Our First Civil War is a Culture War

 

By Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I continue to see articles on the internet about how we are now engaged in our second civil war, and although the folks that write most of them are sincere and present some interesting facts, I have to disagree with them on that one point.

Our first “civil war” was not  truly a civil war. It was a War of Northern Aggression to prevent Southern  independence.

I recently read a good article on https://spectator.org/americas-next-civil-war-will-be-worse-than-our-last/  It was a good article, but the author made a statement on page 2 that showed it was not a “civil war” and I doubt he even noticed. He stated, accurately, that “In the end, the war was fought over a single legal issue: whether the states that had freely ratified the Constitution to form the Union could freely leave the Union if they felt it no longer served their interests.” That comment alone takes the War of Northern Aggression out of the category of a civil war in which both sides are contending for the control of one government. That was not the case. The South had no interest in controlling the federal government—all they wanted to do was to separate themselves from it.

The author of the Spectator articles notes that: “The difference between the America of today and the America of what seems like just yesterday is that we once had a common culture” even through the War of Northern Aggression. To be sure, there were differences, even theological differences between North and South, and the author observes this, but for all of that there had been a common culture. Today, whatever commonality there had been is fast disappearing.  He notes that “Today, however, our divisions are so deep and fundamental that Americans cannot even agree on what marriage is or what a man and a woman is (which is pretty darn fundamental).” Well, it used to be fundamental until the Marxist college professors stuck their noses into it. Now it’s all up for grabs and college students are being taught “politically correct” (culturally Marxist) drivel that wouldn’t have been imagined fifty years ago except by the folks at the Frankfurt School. So our culture has been played with, twisted, and is in the  process of being turned into something no one in his right mind wants to see happen. The war on all things Confederate is part of this cultural shift. The author mentions the “lunatic self-righteousness of the Left” among whom “disagreement is bigotry to be prohibited by law or even condemned and prosecuted as treason.” He says that this is a “fire that will not easily be quenched and cannot be reached by cool waters of rational argument.” He’s right there. The Left will brook no disagreement and you cannot rationalize with them. They have an agenda, provided to them by the One World Government people who finance them and you are wasting your time trying to debate with them. All you can do is resist them with the truth and do it in such a way that you can reach that broad group of people in the middle,  most of  whom will not realize we are currently in a civil war until the storm troopers march up to their houses and demand their firearms on pain of death!

Another part of the civil war to change our culture is the concept of voting rights for non-citizens, which several liberal cities are pushing. If they get enough people to fall for that one the non-citizens who voted will end up helping to change our culture just the same  way as giving illegal immigrants the vote will end up changing our culture. That’s something else the Deep State has been pushing. Check out an article by James Murphy on https://www.thenewamerican.com for July 27th, 2018.

Think we are not involved in a civil war, even as I write this?  Check out an article by Paul Craig Roberts on https://www.lewrockwell.com for July 27th 2018. Mr. Roberts, who has followed national trends for decades, notes that: “The evidence is overwhelming that CIA director John Brennan, FBI director James Comey, Robert Mueller, James Clapper, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and the Democratic National Committee are engaged in high treason against the American people and the President of the United States and are actively engaged in a plot to overthrow the President of the United States. Yet the traitorous intelligence officials  retain their high security clearances and have not been indicted, arrested,  and put on trial for high treason.” We have a culture in Washington that is totally okay with this. Civil war against the President and the American people is perfectly alright—as long as the denizens of the Deep State win.

That is the culture that persists in our present civil war—our first civil war. Will the American people be awakened enough to realize this is a civil war they may end up having to fight in—and I’m not just talking about using guns. That’s a good question.

So Who’s Promoting Insurrection On “Independence Day?”

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Most folks must have heard by now about the calls for civil war and/or insurrection that are being promoted to start on the fourth of July this year.

Every dedicated Leftist, has been, wanna be, or otherwise is out there bragging about how they are going to take the country down starting on the Fourth. It shows you how totally evil the Left really is. They preach about love, peace,  and tolerance but it is all bovine fertilizer, designed to cover up the fact that they really want to destroy the country and our culture and history and replace these with some grotesque imitation of how life was under Stalin in the Soviet Union. And they want us to believe they are doing it in the name of “peace” and societal improvement. If you dare to disagree with them you are a “racist” and if you voted for Trump, God help you, then you deserve the worst of all possible horrors! And they aim to make sure you get it while beating upon their self-righteous Leftist breasts. If their actions don’t wake us up to reality then we probably deserve the fate they have in store for us.

I’ve recently noted some of the more loud-mouthed among them. The ever loathsome Michael Moore is out there shouting that “We have to put our bodies on the line” to stop Trump. In his case that will be a pretty hefty contribution, as Comrade Moore looks like he’s been eating pretty regularly  of late. No shrinking violet or snowflake he! You have to wonder when he directed his last movie. He definitely belongs in the “has been” class–nothing left but big mouth, and too much of that!

