“Peace” Movements–Not New And Still Subversive

by Al Benson Jr.

Many of you still alive may remember the “Peace” Movement of the late 1960s and early 70s. It was not really a peace movement but was a subversive movement promoting victory for the Viet Cong and defeat for the US in a war we should never have been involved in anyway.

I can recall being on a college campus during that war and seeing boxes of “peace” movement material that had been shipped to someone on that campus. Much of the material in those boxes had been printed in North Vietnam, the country we were supposedly at war with. I recall thinking at the time: “If they have shipped all this material to this little college here, how much have they shipped to Columbia or Berkeley?

And I recall seeing, during the Kent State debacle, college professors out on college greens teaching their students how to riot and protest. And they must have done a good job because those kids sure rioted and protested. The only place I ever saw a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book was on that college campus.

After reading some of the material supplied by the “peace” movement, I was forced to admit that the so-called peace movement was a subversive organization not really interested in real peace but only in the Communist version of “peace” which really amounted to “no resistance to Communism.” I found out later that the leadership of the peace movement was often not seen rioting in the streets but was actually sitting in capitalist boardrooms busily hiring out the denizens of the peace movement to make lots of radical fuss for various reasons. Even some of the peace movement people admitted that much. If you can still find one, get a copy of a book called The Strawberry Statement–Notes of a college revolutionary. The author of that book says the radicals got Rockefeller money to act up for various reasons. I’ve written about that in the past.

But are “peace” movements something new with the 20th century? Not really. You had them in the 1800s as well. Researcher Arthur R. Thompson has noted in his To the Victor go the Myths and Monuments that “William Ellery Channing was looked upon as the ‘bishop’ of Transcendentalism by Transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson. It was in Channing’s home that the Massachusetts Peace Society was organized. This led to the American Peace Society organized by William Ladd of Maine. Founded in New York City, the American Peace Society promoted a world “Congress with a High Court of Nations’ to avert war. It was formed from 50 local groups from New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine and Pennsylvania that coalesced into the society. It was originally headquartered in Hartford, but soon moved to Boston. It had the same international goals as the Illuminati and what became the United Nations. Its organ was World Affairs, and remains so today. All of this is reminiscent of the modern Council on Foreign Relations and its organ Foreign Affairs. ..As usual, the leadership of the Peace Society split and formed other organizations more radical, which made the original look less radical and more moderate. In 1838 William Lloyd Garrison, abolitionist , John Humphrey Noyes, socialist; Adin Ballou, and Bronson Alcott, father of Louisa May Alcott, formed a new organization, the New England Non-Resistance Society. Then in 1866, the Universal Peace Union was formed out of it as well….It was astonishing that people did not notice that many of the peace leaders were also the leaders in spiritualism. Just as the Carbonari propagated their organization posing as a Bible Society in Europe, the conspiracy in America used Christian arguments to build a movement wherein the rank and file had no clue where they were being led…The arguments for the desire of peace were sound, but the solution was something that no student of the horrors of big government could abide: world government and the power that would be accumulated in it, becoming at the minimum a corrupt institution with no recourse left for decent people to stand up to it…The American Peace Society is also an example of the leaders stating that they want peace, but when it came to the Civil War, they endorsed the conflict on the side of the ‘Federals.’ It was, after all, a just war, since the North was fighting against the slave power. There were leaders who did not hold this position, but they had little standing in the face of the war fever.”

In closing, Mr. Thompson noted that: “It is amazing how often peace leaders of the socialist persuasion over the last two hundred years have endorsed war if it furthers the socialist agenda.” Something we might think about in our day. Peace movements usually favor a socialist or communist agenda, hence they are not really movements promoting true peace but are rather movements that benefit some radical leftist agenda.

Remembering Sharpsburg

by Al Benson Jr.

Today, September 17th, marks the 160th anniversary of the Battle of Sharpsburg in Maryland during the War of Northern Aggression. General Lee had marched north with an army of 55,000 and ended up confronting General McClellan with an army of 87,000. The idea of Lee moving north was twofold. One was to give Virginia a little respite from the fighting that had gone on there since the war started and another was to try to win a decisive victory in the north that might have resulted in European recognition of the Confederate States.

