Part 2–More About Secession the “History” Books Haven’t Told Us

by Al Benson Jr.

It has been accurately asserted by author Gene H. Kizer Jr. that: “The arguments for the right of secession are unequivocal. There is the constitutional right based on the Compact Theory, and the revolutionary right based on the idea that a free people have a right to change their government anytime they see fit. The Compact Theory views the Constitution as a legal agreement between the states–a compact–and if any one state violates the compact, then the entire agreement becomes null and void. Northern states unquestionably violated the Constitution on a number of grounds including Personal Liberty Laws on their books, as well as by deliberately harboring fugitives from justice by protecting the sons of John Brown who were wanted by Virginia for murder at Harpers Ferry. Northern states also made a mockery of the Constitution’s Preamble which states clearly that the Constitution was established to ‘insure domestic tranquility’ and ‘promote the general Welfare.’ Certain prominent Northern leaders with the acquiescence of states like Massachusetts were utterly at war with the South and doing everything they could to destroy the domestic tranquility of the Southern states by encouraging slaves to murder white people, poison wells, destroy property and commit other acts of rapine. John Brown himself had been encouraged and financed by the North.”

I have, in the past, written about a group called The Secret Six, which financed Brown’s terrorist activities in both Kansas and Virginia. Of this group all, save one, was from New England and that one was from New York. An excellent book to read regarding this dismal period in our history is Otto Scott’s The Secret Six–The Fool as Martyr which is a biography of John Brown, and therefore deals with those that financed him in some detail. Another good work in this area worth reading, if you can find it is The Road to Harpers Ferry by J. C. Furnas. A couple years ago in my little newsletter The Copperhead Chronicle I did a series of biographical sketches on the Secret Six. Quite an interesting little group. One of them, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a Unitarian minister made the statement “I am always ready to invest money in treason…” I mention all this to demonstrate that the North had indeed broken the Constitutional Compact.

Walter Williams, a distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University has written on the secession question on a number of occasions. In his understanding secession is indeed legal. He noted at one point that before the War Between the States a constitutional amendment was proposed by some Northern congressman that would prohibit secession. He then points out that there would have been no point in offering such an amendment if secession had already been unconstitutional. You do have to admit that he has a point.

A few years ago the late Joe Sobran, (whom I assume that most people who read have heard of), wrote an article that appeared on in which he noted that: “Our ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession. Yes, most people assume that the Civil War settled that. But superior force proves nothing. If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now. It wasn’t negated become Northern munitions factories were more efficient than Southern ones.” And Sobran further observed, and I have to agree with him, that: “The original 13 states formed a ‘Confederation’ under which each state retained its ‘sovereignty, freedom and independence’.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were ‘granted’ and ‘delegated’ by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government. Even in The Federalist, the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution…the United States are constantly referred to as ‘the Confederacy’ and a ‘confederate republic,’ as opposed to a single ‘consolidated’ or monolithic state. Members of ‘a confederacy’ are by definition free to withdraw from it.”

Sobran noted that while Hamilton and Madison sincerely hoped secession would never happen, they didn’t deny that it was a possibility, and even if Madison didn’t like or agree with it, that doesn’t make it illegal.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816: “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation…to continuance in union…I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate’.” Donald W. Livingston, a professor of philosophy at Emory University, and president of the Abbeville Institute, wrote in an article published in Chronicles magazine in October, 2010, that: “A state cannot retain sovereignty unless it has it, and in joining the Union no state renounced sovereignty. What motivates the nationalist theory is not an honest look at the historical founding of America, but political ambition legitimated by the philosophical theory of the modern unitary state. This ambition appears forcefully in Hamilton, who argued at the Philadelphia Convention for a president for life, a senate with members for life, appointed by the president, and state governors appointed by the president–in other words, monarchy by another name.” You have to wonder if any of those “you can’t get out of the Union no matter what” folks have something of this sort in mind. Those that seek to deny people their rights usually do have an agenda.

Rand and Walter Don’t See Eye to Eye

by Al Benson Jr.

After having watched Rand Paul, who is supposed to be the conservative of all conservatives, of late, I’m not exactly sure where he is going.