Moore wants to get a million people to surround the capitol  to prevent Trump from appointing a new Supreme Court justice before the mid-term elections when he figures the Democrats will surge back into power in Congress and force Trump to settle for a new Supreme Court justice  the Communists would love!

Then there is Maxine (Mad  Max) Waters who is still, believe it or not, in Congress. You have to wonder what she’s done for her home district of late outside of shooting her mouth off. I’m told her home district is one of the most crime-ridden in the country, but she doesn’t  have time to worry about that–she’s way too busy badmouthing the President to be concerned about such trivialities. I heard her last outbreak earned her a charge of assaulting a news reporter. Right up her alley!  If they dare disagree with “Mad Max” they probably need to be assaulted, right?

Then there is another has been, Robert DiNero. The total educational clout of his Leftist argument is “F… Trump.” That’s all you can get out of him because he doesn’t have anything beyond that. Once he has screamed that two or three times he has shot his load and their ain’t no more (thank Heaven).

I read an article on the internet today about federal authorities arresting a man in Cleveland who was allegedly planning a terrorist attack for July 4th there. The man had an American name but was also known by a handle that  comes straight out of the Arabian Nights. Anyone surprised?

It would seem that the communists and other assorted Leftists will be attempting to provoke a communist revolution on July 4th that will result in Trump’s removal as President. In other words they, in some way or other, plan to overthrow the government. Unfortunately, there are people in Washington, some in government, that will be more than happy to aid them in that endeavor.

If the Left really plan such actions on July 4th, you have to wonder whose money will be paying for all this planned chaos. The Left always has big money people in back of its actions to foot the bills for all they do. Might be an interesting exercise to check out some of the organizations George Soros funds to see where they sit on the political spectrum,  or some of those funded by the Rockefeller Foundation or some of the other big, tax free foundations.

And don’t forget the old “pressure from above and pressure from below” principle. The Leftists exert the pressure from below but they always do it at the behest of those wanting to pressure us from above.

You can find books like None Dare Call It Conspiracy and The Rockefeller File on the internet and read them for nothing. They will give you some idea of what is going on today even though they were written several years ago. And there are other books you can buy that are not all that  expensive. One good one is The Shadows of Power by James Perloff, which is a history of the Council on Foreign Relations and how America has declined under that group.

We had better start waking up and realizing that the Leftists and the big money people that fund their radical activity are trying to take this country away from us.  And to add insult to injury we have the latest offering from the One World Government group, the United Nations on

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/29424-us-promises-full-implementation-of-un-gun-control-agreement

 

 

 

Karl Marx—Deadbeat Daddy

 

By Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

 

On May 5th of this year many celebrated the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx. You’d think from some of the articles  I read, mostly on the internet, that  Marx was a daring, bold economic visionary who had come up with a new economic system that proved to be a boon to mankind. Of course that’s the line today’s current crop of Marxist professors have been programmed to parrot. Unfortunately they parrot it to a whole batch of college students who, thanks to inadequate economic education at the high school level, really don’t have a clue and if the professor is good enough he can,  as they say, “baffle them with his BS.”

Supposedly, Marx’s economic vision was put forth for the benefit of the  poor working  people. That that idea was a total charade has been proven by the millions of poor working people that have  perished under various Marxist regimes around the  world. Anyone who believes that hogwash truly has to have spiritual and economic blinders on.

Steve Byas, writing on https://www.thenewamerican.com for May 5th wrote: “While Marx is certainly a central figure in the history of communism, he was by no means the lone originator of communism. And his background demonstrates  that communism did not  spring from the toiling masses of the working class. The reality is that Marx, like almost all socialist revolutionaries, was a product of academia and self-proclaimed intellectual secret societies.” It has been reported that Marx didn’t write The Communist Manifesto on his  own, but rather he wrote it for a group called The League of the Just  (Illuminati) and his name does not even appear on the cover of the first edition.

Donnie Kennedy and I, in our book, Lincoln’s Marxists, noted that Charles A. Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune hired Marx to write columns for the paper, which was owned and published by utopian socialist Horace Greeley. From 1851 to 1862 Marx contributed about 500 articles to Greeley’s paper—his associate Friedrich Engles probably wrote about a quarter of them. He was more well versed in English than Marx was, and besides, Marx was a bit on the lazy side. It seems, though, that he had no trouble taking pay for the articles Engels wrote.

Leopold Schwarzschild, in his book The Red Prussian published in 1947 by Charles Scribner’s Sons noted of Marx that: “In all this there was nothing to indicate that from now on collections, subscriptions and charity were to be this brilliant young man’s sole means  of support. Nobody could have imagined it, and yet so it was. With the collections and subscriptions of 1844 he embarked on a life which was never again, in all the long decades, to have any other basis.” In other words, for all his supposed economic prowess, Marx and his family mostly lived on charity—and a lot of that came from his friend Engels.