Some have noted that Lee’s original destination was probably Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, which if he could have made it, would have put him in a good position to keep federal help from getting to Washington. At one point he had to send a force to Harpers Ferry to capture that so he would have a way to get supplies for his army from Virginia and he could not leave a federal force there on his flank.

Lee and McClellan finally collided near Sharpsburg on September 17th and fought a battle there that lasted all day, with around 12,000 Union casualties and 10,000 Confederate casualties. The battle ended around 5:30 in the afternoon, with Lee preparing his defensive line to receive another attack from McClellan the next day. That attack never came, and so the next night, Lee moved his army back toward Virginia.

I’ve read articles that said the Union won this battle. Wishful thinking! At best, the battle was a draw, and Lee only retreated after waiting for an attack from McClellan that never came. Just a few personal observations here. McClellan had 30,000 more men than Lee did and yet was still not able to defeat him. Not only that, McClellan had gotten a copy of Lee’s orders to his generals and so should have known how to use that intelligence to defeat Lee, yet he did not. So Lee, with 30,000 less men fought him to a draw.

Though the North won the war, it took overwhelming numbers of troops, many of whom were foreigners, to defeat the South. Had the numbers been somewhere near equal on both sides the results may have been dramatically different and the South may well have been able to resist Northern aggression. I never forgot the story I heard years ago about the Union soldier who asked the Confederate soldier “Why are you fighting this war anyway?” To which the Southern soldier replied “Because you’re here.”

Most Southerners didn’t own slaves and so that’s not what they fought over, but they had a bad attitude about being invaded. They didn’t like it. I realize there were people and groups that wanted North and South to fight because no matter who won they planned to put the entire country into political bondage. It was easier to do if the North won, and they are still working at it today. They have destroyed state sovereignty throughout the country and kept people asleep with their federal education establishment and now they feel they are about to put the finishing touches on their agenda. However, they realize people are starting to wake up and so they are in a big hurry to complete their task before enough of us wake up to give them serious resistance.

Actually Lincoln and the Northern Republican Establishment didn’t fight a war to abolish slavery. They fought a war to institutionalize it on the national level. Biden’s crew of internationalists are working on that as I write this. Whether they are successful or not will depend on how many people are willing to resist being slaves to the Establishment.

More Ethnic Cleansing In Louisiana

by Al Benson Jr.

Anyone who has followed the news realizes that the attempt to obliterate Confederate history and heritage is still alive and well. Recently we have been treated to federal plans to rename any federal installation named after anyone who was a Confederate during the War of Northern Aggression. It should be obvious that the plan is to do away with anything remotely Confederate–except the slavery issue–which is the only thing they want the Old South remembered for. The fact that you also had slavery in the North is to be swept under the politically correct rug. It may leave a big lump under that rug, but that will be studiously ignored.

So it should come as no great surprise that a state national guard camp here in Louisiana, Camp Beauregard, will also be renamed next year according to https://www.thetowntalk.com There was a town meeting, either in Alexandria or nearby, where folks could come and put their two cents worth in about the name change. Not that it will make any difference. They are going to do it whether you like it or not.

What got me was the comments of a former military police officer who had been stationed there. He said that nothing (presumably anywhere) should have been named after Confederates because the South lost the war. He felt everything should be named after white or black Yankees who served in the Union armies! In other words, all monuments anywhere in the country having to do with the War of Northern Aggression should all be one gigantic testimony to the Union victory and nothing, but nothing else, should be remembered!

How’s that for an endorsement of ethnic cleansing? I know the victors get to write the “history” books, but that doesn’t mean they were right. All it means is that they were stronger than their adversaries and had a compliant “news” media on their side. It also means that the descendants of those that lost, even though they were right, have got to be vigilant about standing up and speaking the truth about what it was all about and what really happened, even if the politically correct don’t want anyone to be aware of that. And they don’t!

Those who will defend Southern history, heritage, and culture have got to keep on keeping on doing what they are doing and if they can find new ways to do that, by all means employ the new methods as long as they are ethically correct. We cannot just leave the battlefield to apostate Yankees whose major goal in life is to bury us and our history.

Did The Apostates In America Have Help?

by Al Benson Jr.

