to give the crowns of Germany to the Pantheistic humanitarians of the race, who deify self as the supreme end, and selfish desire, as the authoritative expression  of the Divine Will. This, in truth, was the monster who terrific pathway among the nations, the Confederate States undertook to obstruct, in behalf not only of their own children, but of all the children of men.” This is definitely not a worldview you will get out of your “history” books. What Dabney has done here is to provide you with an outline of the agenda of the One World Government advocates of the 1860s.  And look at who their main opponent was.  Do you begin now to see why anything even remotely Confederate has been and is so much under attack in our day? Stop and think about what Dabney has told you.  This is a struggle that is much more than just North vs. South. In 1861 the Confederate States  stood in the way of the new World Order of their day and said NO! And they have been getting back at us for it ever since! And they will continue to do so unless, in God’s Providence, we prevail, or they do. They will not quit. Neither can we!

And, in this vein, Dabney made another insightful observation when he said: “One half of the prisoners of war, registered by the victorious armies of the South, have been foreign mercenaries. ” So this was much, much more than just a “brothers war” as we have been told. This fact was borne out in research done by Dr. Clyde Wilson, Professor Emeritus of the University of South Carolina, who noted that: “The German revolutionaries brought with them an aggressive drive to realize in America the goals that had been defeated in their homeland.  Their drive toward ‘revolution and national unification’…The most prominent among them, Carl Schurz, expressed disappointment at the non-ideological nature of American politics and vowed to change that.” His spiritual descendants have been working on that ever since. The current occupant of the White House is the most glaring example of the success of their venture.

Donnie Kennedy and I, in our book Lincoln’s Marxists, on page 219, noted that: “In his commentary, Dr. Wilson mentioned the events surrounding a German officer who, after the surrender, buttonholed Confederate General Richard Taylor and proceeded to inform Taylor  that he would soon recognize the gross errors  the South had made in fighting the war.  He informed Taylor, in very broken English, that he would soon rejoice because of the final results of the war. The German seems quite ready to instruct General Taylor on the fine points of Americanism.” This from a European socialist who could barely speak the language,  to a man whose father had been President of the United States! This is socialist arrogance at its finest and it continues to this day. Look at the finger-pointing, condescending attitude we are treated to today from a president that spent a fair part of his life in Indonesia and who we are told has an African father.  Yet his version of “Americanism” sounds like something that hailed from a Middle Eastern caliphate. It’s almost like Fidel Castro giving lessons in American government to Thomas Jefferson!

As previously noted, this struggle is much more than an “unpleasantness” between North and South.  It is, as Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell so truthfully stated: “The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slave-holders–they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground–Christianity and atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity is at stake.” I don’t think anyone else could have said it any better. This is where we are at right now, and unless we get on our knees and plead, with repentance, for the Lord to guide us in the ways of legitimate resistance, we will lose it all, at least for our time in history.

A Forty-Eighter Advises Lincoln About When To Call Congress Into Session After The Fort Sumter Situation

by Al Benson Jr.

Several years ago I read an interesting little book by historian Webb Garrison called Lincoln’s Little War–How his carefully crafted plans went astray.

According to the Internet it is still available at Barnes and Noble and you can check it out at http://www.barnesandnoble.com  The brief commentary on the Barnes & Noble page says, in part, “This intriguing book by historian Webb Garrison explores how Lincoln’s plans for a small police action soon escalated into the bloodiest war in American history, and how Lincoln sought to absolve himself of any responsibility.” That seems to be a pretty accurate statement, and another author, Frank van der Linden, back in 1998, said basically the same thing in his book Lincoln–The Road to War. I think van der Linden made one error overall.  He seemed to feel the whole issue of the war and between the states, was one of slavery, so he majored on that one aspect. But in his writing as a whole has has come up with a lot of information you don’t usually get from the cultural Marxist “historians” in our day.