Recently I ran across an article from 2010 on https://hubpages.com entitled Karl Marx Lived in Filth and Neglected His Children. The article observed that: “When an educated man chooses to live in poverty , and raise his children in poverty, that is abuse. When Marx and his wife and children were living in London, a visitor wrote a description of  their lifestyle in their 3-room flat. Not only did the Marx children have to endure the hunger of  poverty, they were raised in filth, or what his friend described as ‘a pig-sty’….Both Marx and his wife came from comfortable homes, hers more prominent. Her father was a Prussian baron. And she, Jenny, was an educated woman when she married Marx. Together they had seven children. Four of those children died young. Only three survived to achieve adulthood. Every biography of Marx reports that his four children who died  young died because of the poverty they had to endure…Marx occasionally wrote articles for newspapers and he wrote his long papers and books full of his philosophies about the ‘struggle’ of workers, but he never worked a day in his life”

He also fathered an illegitimate son, but you don’t hear much about that little indiscretion. The hub pages article observed, in closing, that “By any standard, Marx’ life was a failure, as a husband,  as a father, as a provider.” But, hey, Marx didn’t have time for any of that bourgeois stuff.  He and his fellow socialist revolutionaries/terrorists had  an agenda to push onto the world. They just didn’t have any time available for being good fathers and good providers and good husbands. That was for the plebes, not them. They were above all that!

So all those useful idiots that want to enthuse over Karl Marx should take a step back and realize that, when push came to shove, Marx was little more than just another Deadbeat Dad!

You Have To Wonder—

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Looking at what is and has been going on in the Middle East for a long time, you have to wonder if getting rid of Christianity there is a main part of the agenda, both over there and in this country.

In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was no Sunday school teacher. He was a brutal dictator, who had been placed in power by the United States. They used to say of him, “Hussein was a thug, but he was our thug.” One thing you had to say about him, though, was that for all  his faults, and they were numerous, he left the Christians in Iraq alone. They were not persecuted under his regime. You  cannot say the same for his Muslim successors.

Now we have this mess going on in Syria and Assad is supposed to be the reincarnation of Hitler, Attilla the  Hun and the  Mongol hoards all rolled into one. We have  certain people that are screaming for “regime change” in Syria. Quite frankly, these chemical attacks that have gone on there look like classic false flag events. The same pattern seems to emerge in all of them and it’s like someone carries these out, about a year or so apart from one another and this brings on yet another shout for “regime change.” Sort of like–well we tried this last year and it  didn’t take, so let’s wait awhile and try it again this year. Surely in the lapse of time between the last try and this one, people will have forgotten that we used this scenario before and we can do it the same  way again and  all the right  people will howl again this year for “regime change.” Sound familiar?

And again in Syria, as in Iraq, Assad doesn’t bother the Christians. As bad as he is, do you think what replaces him  with a change of regimes will leave the Christian alone? If Assad is toppled you will almost certainly see him replaced with some sort of radical Islamic group which has as  part of its agenda some sort of Sharia Law and the destruction of Christianity. That’s what all these  Islamic groups in the Middle East want, no matter what they say. If the truth were known, that’s what Obama wanted when he was in office. Anyone ever notice how  many Muslims were part of his administration? If you think he was about to give Christians a fair shake then you are dreaming!

Make no mistake, our Deep State in this country wants Assad gone in Syria and in all those Middle Eastern countries  they want regimes that will be compliant to their concept of a One World Government. Our Deep State here wants a Middle East made in its own image just as much as they want a United States molded in their own image. These people, with the help of the  United Nations, want to construct a modern Tower of Babel and reach up to Heaven and secure a place there for themselves all on their own. No “salvation only through Jesus Christ” for these people! They’ll make it on their own–so they  think! Too late they will realize their gross error–but by then they will have destroyed lives and countries–all the more for them to answer for!

Truly hath God said “All who hate me love death.”

A Little More Jayhawker History Your School Books Inadvertently Forgot To Mention

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I’ve found it interesting, over the years, as I have perused the internet out of curiosity to see what sites it might contain that deal with Yankee/Marxist atrocities in Missouri before and during the War of Northern Aggression, the first sites that usually pop up in search engines mostly seem to deal with Lawrence, Kansas.

Could you say there was Yankee/Marxist bias on the internet? Heavens to Abigail–who would ever have thunk it??? It seems that if you are going to discover what mayhem the Yankees committed in Missouri during and before the War, you are first going to have a bit of indoctrination as to what Quantrill is supposed to have done in Lawrence, Kansas in August of 1863.