Back in April, when the situation at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada was accelerating, Rand Paul came out in support of Cliven Bundy, which I had no problem with and agreed with. However, as soon as Mr. Bundy’s supposed “racist” statements were made, Rand Paul did double-time in back-peddling away from him. He released a statement condemning Bundy’s “racist” (actually if you heard them all, they weren’t) comments as loudly as anyone in the Obama Regime would have. In fact, he almost sounded like a closet Democrat in his denunciations. It would appear that he didn’t even bother to take the time to listen to everything Mr. Bundy really said, he just bought the media’s version of it, which as it turned out had been “photo-shopped” a bit as far as content. I was disappointed with his reaction, when a friend reminded me that “Rand is not his dad.”

The truth of my friend’s statement came back to haunt me, duly reinforced by comments from Rand Paul that were quoted on for September 5th. Mr. Paul made some statements regarding the situation in Ferguson, Missouri and about the race question in general. He said, in part, “Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel their own government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African Americans not to feel their government is particularly targeting them.” This in the face of the fact that we now have a man who claims to be black as president and we have a black Attorney General.  And given what the current “Justice” Department has been doing you really have to ask just who is being discriminated against. But I digress.

Paul also stated: “Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.” Such a statement sounds typically Democratic and liberal. Rand’s name is one that has been touted for a possible presidential run in 2016, as a “conservative” Republican. I don’t know if he’s trying to sound “inclusive” enough so that he can reach beyond the conservative vote or not, but if he is he should know better. Most of the Democrats are not going to vote for anyone that is not an avowed socialist, and lots of those calling themselves Republicans won’t either, in spite of the Republican Party spouting all that drivel about being the “party of small government.” To give the lie to all that foolishness all you have to do is look back at Abraham Lincoln–and the socialists and Marxists that had his support.

Rand’s little diatribe sounds almost like the old “racist” line that “It’s all whitey’s fault that I’ve got all these problems, not my fault.” Suffice it to say that Walter Williams, the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University and a syndicated columnist, has a little different take on it.

Professor Williams, in a column that appeared on on August 26th wrote: “Though racial discrimination exists, it is nowhere near the barrier it once was. The relevant question is: How much of what we see today can be explained by racial discrimination? This is an important question because if we conclude that racial discrimination is the major cause of black problems when it isn’t, then effective solutions will be elusive forever.” Dr. Williams puts his finger on something almost no one else will venture to deal with–personal responsibility.

He noted that a study in 1880 of family structure in Philadelphia showed that three quarters of black families were “nuclear families” which means that there were both a mother and father in the home. He also noted the fact that, in 1925, in New York City, 85% of black households were two-parent households. And he quoted from something written by Herbert Gutman, who was the author of The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925  where Gutman said: “Five in six children under the age of six lived with both parents.” Dr. Williams also stated: “Also, both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.” Bear in mind that this is a black professor saying this.

But then Dr. Williams cuts to the chase when he notes: “The point of bringing up these historical facts is to ask the question, with a bit of sarcasm: Is the reason the black family was far healthier in the late 1800s and 1900s that back then there was far less racial discrimination and there were greater opportunities? Or did what the experts call the ‘legacy of slavery’ wait several generations to victimize today’s blacks?” And Dr. Williams notes on statistic  that, again, no one bothers to mention, that the poverty rate among intact black families is, and has been, in single digits for more than two decades, while the poverty rate among other blacks is presently at 28.1%.

Dr. Williams then addresses an issue you can’t “blame whitey” for–weak family structures in the black community. He says: “Each year roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered.  Ninety-four percent of the time the murderer is another black person. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims.” Kind of hard to “blame whitey” for blacks killing other blacks–although I’m sure there are some who will labor mightily trying to find a way.

Dr. Williams puts forth a statement that black “civil rights” leaders, and those who continue to play the race card so well, fervently hope most folks will miss or ignore. He says: “If it is assumed that problems that have a devastating impact on black well-being are a result of racial discrimination and a ‘legacy of slavery’ when they are not, resources spent pursuing a civil rights strategy will yield.disappointing results.” He is right on the money there. Deal with something that is not the real problem and you will literally get nowhere, but then, that will give lots of folks in the “racial discrimination” business an excuse to ask for even more money to be spent on their sacred cow. Who cares if it doesn’t work–they’re walking in high cotton.