In Virginia, before she seceded, van der Linden noted there was a “peace convention” which was devised to try to “patch up the Union” before things went too far and most Virginians, before secession, were willing to wait and see what the outcome of that would be.  They didn’t really wish to secede, but…”they would not be submissionists–a dirty word in the South, meaning those who would submit to anything Lincoln might do. They certainly would  ‘coerce’ another Southern state or send soldiers to fight against their neighbors. That was unthinkable. Lincoln failed to understand the Southerners emotions.” He felt that because, at that point, Virginians were willing to abide in the Union, that they always would, no matter what he did, and he thought of the secessionists as a “little band of troublemakers. His blindness to the masses’ instinctive aversion to any federal coercion  caused him to follow a totally mistaken policy of firmly opposing compromise.” In other words he had the typical Yankee/Marxist worldview–“do it MY way–or else!”

It was noted by van der Linden that after the firing on Fort Sumter, “Lincoln’s aim all along, had been to paint the secessionists as ‘the aggressors’ and present himself as the apostle of peace…Lincoln also knew that those unarmed supply vessels, which he had sent to Charleston, were escorted by warships under orders to fire in case of attack…Lincoln expected a war to result from his scenario, and it did. ‘The plan succeeded,’ he told his Illinois friend, Orville Browning. ‘They attacked Sumter–it fell, and thus  did more service than it otherwise could.” And then he pulled a typical Obamaesque move–he called for the governors of the various states to provide 75,000 militia to enforce the federal laws.  And van der Linden stated: ” As the slim legal basis for his policy,  Lincoln relied upon a 1795 law he interpreted as giving him this authority, which amounted to summoning a ‘posse comitatus’ of record size–seventy-five thousand men–to enforce the federal laws.” So it would seem that, in April, when Sumter fell, he didn’t actually declare war (although in effect he did) and he planned to have the militia ready in Washington to “enforce the federal laws.” When he called Congress into special session, because only they can declare war,  he waited until the Fourth of July for Congress’ opening date.  So why didn’t he do this in April when the crisis was supposedly on the country and the folks in Washington were supposedly waiting for the “rebels” to batter down the gates? On page 280 of his book van der Linden tells us. “Carl Schurz, the brilliant young German devoted to the Republican cause, provided the answer in a letter to Lincoln in early April: ‘Some time ago you told me you did not want to call an extra session of Congress for fear of reopening the compromise agitation.’ Schurz suggested that, after a show of force to defend the forts, Lincoln should call Congress back and then, ‘the enthusiasm of the masses will be great and overwhelming and Congress will be obliged to give you any legislation you ask for.’…Lincoln heeded Schurz’s political advice;…”

So here we have a situation where one of the key Forty-Eighter socialists that Donnie Kennedy and I have written about in our book Lincoln’s Marxists is giving the president of the United States advice, which he followed, about when to call Congress back into session so they will be apt to give him what he wants–a war on the South that will end up destroying  their culture, their faith, their history, and then “reconstructing” all these on a whole new basis. Anyone who thinks these socialists and Marxists had no real effect on the federal government and its policies just hasn’t bothered connecting the dots from them until now.

Folks, please, start doing the  homework and learning some real history instead of just swallowing the bilge  they taught you in school, because most of what they taught you in school was intended to keep you fat, dumb and ignorant.  If you don’t understand what your past was all about then you have no guideline whatever to help you work toward a better future for your children and grandchildren. One of the great unwritten chapters in the history of this country is the influence the socialists and Marxists had in this country from the years just before the War of Northern Aggression up to an including how. Their influence is much stronger here now because of what they began back then–and most people don’t have a clue.

Why do you suppose you have the Marxist aberation in the White House that this country is presently saddled with?  Think there’s no connection between now and then? I realize it might take time away from the Reality Shows, and that’s a rough go for most folks nowadays, but you all had better start finding out what the cultural Marxists have been up to in this country since 1848 and shortly thereafter–and then start comparing it with what you seen going on nowadays. Then ask the Lord’s guidance as to what you can do about it.

Soft-peddling Socialsm During the War of Northern Aggression

By Al Benson Jr.

Over the years I have picked up some historical fiction books about the War of Northern Aggression. Though not completely accurate historically they often do contain a large measure of truth if you know what to look for. Some do briefly hint at certain truths, but usually not enough to catch the attention of the average reader.

I am reading one now, which I have read previously, called The Last Full Measure by Jeff Shaara. It was a New York Times bestseller, which may explain why some of the history has been soft-peddled. If Mr. Shaara had told his readers more about some of what he hinted at it probably would not have gotten published by his publisher, Ballantine Books and it might have interfered with the New York Times picking it as a best seller.