The accounts of what happened in Lawrence vary in intensity, depending on which Yankee source is passing them along. This is not surprising. On a trip through Kansas several years ago, I chanced to run into a woman who was some sort of local “historian” (hysterian might be a more appropriate word). The minute I mentioned history she opened up with a barrage about the  virtues of terrorist John Brown, ignored the excesses of Jennison’s Jayhawkers, and then proceeded to inform me that people like Jeb Stuart were nothing but terrorists! Our discussion ceased shortly after that and I was more than glad to let her go her abolitionist way. Unfortunately, this seemed, at that time, to be rather typical of eastern Kansas. Friendly territory if you didn’t deify John Brown it was not. So why should the internet be any different?

James D. Horan, in his book Desperate Men announced of Quantrill’s men that they “…sacked Lawrence, Kansas on August 13, 1863, killing one hundred and forty men, women and children.” Although Mr. Horan may not realize it, the part about Quantrill’s men killing women and children is the grist from which cow chips are made, and as such, it belongs out in the cow pasture with the rest of the bovine fertilizer. However, Horan does tell us that Quantrill’s men burned 185 buildings and five stores. In the movie Ride With the Devil, which is amazingly accurate in many areas, the first building Quantrill’s men are shown burning down is the local government school seminary. Maybe the movie’s director, Ang Lee, who is from Taiwan, knew something about out history that most Americans don’t, and that might be why the movie was yanked from theaters after only about a three week run, never to appear again except in video form–and you couldn’t get them everywhere.

So, should you decide to hunt and peck around on the internet, you can learn an awful not about what happened in Lawrence, Kansas. This raid, battle, or whatever you choose to label it is one thing mentioned in most “history” books dealing with the War. However, these same “history” books (and I use that term loosely) almost never mention Osceola, Missouri.  In fact, most folks have probably never heard of that town unless they lived in close proximity to its location. It’s one of those supposed-to-be-forgotten places the Yankee/Marxists hope you never hear much about. Although the “history” books continue to give you grim accounts of all that supposedly happened in Lawrence, they will almost totally ignore what took place in Osceola, Missouri almost two years previous to Lawrence.

On September 23, 1861, Osceola, Missouri was attacked by Senator James H. Lane and his infamous “Lane’s Brigade.” This “brigade” was made up of Kansas cavalry and infantry, and was, according to one source, “…a ruthless band of Jayhawkers (plundering marauders) wearing United States uniforms. James H. Lane was known as the’Grim Chieftain’ for the death and destruction he brought on the people of Missouri.”

With Senator Lane, according to Paul Petersen, in Quantrill of Missouri, was the Fourth Kansas Jayhawker regiment and the Third Kansas Jayhawker regiment, the latter under the command of that plundering abolitionist preacher, “Colonel” James Montgomery. Although there were no Confederate soldiers anywhere near the town, and hence the town, as such, was no military threat, some of the local residents had the temerity to fire at the Union “soldiers” so Lane ordered the town to be shelled. After the town had pretty much been reduced to a mass of broken lumber and bricks, nine local  citizens were led to the town square, where they were given a “trial” by a Kangaroo Court of Jayhawkers, and they were then summarily shot. Petersen informed us that: “Banks were an easy target for the Jayhawkers, but the Osceola bank had prudently shipped its funds elsewhere. When Lane found little currency in the  bank, he ordered the stores, warehouses and homes ransacked. His men loaded the loot into government wagons and any other vehicles they could confiscate. Among Lane’s personal haul were a number of pianos for his home in Lawrence.” Just the spoils of war, folks. No doubt those Missouri pianos  would have given aid and comfort to any passing Confederates and so they had to be removed!

Then, in a typical Yankee/Marxist humanitarian gesture, Lane set what remained of the town on fire. Of the 800 building in town, only three are reported to have escaped the flames, and no consideration was given to the political leanings of any of the homeowners. Yankee or Secesh; if you had a home in Osceola, it got torched! One might wonder why Quantrill’s men, who supposedly burned 185 buildings in Lawrence, were given so much coverage while Lane’s men, who burned nearly 800 in Osceola, got almost none. You don’t suppose there was some historical bias involved here do you.

The loot these legalized thieves made off with from Osceola included over 300 horses, 400 head of cattle, and 200 kidnapped slaves, along with many sacks of flour, sugar, salt, and coffee. Petersen reported that: “Eyewitnesses noted that the plunder train of 150 wagons was at least a mile long. Property losses were estimated at more than a million dollars.” You have to understand, though, that all this is okay. As long as you are garbed in your new Yankee uniform it’s perfectly alright to rob, pillage, and rape (as Sherman’s men did in Georgia). It only becomes wrong when those nasty “racists” in the dirty gray uniforms do it.

Sound like a double standard? Of course, but how can you operate any other way when you have “racists” and various other “deplorables” to deal with and your mindset is avowedly Marxist? I mean, after all, what can people expect?