Too bad Rand Paul didn’t read what Walter Williams had to say about all this before making his pitch for Democratic values to those listening to him.  I, for one, will really watch what Mr. Paul says in the future, as well as what he does, as I think we all should–watch and evaluate.

The Corruption of Socialism

by Al Benson Jr.

Over the years I have heard some people try to make a case for the promotion of socialism from the Book of Acts in the Bible, particularly from Acts 2:44-47. This, they claim, shows that the early Christians were socialists and so we should all emulate their “Christian” socialism in our lives and in our countries today. The only problem with these folks is that they want government to implement this socialism in our lives, and that is a system that never works.

Decades ago now, the last Episcopal Church we attended had a pastor that knew a little bit about communism and communists and he would warn his congregation about communism from time to time. I remember once that someone attending the church brought this up and the pastor stated, quite correctly, “You can’t make a case for communism from Acts 2.” For one thing, Acts 5 puts a real damper on the communism idea. This is the familiar story of where Ananias and his wife sold something, a piece of land or whatever and kept back part of the price and lied about what they had sold it for. When the Apostle Peter confronted Ananias about this he said: “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?” The sin of Ananias and his wife was not that they kept part of the money—they were free to do that if they wanted to. The sin was that they lied about it. Had they given only part of the money and made that point clear there would have been no problem. Their keeping part of it while claiming to have given over all of it was their problem. As far as I can see, this narrative pretty much kills the idea of “communism” in the church. The implication here is that while they owned the property it was theirs to do with as they pleased as long as they didn’t lie about it.

Also, years back, I remember Rev. Ennio Cugini of the Clayville Church in Rhode Island talking about this issue. He noted that when people shared their goods voluntarily it was Christian charity. When the government forced them to share it was communism. He was correct.

In our day, no one but the willfully blind would contend that we live in anything but a socialist country and that fact has become even more blatantly evident since the entrance of the current regime. The president stated, up front, when he ran the first time that he would “fundamentally transform the United States…” No one at that point had a clue as to what he meant except his voting bloc over on the far left and the CFR/Trilateral Commission people that control both political parties. They all knew because their agenda for this country calls for it to be dragged to the far left, kicking and screaming. They stated decades ago that their intent was to so reduce our standard of living here that we could be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union. And when they made sure Obama got elected they knew they had just the man to do that. His followers are still expecting all those freebies he promised them, which someone else has to pay for, and they haven’t yet figured out that, in the final analysis, he will give all of them the shaft along with the rest of us. They’ve been his “useful idiots” and he has made use of them. They have yet to notice that what he says is usually the exact opposite of what he does—same pattern as Abraham Lincoln, who folks thought “must have been a Christian” because he quoted Scripture. So what can you say—Lincoln and Obama—equal opportunity socialists!

Socialism is corrupt, and evil, because it steals from those who work and gives it to those who won’t. Socialist governments “redistribute the wealth,” taking from the producers of that wealth and handing it over to the deadbeats who have no intention of working as long as someone else is forced to foot their food bill, and their cable television bill, and their entertainment bill and whatever else a socialist regime feels they are entitled to at the expense of those who labor to earn their bread and pay their rent.

Most folks have heard of Walter Williams. He is a black man who is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University. Professor Williams is a syndicated columnist as well, and he is noted for telling it exactly like it is and letting the chips fall where they may. I’ve been reading his columns for years and I have yet to see him pussyfoot around the truth. I have tried to get some black folks I’ve known to read his articles. Mostly they are not even interested. He won’t play the “Whitey owes me” game and so most don’t care to read the difficult truths he presents. Much easier to listen to Je$$e Jack$on rant and believe his racialist drivel.

Walter Williams has written about socialism over the years. In a recent column he commented on socialism. He said: “It employs evil means, confiscation and intimidation, to accomplish what are often seen s noble goals—namely, helping one’s fellow man. Helping one’s fellow man in need by reaching into one’s own pockets to do so is laudable and praiseworthy. Helping one’s fellow man through coercion and reaching into another’s pockets is evil and worthy of condemnation. Tragically, most teachings, from the church on down, support government use of one person to serve the purposes of another; the advocates cringe from calling it such and prefer to call it charity or duty.” No matter what they choose to call it, it’s still socialism—government redistribution of your wealth to serve the interest of some other person or group who usually can’t be bothered working to take care of their own needs.