I’ve read several of Mr. Shaara’s books and they are entertaining and readable and he does give you some accurate history, but he also leaves out some things that the regular history books leave out, and if he did research for the books he has written on the War of Northern Aggression I can’t believe he didn’t run across some of this.

On page 2, in his introduction, he talks about some of the people that fought the war on both sides. He says: “From the North came farmers and fishermen, lumberjacks and shopkeepers, old veterans and young idealists. Some are barely Americans at all, expatriates and immigrants from Europe, led by officers who do not speak English.” You would have thought his finding of this kind of information would have piqued his interest enough to give at least brief commentary on who these officers in the Union army were that could not speak English—but no, he says not a word more. If you know the accurate history you have to realize that “those people” he refers to are, in the main, the Forty-Eighter socialists that Donnie Kennedy and I wrote about in Lincoln’s Marxists.

On page 88 he makes another rather trite comment about Franz Sigel, one of the more notable of the Forty Eighters.  He comments on Sigel’s defeat in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864 (Sigel was far from the greatest general in the world) and he says of Sigel that: “He was a graduate of the German Military Academy, an experienced fighter who had emigrated himself because he happened to pick the wrong side in a brief revolution.” Oh come on, Mr. Shaara—there’s a lot more to Franz Sigel than that and I’m sure you realize it. The 1848 socialist revolts in Europe may have been brief, in that they only lasted  a bit more than a year, but they were hardly insignificant. Revolts during that time went on in something like fifteen different countries and they shook all of Europe, plus they had lasting ramifications that went beyond that time, not only in Europe but also here. Many of the leaders and regular participants in those revolts ended up in this country, in the Republican Party and in the Union armies because they recognized that they could readily identify with what Lincoln was promoting—centralism and collectivism. I would have thought Mr. Shaara could have devoted at least a brief paragraph to those people, but no, nothing more than what I have quoted. Again, this is history the general public is not supposed to be aware of.

He did make an interesting comment about the Yankee general Joshua Chamberlain which is generally not mentioned, so I wonder if he let something slip here unawares. He said on page 7 that: “…Chamberlain accepts a prestigious Chair at Bowdoin, formerly held by the renowned Calvin Stowe, husband of Harriet Beecher Stowe. Her controversial book Uncle Tom’s Cabin, inspires Chamberlain.” I’ve heard over the years that Chamberlain wasn’t a abolitionist. He may not have been, but he was inspired by one of the movers and shakers of the Abolitionist Movement. Interestingly enough, when Ms. Stowe wrote her book she had no firsthand personal knowledge of the South or of conditions in the South. She was a Unitarian who had been dabbling in spiritualism. Of course Shaara didn’t mention that—another no-no!

I wouldn’t discourage folks from reading Shaara’s books. They are entertaining and, as I said, very readable and you will get some history from them. You just won’t get everything you need to give you an accurate picture of what the War was really all about. Admittedly they are fiction, though I’ve seen some “history” books that have about the same amount of truth in them. I would, however, encourage people reading them to do some homework yourselves to find out just what has been emphasized and what has been mostly left out. That might be an interesting exercise.

More Admissions to Early Socialism In America

By Al Benson Jr.

Those who have finally been forced to admit that there was socialism and Marxism prevalent in this country before the advent of FDR have done so quite reluctantly. Before Donnie Kennedy and I wrote our book Lincoln’s Marxists several years ago this was a subject that was generally ignored. There was information out there before we wrote the book, but it was pretty generally submerged and the professional “historians” who wrote books dedicated to the Lincoln Cult preferred it that way. Our book, by God’s grace, helped to bring some of it to the surface and you can find more out there now than you could before we wrote the book.

I just ran across an article on www.u-s-history.com entitled “Socialism in America.” It gives a brief history of socialism in this country and, interestingly enough, it starts off with: “The roots of socialism in America can be traced to the arrival of German immigrants in the 1850s when Marxian socialist unions began, such as the National Typographic Union in 1852, United Hatters in 1856, and Iron Moulders’ Union of North America in 1859.” Have any of you ever read history books that mentioned any  “Marxian socialist unions” at any point in our history, let alone that early? Over the years I’ve heard some say that the labor unions in this country were all communist. Can you begin to see why some folks thought that way? Who knew that you had such groups in this country even before the start of the War of Northern Aggression? And how many of those Forty-Eighters who fought for Lincoln’s “holy cause” may have belonged to those unions? Joseph Weydemeyer,  who was a personal friend of Karl Marx, and who had been a Union officer during  the War has hailed in a Communist newspaper as a “trade union organizer” among his many other dubious talents, so you do have to wonder.