An interesting little sidelight to this horrific affair was the 200 “freed slaves.” Petersen has informed us that they “…were taken into Kansas and assigned to work in the fields. Their pay was anything they could steal and carry away from their former owners…” Such a deal! I’ll bet those Kansas farmers just loved to have those “freed” slaves working in their fields and it was even reported later that Senator Lane wanted payment from the farmers for providing them. If I didn’t know better I’d think that almost makes Jim Lane sound like some sort of slave trader! If one were not convinced of the utter truth, virtue and nobility of the Yankee cause such information might make him tend to think that Lane sounded slightly hypocritical. But you have to remember, Lane was a 19th century cultural Marxist and so the double standard is perfectly alright so long as his agenda is served.

You might even, should you have a suspicious mind, as I have been accused of having, be tempted to ask the question–when is slavery not slavery? The answer to that question is–when it is practiced in Kansas by abolitionists instead of in Missouri by ordinary farmers. But having been exposed to a certain amount of political correctness in our day you all how that drill goes–“War is peace; Less is more,” and so forth.

And to top off a grand day for the Jayhawkers, just before Lane’s brigade  left town, most of them got roaring drunk! But again, you have to realize, that’s okay–the Yankee uniform excuses anything–you know: “His truth is marching on” and all that! So should you be tempted to wonder, there were ample reasons for the raid on Lawrence. It was not just a random act of Southern terrorism as has been suggested. And we might well ask the question–if Lawrence was terrorism, then what, pray tell, was Osceola??? Answers anyone? I didn’t think so!

Those Plundering Abolitionist Preachers (do unto others before they do unto you)

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Should you have chanced to read any history at all dealing with our “Civil War” really the War of Northern Aggression, you must surely have read something about “bleeding Kansas.” I can remember reading about that in my pre-teen “history” books.

Most of what you have probably read goes into some detail (fake history?) about how the greasy, slave-owning, bushwhacking denizens of Missouri spent all their spare time (when they weren’t beating their slaves to death) raiding across the border into that pristine abolitionist wilderness called Kansas, which as we have all been taught, was the home of all loyal, virtuous, pure-as-the-driven-snow abolitionist types whose only aim in life was a holy crusade to free all slaves everywhere from bondage.

If you are like the rest of us, you were probably spoon-fed the historical hogwash that this was the only type of behavior you could ever expect from the dregs of humanity that inhabited Missouri, while those wonderful folks living across the line in Kansas would never dream of engaging in such horrible deeds.

To say that the “historians” got this backwards would probably be an undeserved act of naive charity. Most of them, then as now, got it backwards on purpose because the actual truth was revolting enough that they just knew you didn’t need to be aware of it–lest you should begin to question the veracity of Mr. Lincoln’s “holy cause.”

For all the lofty pretensions of the cause of abolitionism, Kansas was populated by some who felt it was their “holy calling” in life to raid across the border into Missouri for whatever they could get out of it for themselves. It was what some might call “abolitionism for fun and profit.” The fun was burning the homes of Missouri farmers, the profit was hauling off all the loot they could carry away from those homes before they torched them.

In his book Bloody Dawn, author Thomas Goodrich noted the character of such sterling individuals as Kansan Charles Jennison. He noted: “Actually the outbreak of civil war simply lent an aura of legitimacy  to a program Jennison had been pursuing all along.  Jennison has been characterized as cruel, heartless, cowardly, and a moral vagabond.” A charitable description!

Goodrich continued: “Whatever the opinion, Jennison and his regiment became in fact the scourge and salt of western Missouri during the first summer and winter of the war. One by one the towns along the border fell victim to their forays. Stores were looted, safes emptied, elegant homes gutted. Nor was the countryside spared. Night after night the skies over the border were aglow as barns, cabins, and crops were set ablaze. Those hapless farmers lucky enough to escape the torch watched powerlessly while the fruits of their labor were hauled off in their own wagons. Herds of cattle, horses, and sheep were likewise driven west.” And it was all for the “glorious” cause of “preserving the Union.”

Even for all of that, Jennison might have created less furor had he been a bit more selective in whom he burned out, but he was not. He was an equal opportunity plunderer. He ventured out after anyone who had loot he could steal (for the preservation of the Union). Goodrich noted that, because of Jennison’s behavior, many in Missouri who might have remained Unionists, or at least fence-straddlers, became violent enemies of Lincoln’s war effort once Jennison had ministered unto them of the healing balm of abolitionist mercy.

And then, to give holy unction to Jennison’s activties, along came the abolitiionist preachers. Chief among them was one James Montgomery. This worthy has been described as a Bible-toting evangelist, but in his book Quantrill of Missouri author Paul R. Petersen has painted a somewhat different picture of Montgomery’s evangelistic methods. In discussing the depredations of some of the Kansans, Petersen noted: “The people who attacked him were not Missourians;  they were Jayhawkers. These people stole from friend and foe alike, and the group that attacked Quantrill’s camp (this was even before the war commenced)  supposedly belonged to James Montgomery’s band of thieves. Montgomery was a preacher from Linn County, Kansas Territory, and a captain in James Lane’s militia. In the late  1850s he was arguably the most feared of the border marauders,  and even before the war, he led forays for plunder into Missouri.”