The late professor C. Gregg Singer, professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary noted in his book A Theological Interpretation of American History that: “To reduce secession and the (Civil) war to economic factors and to overlook the intellectual and theological forces at work, is to seriously misread the records of the era from 1850 to 1860. The admission that economic factors were at work does not involve the denial that other, and equally important forces were having a tremendous influence in the sequence of events which would ultimately lead to secession and to war. After 1830 there was a growing philosophical and theological cleavage between the North and the South. While the North was becoming increasingly subject to radical influences, the South was growing increasingly conservative in its outlook.”

Frank Conner, in his book The South Under Seige–1830-2000 has drawn much the same conclusion. He told us that “The key to understanding the current predicament in the South lies in grasping the very nature of the 19th century abolition movement–as it was shaped by the American Transcendentalists. They manipulated that movement for the purposes of waging an ideological war against the Christian South. The war of liberal North against conservative South began in the 1830s, and continues unabated to this day.” The cultural (and thereby religious) war against the South is not, I repeat, NOT over. The continued attacks on Confederate monuments in our day should amply demonstrate that.

The question then arises–why did the Transcendentalists do what they did? Were there other influences at work on them? I noted in a recent article how the sermons of abolitionist Unitarian Theodor Parker “echoed the socialists of Europe in the 1840s”. Historian Arthur R. Thompson, in his frequently quoted from book, To the Victor Go the Myths and Monuments noted that Theodor Parker’s supporters “formed a congregation in Boston and installed him as its minister. Among his flock were Louisa May Alcott, William Lloyd Garrison, Julia Ward Howe, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Samuel Gridley Howe, and William C. Neill. Depending on the source, it is claimed his congregation grew to somewhere from two to over three thousand people–quite a large congregation of ‘Christians’ who had a pastor that did not believe in Christ…Indeed, it appears that many ministers of the Unitarian variety simply used the freedom of their office and responsibility to be free enough to work for socialism and ultimately atheism by one path or another.” No doubt, by now, you recognize some of the names of socialist luminaries in Parker’s “congregation.” How many of you had to read Little Women in school? They didn’t tell you it was written by a Unitarian apostate did they? Christians were not supposed to know that. Or that the Battle Hymn of the Republic that appears in way too many Christian hymnals was written by a Unitarian apostate? Christians should know this kind of thing but mostly that are totally ignorant of it–and some get mad when you tell them.

How many know that Lincoln protege William H. Herndon was in regular communication with Theodor Parker? How many know that, according to Mr. Thompson, Walt Whitman “became known as the man who influenced Ella Reeve Bloor in her youth, on a visit to her home. When she grew up she became ‘Mother Bloor’ within the leadership of the U.S. Communist Party.” And Amos Bronson Alcott, Louisa May’s father was “influenced by the Illuminist Pestalozzi in his educational experiments…Some of the ideas of Alcott are commonplace in American schools today.”

So have we in our day been influenced by the apostasy of the 1800s? And were some of those apostates back then influenced by the Illuminism that came from Europe? You might as well ask if the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Abolitionists, Spiritualists, And Women’s Libbers–Our “history” Books Glamorize The Wrong People

by Al Benson jr.

The radical Abolitionist Movement in this country in the years from the 1830s through “reconstruction” at the end of the War of Northern Aggression caused many problems we still deal with today. And yet the people responsible for these radical movements are often the ones our “history” books choose to glamorize today.

If you look at the scribblings of Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison you have to recognize that this man was a rank internationalist whose agenda went way beyond freeing slaves. That was supposedly part of it, but not the whole of it by any means. Although there were undoubtedly some Christians in the Abolitionist Movement, by and large, it was an experiment in rank apostasy. Many of its adherents had become enamored of the strange doctrines of spiritualism that so permeated mid-nineteenth century America. Others had become devotees of Unitarianism–yet another form of apostasy from the Christian faith. Others, like John Brown, had become terrorists.

Ann Braude, in her book Radical Spirits told us that: “Every notably progressive family of the nineteenth century had its advocate of Spiritualism, some of them more than one…The ubiquitous Beecher family contributed Charles Beecher and Isabella Beecher to its ranks, while Harriet Beecher Stowe became a serious investigator…As already noted, abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was an early convert and remained loyal to the movement until his death. The famous Grimke sisters, Sarah and Agelina talked to spirits.” All of these people were abolitionists–and all, according to Braude, involved in Spiritualism. Undoubtedly your “history” books mention some of these worthies in glowing terms–but do they tell you anything about their Spiritualist connections? I’m willing to bet that is hardly, if ever, mentioned.

