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.

The Republican Party Ain’t Your Friend (and neither are the Democrats)

by Al Benson Jr.

Recently I saw an article by Erick Erickson on which was entitled President Hates America.. I can’t disagree with the title. It’s correct–President Obama does not like the United States. Erickson noted that: “The Obamas see the United States as a corrupt and bullying power that needs to be humbled.” He’s correct, the President does not like this country. He despises it and its people, not because it’s corrupt and bullying, but rather because it has not yet conformed to the socialist model he seeks to introduce here. There is resistance to that, and what he really hates is that resistance. Obama has a vision of and for America that is diametrically opposed to what some of our founders wanted for us. Obama and Patrick Henry would be at absolute opposite ends of the spectrum. Obama and Alexander Hamilton might be another matter.

Obama is not opposed to America because of its corruption and bullying–his administration has done enough of both to last for decades if they never did anything else–and the people at the top who are responsible for all the corruption and bullying are both Democrats and Republicans, establishment types who are making money out of all they are doing, while trying to push the country in the direction of the New World Order. Both political parties are top-heavy with those people.

Erickson concluded his article with: “We are less safe at home and abroad as a result. But the President’s golf game goes uninterrupted and his congress remains neutered and in fear of being disliked.” Here we don’t quite see eye to eye. He’s right about us being less safe at home and abroad, and Obama’s golf game does seem to go on forever, with us picking up the tab for it all, but Congress is not neutered or afraid of being unpopular (except maybe at election time). Otherwise, they couldn’t care less what we think of them. It couldn’t be any worse than what they think of us. We continue to elect them, naively thinking they will go to Washington to speak up for us, when actually, they go to promote the corruption Obama professes so much concern about. In truth, the Congress, at least most of it, both Democrats and Republicans, are in complete agreement with where Obama wants to take the country–down the road to some form of socialism. This doesn’t bother Congress in the least. They will still continue to collect their fat cat salaries for pretending to legislate even though Obama seeks to rule by Federal edict and they’ll pretend to complain about it loudly, if ineffectively. it’s all an expensive game, with the always-lucky taxpayer picking up the tab.

Ahh, but now that the Republicans have seized control of Congress all that will change, right? Wrong! Very little will change because, if the truth be known, the Republican agenda is quite similar to Obama’s agenda. After all, they both get their marching orders from the same people, so why should anything really change except enough of the meaningless rhetoric to fool the voting populace? For the most part, the Republican Congress with talk conservative and vote socialist.

In an article on J. Matt Barber stated: “I am no longer a Republican. John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and their Democrat-lite RINO Republican establishment have seen to that. They have betrayed their own constituents…Last month Republicans were elected by ‘We the people’ in an unprecedented landslide-in a Democratic Party bloodbath–with clear marching orders. They were given one task and one task alone. Stop Barack Obama. They have failed both miserably and willfully.”

Let’s call a spade a spade. They failed willfully because Obama’s agenda is very little different than their own. Look at it logically. If the same clique controls both parties, then their agenda will, to one extent or another, be reflected in the actions of both parties. One may say or do it a little differently than the other, but the end result will be the same. We don’t really have two different and distinct political parties in this country with different worldviews. We have, in effect, two branches of the same New World Order group, saying somewhat different things to fool the public, but both, in reality, working for the same agenda. The Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission clique controls both parties, and both parties do what this clique wants them to do. There may be a handful of genuinely conservative Republican congressmen out there, but there are not enough of them to overcome the ones that are either New World Order types or who are willing to go along to get along so they can stay in office and cash in on the goodies.

Others seem to have also discerned the Republican game and realize how it is being played. Dr. Clyde Wilson, in an article in Chronicles for November, 2014, has perfectly described how the Republican Party plays the “conservative” game while doing socialist good deeds.

Dr. Wilson states: “Another fact: With the exception of Reagan’s contribution to winning the Cold War, the entire history of the Republican Party in the 20th century has been a grotesque betrayal–a lack of effective opposition to any leftist and Democratic initiative. The Republican Party has won office claiming opposition and immediately abetted and institutionalized whatever revolution has been imposed…When conservative Christians became politically active, giving great hope to many, they, too, were swiftly invited into the party and neutralized. For some time now the party has rested on the votes of conservative Christians and Southerners. It has never had any intention of giving these voters anything, never has given them anything, and never will give them anything.” He also noted that, should a genuine conservative presidential candidate emerge from among the Republicans in 2016, he greatest opposition will come from the leadership of his own party. This is what happened to Ron Paul in 2012. And it is all entirely in keeping with the real origins of the Republican Party, which were clearly socialist. Again, I would direct you to Donnie Kennedy’s and my book Lincoln’s Marxists. The Republican Party needs to be exposed for the socialism-enabling fraud that it really is.