Petersen also noted in his book another “interesting” Kansas character, one John Ingalls, who wrote to his father back in Massachusetts telling him of conditions in Kansas. He said: “One remarkable feature of the social conditions here is a total disregard of the Sabbath…” You might wonder, with all those fiery abolitionist preachers running around there why such a situation existed. It would seem that these Kansas “preachers” were so occupied with plundering across the border in Missouri that they just had no time for services on the Lord’s Day–which says a little about the depth of their Christian commitment.

Another really virtuous Kansas character was John E. Stewart. He has been described as an “abolitionist extremist.” He enjoyed association with that saintly old murderer and terrorist, John Brown. Petersen has informed us that: “Even before the war Stewart had gotten a reputation of being associated with John Brown and James Montgomery in their deprecatory raids across the border…Before coming to Kansas he had been a Methodist minister in New Hampshire… His frequent forays across the border resulted in the Missouri  legislature placing a price on his head, and he was suspected in Kansas of ‘entertaining loose notions with regard to property in horses as well as negroes.’ As in the case of all Jayhawkers, his professed zeal for abolition caused a large proportion of the settlers to overlook these activities.”

In other words, as long as you were an abolitionist  it was perfectly alright to steal, kill, and burn. After all, didn’t the noble end of “freeing the slaves” justify the means? These people were the proto-Marxists of their day. Some sources have even reported that once some abolitionists “freed” some slaves in Missouri they brought them back to Kansas, took them south and resold them in New Orleans. But, hey, what the heck.  They were in need of some hard cash so they could buy more of John Brown’s “Beecher Bibles” to kill more Missourians  so they could “free” more Missouri slaves, so that made it all somehow legitimate in the twisted abolitionist mindset.

With men of this moral stripe, often led by preachers of the same moral stripe plundering their state, is it any wonder that so many in Missouri  decided to throw their lot in with the Confederacy?

However, don’t bother hunting for this type of history in your “history” books. Since the winners get to write the “history” books it is much more convenient for their agenda if you are taught to focus on “bleeding Kansas” rather than on plundered Missouri.

Why I Couldn’t Agree With Bruce Catton

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Over the years I have read a bit of “Civil War” history from a lot of authors with divergent opinions on many things. Somehow, though, Bruce Catton’s view of the War was just not one I could get comfortable with. It was sort of like James M. McPherson’s view of the War, and you all know who he was. If you ever read anything I wrote about the War you will recall I couldn’t get comfortable with McPherson’s worldview regarding the War and the reasons for it either. And while McPherson’s books have often been cited on the World Socialist Website in the past, I couldn’t find anything in that regard about Bruce Catton.

However, McPherson’s and Catton’s views appear quite similar when it comes to the notorious Forty-Eighters that Donnie Kennedy and I wrote about in Lincoln’s Marxists.

A friend in New Jersey recently sent me a paragraph out of Catton’s The Army of the Potomac: Glory Road, from page 172 of the book. This is one I had not read, and it probably explains why I am glad I did not make the effort. Even when you research history,  there are times when you can only stand so much propaganda and, though he probably did not intend to do it, that’s exactly what Mr. Catton gave us in this instance. I will comment here on some of what he said in this paragraph.

He started out with: The nation inherited something rich and strange when the German revolutionary movement broke up in blood and proscription lists,  with the best men of a dozen German states hastening to America.   The 1848 revolts in Germany and several other European countries were socialist revolts. That being the case, it would seem that Catton is trying to tell us that the “best men” from a dozen German states were all socialists or communists, because that’s what took part in this revolution. Catton may not be aware of this–in which case you might do well to ask just what else he is unaware of. Either that or his worldview has no problem with socialists. I can’t say definitively either way.

He continues: These Germans were deadly serious about words which Americans took blithely for granted, words like liberty and like freedom and democracy.  It seems as if Catton is totally unaware of the fact that these words do not mean the same things to socialists and communists that they mean to us. When they use such terms they are not saying  what we say when we use them. Lots of ignorant people who eulogize the Forty-Eighters make this grave error. They do not understand how the Leftists use language to confuse their adversaries–and if we are not Leftists, then we are all their adversaries.

Catton says: They (the Forty-Eighters) made up a substantial part of the ground which the free-soil men had cultivated in the 1850s and when the war came they had seen the Union cause as their own cause, with freedom for the black man as one of its sure ultimate goals. This is yet another confirmation that the socialists/communists  saw the Union cause as their own. As for “freeing the slaves” their motives were hardly humanitarian no matter what they said. They were every bit as “racist” as those Southern folks they accused of “racism.” They felt that “freeing” the slaves would uproot the South and cause major problems for the Confederacy and so they endorsed it. The South was the part of the country that was the most Christian and conservative and the most opposed to the socialist designs of both the Establishment in Washington, New York and London.