Awhile back an article by the late Rev. R. J. Rushdoony appeared on and it was about the total control of socialism. Rushdoony observed: “Socialism rests on two foundations: First,  managed money, counterfeit money, or paper money. Since money is the life-blood of economics, control of an economy requires control of money. When money controls begin, socialism ensues, whether it is intended or not. Second,  planning is the next requirement. To manage an economy it is necessary to increase the controls over the economy and this calls for ever increasing planning and finally total planning…Planning means several things. First, its goal is total control over man in order to provide man all the benefits socialism offers. For socialism to function, total control is necessary…In total planning, the state takes the place of God, and it gives us predestination by man, predestination by the socialist state, as the substitute for God’s predestination…The stronger the state becomes, the more extensive becomes it planning, and the more serious its penalties for non-conformity.” Sound like anything you ever heard of? The Soviet Union? This country? Rushdoony’s comments touch a raw nerve in both.

The state taking the place of God is a theme that runs strongly through all branches of leftist socialism, from the excesses of Stalin and those that followed him right on down to leftist fascism (because fascism really is on the left, not the right, as most folks have been brainwashed into believing). In his book The First Directorate Oleg Kalugin wrote about his mother’s reaction to the death of Stalin. She said: “Our father is dead. It’s not only our father who’s died, but also God, who kept us all under His wing.” And Kalugin, who was just a youngster at the time, wrote, in his diary, “Stalin isn’t dead. He cannot die. His physical death is just a formality, but one that needn’t deprive people of their faith in the future. The fact that Stalin is still alive will be proven by our country’s every new success…” When I first read that I thought “This is the rankest form of idolatry.” Yet this is what socialism breeds, idolatrous leaders who become the leaders of tightly controlled states where there is no real rule of law except what the ruling oligarchy deems acceptable and every other thought is considered treasonous, especially religious thought. Ever wonder why communist and socialist states are so hard on Christ and Christians? They recognize in Him what they aspire to themselves and they consider Him to be their Chief Competition, and so if they can just get rid of Him they can then run the show. They are would-be usurpers of God’s throne. And “would-be” is the proper description for them because no matter how hard they labor or what they do, they will never make it, but they will make the lives of millions miserable in their attempts, and considering who they serve, that might be enough for them in the long run. And Russia isn’t the only place prone to such delusions. On a recent television interview commentator Barbara Walters made a statement about Obama to the effect that “We thought he would be the messiah.” It only proves that socialists in Amerika are just as deluded.

Socialists are guilty of breaking at least three of the Ten Commandments. The first is the one having to do with having other gods before Him. Many socialists and communists are overtly guilty of this one. If they place their leaders or their states above God and try to ignore Him and His Law, they are idolators. Then there is the one that says “Thou shalt not steal.” Socialists are noted for breaking this one because when they confiscate from the so-called “haves” to bestow their goods upon the “have-nots” it can only be called theft. That’s not Christian compassion—that’s theft, pure and simple, just like our fiat money is theft. Then there is the one about coveting. You don’t covet anything that belongs to your neighbor, including his wife, his house, and his livestock. In the case of the house and livestock, these are private property and the right to own them is God-given. Therefore, even Naboth could tell King Ahab, who wanted his vineyard, that he couldn’t have it. Ahab eventually got it the way most socialists do, by eliminating their legitimate opposition. When it comes right down to it that’s usually the way most socialists and communists get anything.

It seems to me that Christians, considering the devious nature of socialism and its adherents, ought to be speaking out against it with a certain amount of vigor. Unfortunately, though, many Christians seem all too willing to make common cause with radical socialists, while at the same time being willing to trash those they consider to be on the “hard right” (that’s anybody that doesn’t agree with them), labeling them as “lacking in compassion and love.” In all honesty, when have the socialist and communist types ever displayed any real love, except for what belongs to others?

In our day maybe some in the church need to get their thinking straightened out as to what constitutes love and what constitutes theft.