Recently, I read comments by John Nichols, who writes for The Nation magazine, which is hardly a publication that has the endorsement of those on the right. Someone was interviewing Mr. Nichols and he made a couple revelatory comments. He said: “To give you an example, Eugene Victor Debs frequently referenced Paine and Lincoln as folks who had inspired him toward socialism. So it’s not that this is something that we have just discovered, but it is something that has been sort of lost in recent decades.” Interesting comment. I don’t doubt for a minute that this sort of information has “been lost” in recent decades because it is a very inconvenient truth that, for the political left in this country, in both major political parties,  is better off forgotten or ignored.

And Nichols emphasizes this again when he says: “So again this is not hidden history—it’s there, it’s findable, but it’s not a history that has been emphasized. More significantly you bring up Lincoln, and the history of Lincoln is absolutely fascinating, because when you go back to the founding of the Republican Party, there is simply no question that the party was founded by a broad array of folks from many different ideological perspectives and backgrounds,  but some of the founders of the Republican Party, in fact key founders, people who called the initial meetings, were socialists and communists. A friend of Karl Marx was one of the key players in the founding of the Republican Party. That is not a debatable point—the history is there—but it is something that has not been emphasized, it’s almost been pushed aside.” Mr. Nichols’ comments here are quite accurate. This is truth that has been purposely ignored, swept under the historical rug, de-emphasized—however you want to say it. How do you think it would look in young folks’ history books if the fact were admitted that socialists and communists played a large part in the founding of the Republican Party? With truth like that floating around, how could Republican candidates go to the public during elections claiming to be the “party of small government?” With truth like that available, they would, if they were honest, have a admit that they were the party of total government and that, in that capacity, the Democrats were only laboring to catch up to them  in that quest.

Judging by what I have read of Mr. Nichols’ comments here and there, I don’t believe I would be comfortable with his political ideology. However, I have to admit that, in this case, he has done us a real service by noting these facts. I wish we had had this quote when we wrote Lincoln’s Marxists because it’s a real gem. His comments were published in www.thecoli.com  in November, 2013, over two years after Donnie Kennedy and I had the second edition of Lincoln’s Marxists published.

Those who still, ignorantly or otherwise, claim the Republican Party is the party of conservatives, patriots, and “small government” should start doing the homework to discern just how accurate their assertions really are. Some of them would be shocked, but they might be shocked into starting to do some real digging to determine if all they have been told is truth or farce. At that point they could begin to inform others and begin to position the Republican Establishment where it really belongs—in the total government column!

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.

Chicago’s School of Socialism—Midwest Academy

By Al Benson Jr.

Somehow, given the type of city it is, it only seems fitting that Chicago should have a school dedicated to the promotion of “progressive” agitation and propaganda supposedly to enable the poor and downtrodden to help them straighten their lives out—at the expense of everyone else and to the benefit of the political far left. Hence we have Midwest Academy—the Alinskyite paradise of the mid-continent.

Most who will read this have probably never heard of this school and that’s not by accident. An “educational” institution with an agenda like this one has is not to be advertised to the masses, lest they begin to ask questions.