As Catton wound down in this paragraph he stated:  Their leaders were men who had lost their fortunes and risked their necks, taking up arms for liberty in a land of kings who resisted change, and these leaders called the Germans to the colors as soon as Fort Sumter was bombarded.  Almost sounds as if Sumter was their signal to be up and moving!

What Catton seemed unable to grasp here is that the socialists/communists in Germany, as well as in the rest of Europe, did not fight for liberty for the common man, as we know it. They fought to centralize all the German states into one collectivist entity–with their friends in control of it! The same held true for what they sought to do all over Europe. They fought for collectivization–not liberty. And that’s what they fought for here also. They knew, at least at the leadership levels, where Lincoln was coming from and they knew they had a shot at doing here what they had failed to do in Europe, because they had a leader in Washington that agreed with them!

Until we learn to get this history straight we will continue to make the same stupid errors that we have seen, purposely or otherwise, for the last 150 years. Unfortunately, authors like Mr. Catton who end up glorifying socialists and communists don’t help us much!

The Obama/Trump Gun Control Act of 2018

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I hate to say this, but it is beginning to look like, when push comes to shove, the Donald Trump support for the Second Amendment is starting to resemble the Platte River in Nebraska–“a mile wide and an inch deep.” Mr. Trump seems about to collapse on every Second Amendment issue now coming up and the socialists in government are just loving him for every minute of it. They are hoping to get the gun control under Trump that even eluded them while their Marxist-in-Chief, Obama sat on the throne.

A headline on Breitbart for Wednesday, February 28th said: “President Donald Trump embraced Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) gun control bill but rejected Rep. Steve Scalise’s (R-LA) push for national reciprocity during a bipartisan meeting with lawmakers Wednesday afternoon.”

The revealing part of the article was this: “The Manchin/Toomey gun control bill is the same universal background check legislation supported by Barack Obama in the wake of the heinous attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School. It is the very bill that was defeated in the Democrat-controlled Senate on April 17, 2013.”

So Trump is now endorsing a gun control bill that was embraced by Barack Obama. Maybe we should rename it The Obama/Trump Gun Control bill of 2018 because it now seems that Trump the nationalist is willing to support the same thing as Obama the Marxist.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture, or is it just me?

And, according to http://freebeacon.com “Major gun-control groups on Thursday heaped praise on President Donald Trump for his advocacy for new gun-control laws during a televised meeting with top lawmakers…Trump advocated for adding proposals like extending FBI background checks to used gun sales between private parties, a ban on gun ownership for those under 21–especially ownership of assault weapons–to a bipartisan proposal to improve the current background check system. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said they were happy with Trump’s performance at the meeting.” They just oohed and aahed at Trump’s “full-throated support of gun violence prevention laws today,…”

Whether Mr. Trump realizes it or not, he is now supporting fully the means that will lead to registering everyone’s firearms of any sort with the federal government, which will lead to eventual confiscation of all guns. He is setting us on the path to eventual confiscation that Comrade Obama could only dream about! You have to wonder if he knows what he is doing. I hope not, but he’s going to do it anyway.

The Deep State and the Far Left have finally give us enough false flag shootings that they’ve gotten to Mr. Trump and he is willing to go along with whatever garbage they throw at him, supposedly to save lives.

Just think of how many lives can be saved when the feds have all the guns and they can just haul us off to the FEMA camps and not have to worry about resistance. The country will be one giant gun-free zone and if you think that will stop the killings I have a bridge in the desert in Arizona I’d love to sell you!

You have to wonder what happened to Trump on this issue. Something did. This is not the same man that spoke to CPAC a couple weeks ago and pledged to defend the Second Amendment–this is a man willing to toss all that away for the praise of the socialist gun-grabbers–so something has happened to him since that speech. We can speculate just what, but that seems an exercise in futility. Better we should spend our time contacting our senators and representatives and tell them to vote against any new gun control measures that come up and if they won’t then we better find someplace else to cast our votes.

Can anyone spell S E L L O U T ???

Just remember one thing–without the Second Amendment you have no way of protecting the other 9!

Update:  According to http://www.washingtonexaminer.com  “Rand Paul…introduced legislation on Thursday that would repeal a 1990 law banning guns from school zones…Paul’s bill would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990 and all amendments to that law.” If this bill makes it out of committee and gets passed it will be interesting to see what Mr. Trump will do with it. My first thought is, now that he has been turned, he will find some plausible reason to veto it. From tidbits I heard on the internet today it seems that in some way, Trump has now been compromised and may have to do what the gun grabbers want of him or they will find a way to expose whatever it is they seem to have on him. I hope I am in error, but this is how it looks at this point.

It Wasn’t All About Slavery!