Susan B. Anthony, from a Quaker family, became a partner to Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the promotion of what has today become the Women’s Lib Movement. Anthony, at the beginning, had a hard time giving speeches in public. She lacked confidence as a public speaker and so she read most of her speeches to her audiences. Braude has written of Anthony that she wrote to her colleague, Stanton, and stated that: “You can’t think of how earnestly I have prayed to be a speaking medium for a whole week. If they would only come to me thus, I’d give them a hearty welcome.” She was referring to the spirits. Braude has stated, then, that for the sake of the Women’s Lib Movement (they didn’t call it that back then) she was willing to open herself up to being used by spirits.

Another author, Kathleen Barry, in her book Susan B. Anthony took a little different tack on Anthony’s spiritual worldview. She observed that: “In her autobiography, Elizabeth Cady Stanton described Susan’s spirituality as that of an agnostic. Susan never denied the existence of God, but her beliefs were secularized and lodged in the world around her.” So, whichever way you take it–Spiritualist or Unitarian–Anthony’s beliefs were a radical departure from orthodox Christianity–and this is the foundation for Women’s Lib!

Braude, in Radical Spirits identified spiritualism as being present at the Women’s Rights convention at Seneca Falls, New York in 1848. She noted: “From this time on, Spiritualism and women’s rights intertwined repeatedly as both became mass movements that challenged the existing norms of American life. The two movements shared many leaders and activists.” Again, your history books probably don’t touch on any of this.

It is worth observing in passing that the Spiritualist Movement began to make inroads in this country right around 1848, the same year the communist and socialist revolts began in Europe. In fact, one of the female Forty-Eighters, Mathilde Franziska Anneke, the wife of socialist agitator Fritz Anneke, once she came to America, became one of the leading lights in the Women’s Rights Movement. She worked closely with Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and even lobbied in Washington in behalf of women’s rights. So you see there were connections between the Forty-Eighters and the Feminists.

Another family influenced by spiritualism were the Lincolns, both Abraham and Mary. I have read several books mentioning that Mary Lincoln attended seances after the death of their son. But none of these books mentioned that Lincoln attended seances without his wife on trips to New York before he was elected. Arthur R. Thompson mentioned this in his authoritative book To the Victor go the Myths and Monuments on page 201. Mr. Thompson told us that: “J. B. Conklin was a medium. Upon Lincoln’s election, he recognized Lincoln as a frequent guest at seances in New York prior to his election. Conklin stated in the Cleveland Plainview that Lincoln was a spiritualist. Lincoln was shown the article and instead of contradicting it, said, ‘The only falsehood in the statement is that the half of it has not been told. This article does not begin to tell the wonderful things I have witnessed.’ On four successive Sundays prior to the issue of the Emancipation Proclamation, Conklin was a guest at the White House and tried to take credit for the proclamation. Accurate or not, and there were many other influences, a number of spiritualists urged Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation…Mary Lincoln attended many seances with three different mediums after moving to Washington, and Lincoln accompanied her on occasion in and out of the White House.”

There is a lot more that could be told but it will have to do for another time.

What’s The COVID Jab Doing To People?

by Al Benson Jr.

I’ve read some pretty far out stuff about the COVID vaccinations and their effect on people. But I have also read some material that was not far out and that made sense. The article I will quote from today falls into the latter category.

I came across this article on https://www.lewrockwell.com by Steve Kirsch just this morning, September 2, 2022. I would encourage my followers to go and check this out. Mr. Kirsch had some graphs with his article which I can’t reproduce so go and read the original.

Mr. Kirsch stated: “We’ve always assumed the vaccine kills you quickly (in the first two weeks) because that’s when people notice the association and report it to VAERS. This is still true; it does kill some people quickly. However, thanks to an HHS whistleblower, we can now clearly see that most of the deaths from the vaccine are happening an average of 5 months from the last dose. That is for the second dose; it may be getting shorter the more shots you get but there are arguments both ways…But this explains why the life insurance companies got off-the-charts all-cause mortality peaks for people under 60 in Q3 and Q4 rather than right after the shots rolled out. The five month delay is also consistent with death reports where people are developing new aggressive cancers that are killing them over a 4 to 6 month period…So when you hear of a death from stroke, cardiac arrest, heart attack, cancer and suicide that is happening around 5 months after vaccination, it could very well be a vaccine-related death.” Makes you wonder what those pushing the vaccine are doing to us.