Stanley Kurtz’s book Radical-In-Chief—Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism has an entire section dedicated to exposing this organization to the public, starting on page 131. Mr. Kurtz presents information and documentation that the public ought to be aware of so that we might begin to grasp the enormity of the socialist problem in our midst—from the White House on down. Mr. Kurtz, on page 131 of his book notes: “On Labor Day 1969, a group that included past SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) national secretary Paul Booth, his activist wife, Heather Booth, onetime SDS field secretary Steve Max and radical community organizer Harry Boyte published a pamphlet titled Socialism and the Coming Decade. Clustered several years later around an institute called the Midwest Academy, this group would go on to create a new way of blending socialism, community organizing, and electoral politics. In many ways, the Midwest Academy is the hidden key to Barack Obama’s political career. Obama’s organizing mentors had ties to it; Obama’s early funding was indirectly controlled by it; evidence strongly suggests that Obama himself received training there; both Barack and Michelle Obama ran a project called ‘Public Allies’ that was effectively an extension of the Midwest Academy; Obama’s first run for public office was sponsored by Academy veteran Alice Palmer;…Perhaps more important, Barack Obama’s approach to politics is clearly inspired by that of the Midwest Academy. Therefore, it is of no small interest that the Midwest Academy is a socialist ‘front group,’…The story of the Midwest Academy’s transformation from a stealthy nest of radical sixties socialists into a force at the center of the Democratic Party offers unparalleled insight into Barack Obama’s hidden political world.” How much of this did our investigative “news” media ever bring out? Our prestigious “presstitutes” of the fifth column are taught to bury this kind of information. This is “off limits” for the average American.

Mr. Kurtz is to be commended for the research he did for his book and for his attempt to alert the public as to the president’s deep socialist background. Others have also been trying to do the same thing, but thanks to an almost total media blackout, very little of this information makes it to the public at large. The “news” media and those that pay their tab want to make sure none of this sort of thing arises to disturb the public’s concentration on the nightly “reality” shows trotted out there to bemuse them and keep their minds off anything of real importance.

For all of that, some information does manage to seep through. On November 29, 2011, an article appeared on http://www.frontpagemag.com written by Matthew Vadum and entitled Union Gangsters: Heather Booth. Mr. Vadum writes, near the beginning of his article: “A disciple of Saul Alinsky, the socialist-feminist Booth co-founded the Chicago-based Midwest Academy, a training institute for community organizers…The Midwest Academy is funded in part by radical left-wing philanthropies such as George Soros’s Open Society Instutute, Tides Foundation, and the Woods Fund of Chicago. (Barack Obama and Bill Ayres served together on the Woods Fund board.)” Booth has embraced what is now called “stealth socialism” in that it advances the socialist agenda without appearing to do so. Earlier in her career, Booth was a bit more candid about her objectives. She said: “Truly reaching socialism or feminism will likely take a revolution that is in fact violent, a rupture with the old ways in which the current ruling class and elites are wiped out.” Today she is a bit less candid but the objectives are the same—depending on how you define “ruling elites.” She has no problem taking funding from George Soros and he has got to be one of the rulingest elites there is.

So we must conclude that outfits like Midwest Academy and those that run it are not really against our ruling elite as the ruling elite, in many cases, funds them. What they are really after is ordinary folks who have made good through hard work and dedication because these are some of the folks that will resist their socialist agenda. People like Soros will support it and promote it. The “super-rich” and the socialists have a lot in common. Us rubes in flyover country, however, are not supposed to be able to figure that out.

And another article on http://www.wnd.com written by Aaron Klein on 3/18/10 commented on the Woods Fund which has funded the Midwest Academy. Klein observed: “The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy…Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayres, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization.” Do you get the impression that many of these 60s socialists never really got rid of their socialist spots? All they did was cut their hair and put on business suits and proceeded to insert themselves into the “establishment” they professed to hate so much. And the “establishment” seems to have had no problem accepting them. Does this begin to tell you something about the “establishment?” All this may be a bit new to some of you, but think about it for awhile before rejecting it out of hand.

Probably lots of folks will not want to be bothered. As long as Big Brother lets them watch Monday night football and go fishing on Saturday morning they won’t complain too much, but I’ll tell you something folks, the end of those days may be coming. For that handful of you that wants to find out what’s going on you need to read Gary Allen’s None Dare Call it Conspiracy and The Rockefeller File. And while you’re at it, try to locate W. Cleon Skousen’s book The Naked Capitalist. You will find from reading these that the agendas of the ruling elite from above and the socialists from below are very similar, with the rest of us caught in the middle and being squeezed from both sides. And then, if you go back in our history 150 years and read Donnie Kennedy’s and my book Lincoln’s Marxists you will find that the socialists were the establishment. Actually, very little has changed since then, except that the destruction of the folks in the middle, the middle class, is becoming more apparent with each passing year, and the middle class, many of them Christians, sleep on unaware and unconcerned.

I have had occasion to wonder—where is the Christian alternative so something like the Midwest Academy? Unfortunately, I am afraid it doesn’t exist.