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Back in February of 2013 (five years ago now, doesn’t seem all that long ago) I did an article for this blog called The Lincoln/Corwin “Keep your Slaves” Amendment. It discussed the Corwin Amendment, which many of you all probably never heard of. After all, it’s not one of those things the “historians” or the media make a big deal out of because it doesn’t fit their agenda of a “saintly” Lincoln who loved all blacks, or a treasonous South. Scroll back and read that article. It’s still there. That will save me having to restate much of it here. It was a amendment to the Constitution, introduced by Thomas Corwin of Ohio that would have kept slaves in bondage in perpetuity. The sainted Mr. Lincoln was in favor of it, had no problems with it. If you find that hard to believe then go back to February 2, 2013 on this blog and read it.

Lincoln stated, in his first inaugural address, on March 4, 1861 that, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Lincoln pretty much told us what the war (for him) was all about, and it wasn’t slavery. Even the vaunted Emancipation Proclamation” (actually a war and propaganda measure) did not free any slaves in the slave states remaining in the Union, nor did it free any slaves in the Confederate States where it had no legal authority. In fact, you could really say it was the “nothingburger” of the 19th century. So, given all these considerations, it’s hard to believe that “historians” and “journalists” in our day seem unable to come to grips with the naked truth that Lincoln declared war on the South so he could drag them back into the Union and hang on to all that tariff money the South had heretofore pumped into the national economy. The South had paid for 87% of the national economy, and if the South remained out of the Union, then the Union would tank in very short order and Lincoln had to get the South back into the Union so they could continue to “remit the extortion money” to Washington so Washington  would have that money to finance all those internal improvements they wanted to make up north! And those lucky Southern folks would get to pay for all that! Weren’t they just blessed???

Years ago (in 2007 to be exact) someone sent me an article by James W. King and Lt. Col. Thomas M. Nelson entitled The Ten Causes of the War Between the States. It was a good article and I hung onto it. It stated, in part,  “There were 10 political causes of the war–one of which was slavery–which was a scapegoat for all the differences that existed between the North and South. The Northern industrialists had wanted a war since about 1830 to get the South’s resources (land-cotton-coal-timber-minerals) for pennies on the dollar. All wars are economic and are always between centralists and decentralists. The North would have found an excuse to invade the South even if slavery had never existed..”

Frank Conner said pretty much the same thing in his book  The South Under Siege 1830-2000.

King and Nelson, in their article, listed the ten reasons for the war. After going over all their reasons, I had to conclude that they were right on target. They started off by listing the tariff; centralization vs. states rights and Christianity vs. Secular Humanism. This last one is one that few historians, or anyone else for that matter, take into account, yet it is one of the most important and critical. Of course that may be why it is so ignored today.

They listed cultural differences–another one most folks don’t ever give a thought to. We haven’t been taught to think along those lines and so most of these really critical issues just go over our heads. All we’ve been taught (or conditioned) to do is to react to lurid tales of Southern cruelty to slaves–as though the South was the sole proprietor of the slavery issue. It’s not! The North has a big slice of the proprietorship there, too, though most will never admit it, and neither will today’s spin media (excuse me, I meant “news’ media).

I already mentioned the North’s desire for control over Southern resources. Then there was slander of the South by Northern newspapers; New England’s attempts to instigate massive slave revolts in the South. Does Harper’s Ferry, Virginia come to mind here? Just about all those who financed the actions of terrorist John Brown in that gory undertaking were either New England or New York Unitarians and/or socialists. That fact was not lost on Southern folks.

Way down the list, at number 9, was slavery, and while it was an indirect cause, it was not the cause of the war–contrary to the propaganda being promulgated  in today’s classrooms and newsrooms.

I expect some will not appreciate it that I keep hammering at this issue, but when you have had 150 years of propaganda passing as history and news, you have to keep hammering to create cracks in that wall of false propaganda. Until our people begin to get it right about the War of Northern Aggression we will never get it right about any of the events that followed that war. That war was our French Revolution and we have never recovered from the results of it, nor the propaganda spun about it that conditions our thinking today.

Slavery was not the cause of that war. Secession was not treason. “Racism” was every bit as prominent in the North as in the South, maybe even moreso. It just didn’t get the media attention up there. And don’t tell me it didn’t exist up there. I grew up in the North.

With the divisions we have in this country today, culturally and otherwise, it would seem that we might be better off as two separate countries. I doubt that the North will ever totally be able to purge itself of its Unitarian/socialist world view. Left to its own devices, the South might have a chance. And, if push came to shove–much of the West would be better off siding with the South, because we have the same common enemies and the same desire to just be left alone, free from bureaucracy, to live our lives as we feel God intended.

Update:

For a little more on this subject please check out my book review of Gene Kizer Jr.s book Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States published on the Abbeville Institute’s website on February 27, 2018.

Belated Birthday Comments on Lincoln the Empire Builder

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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