Then he has a chart and he says: “I got this chart from a whistleblower who works for HHS. This is data you are not supposed to see. The mortality increase (60% at peak) is huge. That sort of increase can only be caused by something novel that affected massive numbers of people There is only one possibility that fits that: the COVID vaccine.” The graph is from the Social Security death master file, ages 18-55, all causes, with a maximum increase of 60% on 9/9/21. The graph is not publicly available. Do you wonder why???

Mr. Kirsch tells us that: “It compares deaths from 2021 to deaths in 2020. You simply cannot get such a rise in deaths like that unless something very deadly is affecting massive numbers of people. This explains why insurance companies all over the world were seeing massive death spikes in Q3 and Q4 of 2021. The vaccine was simply taking an average of 5 months from the most recent injection to kill people.”

So a logical question at this point might be–was this COVID outbreak a plan to get people scared enough that they would clamor for a vaccine to protect themselves, not knowing that that vaccine was geared to do them in? I wonder, at this point, how much do those looney-toons characters that prattle about reducing the world’s population have to do with those that promoted this vaccine? Are there connections? If there are, then we’ve been had by those who are supposed to be protecting us. Are they instead of protecting us helping to assist in our demise? If so, they need to be held to account. However, don’t look for this current socialist regime to do anything about it. They are much too busy trying to turn this country into a banana republic.

Things To Dispense With For Educational Freedom

by Al Benson Jr.

I can recall, thinking back years ago now, that my friend and Mentor. Pastor Ennio Cugini, had talked about what needed to be done to ensure real educational freedom in this country. He mentioned two specific things I still remember. He said that you needed to get rid of compulsory attendance laws in the various states. At one point, years ago, the state of Mississippi had done that, but somewhere along the line that got changed so that Mississippi became just like the other states.

I had never heard of anyone else that advocated that except Pastor Cugini. He was ahead of his time, as he was on many other issues. It was and still is a fact that the majority of the property tax in most states goes to find the public schools. I’ve seen some people’s property tax bills here and there and almost without exception, somewhere between two thirds and three quarters of the property tax they paid went to fund the public schools. Pastor Cugini advocated that only those who use the public schools should have to pay this and not everyone else. I agree with him–and neither of us was a big fan of the property tax.

The property tax shows you who really owns the property you live on. Fail to pay the property tax and government at some level can take “your” property away from you. The prevailing theory here is that government really owns it all and the property tax you pay is your yearly rent for the use of some of it.

But, in regard to education, I ran across an article on https://fee.org for back on April 2, 2019 by Kerry McDonald that took compulsory schooling laws to task. McDonald is a senior education editor at FEE, with an ME in education from Harvard. She wrote: “Someone asked me recently if I could wave a magic wand and do one thing to improve American education what would it be. Without hesitation, I replied: ‘Eliminate state compulsory schooling statutes. Stripping the state of its power to define and control education under a legal threat of force is a necessary step in pursuit of education freedom and parental empowerment…While it’s true that some parents may have access to government schooling alternatives, many states require private schools to receive authorization in order to operate…Homeschoolers in most states must comply with state or local reporting mandates that is some areas require homeschoolers to take standardized tests or meet state-determined curriculum requirements. Those hoops are for those lucky enough to jump out of compulsory mass schooling.'”

McDonald went into the history of compulsory attendance laws somewhat as she noted: “Indeed, between 1820 and 1840, Boston’s population more than doubled, and most of these newcomers were poor Irish Catholic immigrants escaping Ireland’s deadly potato famine. They challenged the dominant Anglo-Saxon norms of the time, prompting many state leaders to lobby for a new compulsory schooling statute that would mandate children’s attendance in state-controlled public schools.” One editor wrote in 1851 that: “Nothing can operate effectually here but stringent legislation, thoroughly carried out by an efficient police; the children must be gathered up and forced into school ,and those who resist or impede this plan, whether parents or priests, must be held accountable and punished.” Sounds like Massachusetts was operating on the premise that the children belonged to the state rather than to the parents. We have similar situations today all across the country.