And then, Christian and conservative voters need to start dealing with the question of “Where do we go from here?”

Lincoln’s Deep Pink Assistant Secretary of War

By Al Benson Jr.

Should you happen to run across the name of Charles A. Dana in a “history” book somewhere what you will probably find out is that he was assistant secretary of war in the Lincoln administration—and that’s most likely all you will find out. Or you may find out, in an exceptional “history” book, that he had been associated with Horace Greeley in the publication of Greeley’s New York Tribune. Again, they won’t tell you anymore than that. After all, the educational rationale seems to be that people don’t really need to know this stuff—it’s only old history.

The fly in the buttermilk is that often “old history” comes back to haunt us. True, we can’t go back and change it, but if we are aware of what really happened we can work to make sure we don’t repeat the same error. If we don’t know then we may well do the same stupid thing—over and over again.

Donnie Kennedy and I, in our book Lincoln’s Marxists, (Pelican Publishing, Gretna, Louisiana) sought to show conclusively that socialism and communism had been alive and well in this country long before anyone believed it was, in fact well over 100 years before anyone believed it was.

Charles A. Dana, Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war is a prime example. In his earlier years Dana had been associated with Brook Farm in West Roxbury, Massachusetts. Brook Farm was yet another communistic endeavor in this country in the early 1840s that didn’t make it. It folded in 1847. However, one of Brook Farm’s projects was a left-of-center publication called The Harbinger. Among those who wrote for this periodical was George Ripley and Charles A. Dana.

After Brook Farm had folded Dana went to work for Horace Greeley’s  New York Tribune. As part of his work there Dana went to Europe in 1848 (what a coincidence!) where he covered the 1848 socialist and communist revolts, not only for the Tribune but for other papers as well. At that time he became well acquainted with Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and who knows who else in the Forty-eighter movement. Upon his return to this country in 1849 he was made managing editor under Greeley for the Tribune. Should you wonder why a friend of Karl Marx was made managing editor for Greeley’s newspaper you could do a little digging and find out that Horace Greeley was also a socialist—something else your “history” books probably didn’t pass along to you. I remember seeing Greeley’s name in history books all through my growing-up years and nowhere was there a mention of his socialist proclivities.

As proof of his affinity for Karl Marx, Charles Dana hired Marx to write columns for Greeley’s paper in 1851. He was to be a regular correspondent. Marx’s command of the English language wasn’t the greatest and so his friend, Engels, ended up writing many of his columns for him, but Marx was the one that was paid for them. So typical of Marxism in general—you do the work and I get the rewards! Since Greeley’s paper was one of the most influential in this country what Dana had done was to give Karl Marx an open pipeline to reach the people of America with his propaganda.

Dana and Greeley parted company in 1862 over some dispute, at which point Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, another sterling character, snapped up Dana and made him “Special Investigating Agent” for the War Department. Dana spent a lot of time with Grant’s army and ended up recommending that Grant be placed in command of all the Union armies. I have often wondered what Dana, a socialist, saw in Grant that made him recommend him. Needless to say, the “historians” don’t tell us.
As we noted in Lincoln’s Marxists  “…we have a New York newspaper, owned by a socialist (Greeley), publishing articles written by the father of modern communism (Marx), who had been hired to write for Greeley’s paper by still another man with socialist leanings (Dana). What an interesting mix!” And you mean to tell me we had no problems with socialism and communism in this country until Roosevelt in the 1930s? Hogwash! Anyone telling you that is gypping you out of 100 years of real history!

According to  Dana was named as Assistant Secretary of War in 1864 and served until 1865 in that capacity. James Harrison Wilson, who wrote a biography of Dana, wrote that Lincoln “appears to have taken Dana into his utmost confidence… and to have consulted with him fully about the amendment to the Constitution to legalize the abolition of slavery…” Which means that the Emancipation Proclamation was little more than war propaganda and Lincoln knew it. Too bad he couldn’t have told our present day “historians.” So we have a man who was a socialist and friend of Karl Marx who had Lincoln’s “utmost confidence.”

We’ve had lots of socialist influence in this country long before we were supposed to have had it according to the historians. We also had Forty-eighter Carl Schurz who ended up being the Secretary of the Interior in the Hayes administration and we had Robert Dale Owen, the son of socialist Robert Owen, who helped craft the infamous 14th Amendment. Do you wonder why your public school “history” books never bother to mention any of this? It’s because you and your kids are not supposed to know about it. How much have the socialists and communists helped to influence the direction this country has gone in since the Lincoln administration? More than you are supposed to be aware of. With this kind of thing going on since the early 1860s is it any wonder why we now have an Obama administration? Folks, stop and think about it for a bit. Wake up and smell the coffee before it is banned for us ordinary folks along with our guns.