And so McDonald concludes that: “The first step to restore education freedom and empower parents with choice and opportunity for their children is to eliminate compulsory schooling laws that authorize state control of education. States could still require cities and towns to provide public schools to those who want them, but the power to compel parents to send their children there would disappear. In its place, a decentralized network of educational opportunities (including, but not limited to, various types of schooling) would unfold, fueled by visionary parents, educators, and entrepreneurs. Parents, not the state, would decide how and when their children are educated…Education freedom begins when government compulsion ends.” I think she’s right on the money. After all, the kids belong to their parents as God ordained it, and not to the state as man tries to ordain it.

Conspiracy, Assassination, And Reconstruction

by Al Benson Jr.

Karl Marx, in his commentary about Lincoln claimed that Lincoln was fighting for “the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.” Anyone who has studied Lincoln knows he was a racist and really did not care about the slavery issue except as a crutch he could use to beat the South over the head with. The last part of Marx’s statement is the really critical part–“the reconstruction of a social world.” I always found it interesting that when the Union was going to govern the South after the war they called it “reconstruction.” What the Union did to the South was exactly what Marx advocated.

There was lots of conspiratorial activity in the background, going all the way back beyond the Lincoln assassination. As background, Arthur R. Thompson, in his book To the Victor Go the Myths and Monuments, deals with the Lincoln assassination. He notes: “There was a great deal of evidence that the Confederate Secret Service was involved in the plot against Lincoln, at least the original plan, which was to kidnap Lincoln and hold him for some kind of ransom to either free Confederate prisoners or to end the war under favorable terms. Apparently the original idea of the Confederacy was to kidnap the president and hold him for ransoming tens of thousands of Confederate prisoners . Booth initially attempted such a plot, but circumstances made the attempt impossible. Abduction would have helped the Confederacy and their cause. Assassination helped the Conspiracy.” The conspiracy he refers to here is the one started in Germany in the 1700s, the Illuminati, and which, under a variety of names, continued into the 1800s and still continues to this day. It should be noted here that in the 1800s the abduction of an enemy head of state was considered a legitimate tactic of war, whereas assassination was beyond the pale.

And there was evidence to believe that some in the Union were involved in Lincoln’s assassination. Mr. Thompson observed that: “The movements of Lincoln and those surrounding him were well known to Booth, demonstrating that Booth had to have had a number of people working to feed the information to him through some organization that extended inside the Union government. For instance, Booth knowing the countersign at the Anacostia Bridge over which he made his escape. Another indication Booth had inside information relative to the movement and schedule of Lincoln was that Booth seemed to know which people were invited to attend events with Lincoln…In George Atzerodt’s confession, he mentions that Booth told him that if he did not get Lincoln the ‘New York crowd’ would. Booth also stated more than once that there were between 50 and 100 people involved in the plot. This is not as implausible as it may sound. Recall that the John Brown conspiracy involved scores of people that were never brought to justice. Booth, as is the case with most assassins, also kept a diary…” But that is yet another story. In the John Brown situation some of the conspirators were a group known as “the Secret Six” who were mostly Unitarian bigwigs. None of this group paid for their part in Brown’s debacle at Harpers Ferry.

We often forget, with the apotheosis of Lincoln, that Andrew Johnson and William Seward were also scheduled to be assassinated, which of course did not work out. Mr. Thompson reminds us that “Had all of the assassinations been carried out, America would be a very different place today. Not only would those who assumed power–either legally or de facto–have been different, but the feelings against the Southern people would have been even more broad, deep and vituperative. Wiping out the top three in the federal government would have been used to justify anything the Radicals desired–not only over the South, but over the North as well. Radicals in power never allow a crisis to go unused in building power.” One of Obama’s good buddies, Rahm Emanuel, reminded people “Never let a crisis go to waste.” if you will remember.

Mr. Thompson also reiterated that: “Those who were not immediately exposed among the small, insignificant group surrounding Booth were allowed to walk free. One has to ask why, and what these people knew that the authorities did not want exposed to the public by open trial.”

I have often wondered over the years why the government was soon keen on making sure Mary Surrat was among those hanged for Lincoln’s killing. I’ve even written about it and others have written books proclaiming her innocence, yet someone in the government wanted to make sure she hung rather than just going to prison. So I have often wondered–what did Mary Surrat know and when did she know it? And then there was Assistant Secretary of War Thomas Eckert who visited conspirator Lewis Powell in prison and questioned him. Afterward Eckert said: “All I can say about this is, that you have not got the one half of them.” So what did Eckert know? Alot of conspiracy went on at this time that will never make it into the “history” books because those who control much of the Deep State conspiracy going on in this country also control what makes it into our history books and what gets left out that they think they are better off if we don’t know about most of what really happened. So much for educational objectivity.

The South As The Usual Whipping Boy

by Al Benson Jr.

A friend of mine from Alabama recently sent a letter to the editor of a “news” paper in his area. I don’t know if it got printed or will get printed but in it he made some very appropriate comments that I thought deserved some attention.

He stated, quite accurately, that: “Since 1865 the South has been made America’s whipping boy when it comes to the issue of slavery. Politicians today still use the ‘victimhood’ of slavery on their black constituents to get their votes and gain or hold power over them…I intend to point out a few of the many instances where the North shares guilt over slavery,…The Triangle Trade was about New England shipping companies buying black slaves from their black captors on the coast of the present day African country of Ghana, transporting them back to New England ports and selling them to buyers in both the north and south. The Province of Rhode Island was officially referred to as Rhode Island and Providence Plantations and for good reason, because that is exactly what it was–a plantation.” Your “history” books naturally left this out, but I know a little about it because I grew up in nearby Massachusetts, about a mile from the Rhode Island state line.

I think the state of Rhode Island changed the official name a few years back and took the “plantations” part of the state title out because it sounded too much like what the state had actually been–a big plantation–and that was not politically correct.

I read a book a few years ago written by three reporters from a Hartford, Connecticut newspaper that was about how the north actually profited from and promoted slavery. I don’t imagine that book made them too many friends among the politically correct, but it told the truth.

No one condones slavery. However, when passing around the usual liberal guilt trip for it there is more than enough guilt to go around both in the north and the south. So why don’t the “history” books mention that? You know why. The North won the War of Northern Aggression so naturally their complicity in the slavery question has been expunged from the record. Out of sight out of mind.

I’ve been asking a question for years now that has been studiously been ignored and I expect others have asked it as well. If the North fought the war to abolish slavery as many so-called “history” books inform us then why didn’t the North abolish slavery first in those slave states that remained, for one reason or another, tied to the Union? If abolition was the North’s true intent, shouldn’t they have done that? Yet they didn’t. When West Virginia seceded from Virginia to remain in the Union she entered the Union as a slave state, not a free state.

There were 429,000 slaves in states in Lincoln’s indestructible Union who were kept in bondage until the 15th Amendment freed them after Lincoln’s death. I’m still waiting for an answer as to why they were not freed first if freeing the slaves was the reason for fighting the war. Guess I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting for an answer because that is another of those questions the politically correct will ignore, right?

“When Rebel Was Cool”

A book review by Al Benson Jr.


.
Recently I read Ron Kennedy’s new book When Rebel Was Cool, published by Shotwell Publishing in Columbia, South Carolina. This is a book that should touch the average reader on many levels. It is a poignant story the Kennedy Brothers, Ron and Donnie’s “growing up years” from 1950-1965. Being only nine years older than the Kennedy Brothers I found myself comparing my “growing up years” to theirs.


They grew up in rural South Mississippi in a time when the results of Yankee “reconstruction” in the South had not quite worn off yet–100 years after the War of Northern Aggression I was in parts of the South in the late 1950s and so I can attest to the results of Yankee “reconstruction” in that part of the country.


Ron explained why he wrote this book, and I can identify with his reasons. He wrote: “These stories and photographs–some over 100 years old and in poor condition–are our stories written for our grandchildren and all the grandchildren of the South, even if they no longer live in the South. One day our grandchildren may want to know why their grandfathers loved the South so much, especially during a time when the leftwing secular world is actively engaged in destroying Confederate monuments and viciously slandering the honor of the men who wore the gray in the War for Southern Independence…I hope and pray that one day our grandchildren and other Southern grandchildren will read these accounts, otherwise they will never know the truth–a truth that sadly, today, is not allowed to be publicly told.”

My grandchildren have always lived in the North. Only the oldest one has been in the South–but I want them to know these truths as well so they will not embrace the Marxist lies told about the good people of the South.


Ron dealt with many issues in this book and gives you an accurate picture of much that went on in the South during his growing up years. His comments on racial segregation are some you will never read in Yankee “history” books–but they are true nonetheless. On page 18 he noted: “Today, most Americans think that segregation (white supremacy) was something established in the South, but in reality, it was something already established in the North and then, after the
War, imported from the North. During the War, Yankee General ‘Beast’ Butler established ‘Black Codes’ in occupied Louisiana. His ‘Black Codes’ were based upon similar laws then in effect in his home state of Massachusetts. Most Americans incorrectly think that slavery was strictly a Southern issue, but in reality, it was an American issue–the North being primarily responsible for slavery in America. Very few folks know that slavery lasted 75 years longer in Massachusetts than it did in Mississippi.” And he commented also that “…Massachusetts and other Northern states earned much of their wealth from their involvement in the African slave trade and then enacted exclusion laws to prevent free blacks from coming into their states!”

Ron also commented on life in the rural South and said some things I, as growing up in semi-rural Eastern Massachusetts could identify with. He mentioned the three-room rural school house he and Donnie attended and how it had no inside gym, only playground equipment in the school yard. The first school house I attended had only four rooms, for grades 1-4, and the next school house I went to had only six rooms and no inside gym, only playground equipment in the school yard

.
Ron mentioned the kids, as they got older, taking guns to school so they could go hunting after school was out and when they got older and drove to school there was often a rifle rack in the back window of the truck that was driven to school–and no one shot a people on the way home from school. Today many parents would be alarmed at this, but in those days there were seldom any problems. Nowadays kids get arrested for bringing a toy gun to school for “show and tell” or if they even point their finger at another kid and say “bang.” We have gone from responsibility to sheer panic–and mostly over nothing!


Ron also noted something else that struck a familiar chord with me–wild berry picking in the Summer. Many rural Southern folks did this because it helped to put food on the table. My Grandfather, Dad and I often picked wild blueberries in the Summer–not because we had to, but because my Grandmother was a good cook and made delicious pies.

The South has often been called “The Bible Belt” because it is the area of the country where the Christian faith is most evident and where more folks go to church than in other areas. And to get through the Yankee “reconstruction” and the really hard times that followed it Southern folks had to have a strong faith in the Lord to see them through. Life in the post-war South was not easy, nor was it easy for the next hundred years! And, here, Ron had a warning for Christian folks. He said: “It is a sad fact of history that when a people are struggling during hard times or when outside tyrants oppress their nation the people tend to ‘look to God’ for comfort, guidance and help. But once freedom is won or prosperity returns, these same people (or the next generation) tend to ignore the very God who sustained them during the hard times. I fear that this is happening to the South just as it happened to God’s people of Israel, as recorded in the Old Testament.” There is a warning for us here today–if we will but heed it! Ron noted on page 57 the apostasy that engulfed the North in the decades before the War and how many religious leaders in the South saw the War as a spiritual struggle. There was definitely that aspect to it–and it has never been dealt with by our “historians.” Ron discussed the differences between Northern and Southern cultures on page 93.


He commented on the Civil Rights Movement on page 144 and how it was resisted by Southern folks not because they hated blacks but because it was something being pushed and promoted by the federal government–the same federal government the fought against their ancestors and pushed “reconstruction” down their throats.

And he noted on page 150 how much of the so-called “history” and commentary in our day is employed as a ‘divide and conquer” strategy to divide the races off against one another so they will not realize that they have more in common than what separates them and that keeps them from working together against globalist politicians who plan to do both races in one way or another.


Toward the end of the book Ron had a chapter called How to Speak Southern Redneck words and phrases and I really enjoyed this. It is a compendium of colloquial Southern phrases, many of which, surprisingly, I also heard growing up in the North. Quite a few of these were used in my own family in my growing up years and were familiar to me. I don’t know if they originated in the South and made their way to the North or what, but I sure heard a batch of them from both family and friends growing up.

There is much more in Ron’s book than I could ever cover in a book review. I have only touched on some of the high spots and areas that struck me personally. Reading it caused me to think back to my own childhood and to the hard times we had when I was growing up, We were not “punished with poverty” as the South was, but life was not always easy street for us either.


Maybe some of us older folks need to read this and then call it to the attention of our grandchildren so they will possibly begin to get a glimpse of what life was like for us “back in the day” and what it may end up being like for them again if they refuse to heed the warning signs about the direction we seem to be headed in.