Friday, July 16, 2004

THE POT CALLS THE KETTLE BLACK (Condemn others, elevate yourself)

by Al Benson Jr.

The NAACP, often called by some "The National Association of Always Complaining People" held its 2004 annual convention in Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love. The national chairman, Julian Bond was on hand to, in the name of racial diversity, fuel the fires of racial agitation.

Bond took the obligatory swipe at the Bush administration. Every Left-wing political group is expected to take a shot at the Republicans. Whether they really mean it or not is another thing, but they are expected to do it just about as much as fleas are expected to infest a hound dog. It's part of the political game, and it fools a lot of people into voting Republican who should know better. They automatically reason that "anybody the NAACP is against I'm for" and so they take the bait. Please don't think that I am endorsing the Republicans. I have no use whatever for either of the two main political parties, which are, after all, just two different branches on the same tree of internationalism.

However, Bond said of the Republicans "They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division." Now that is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I've never noted that Mr. Bond has been any great defender of racial unity. The various groups he has belonged to have caused as much agitation between the races as anyone could hope to--and therein lies the real name of the game. None of these demagogues, Bond, Sharpton, Jackson, or any of the rest could make a living if there were no contention between the races. Racial animosity is their middle name and their meal ticket.

Bond also ranted that "They write an new constitution for Iraq, and they ignore the Constitution here at home." That statement is true, but on the other hand, I have never noticed Mr. Bond being any great champion and defender of the United States Constitution in the past.

In fact, Bond's political career has been a rather checkered, Left-leaning affair over the decades. The book "The Biographical Dictionary of the Left--Volume 2", by Francis X. Gannon (Western Islands Publishing, 1969) carries a whole section on Mr. Bond and his political affiliations. Mr. Gannon notes that Bond started his career in 1960 as a "racial agitator." Gannon continued: "Out of that experience he co-founded the Committee on Appeal for Human Rights, which soon merged with the racist and revolutionary Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNICK), a creation of Martin Luther King Jr."

In 1966, according to Mr. Gannon "Bond participated in the Communists 'National Guardian' forum on politics and policy. He became co-chairman of the National Conference for New Politics, a classical united front third party movement largely controlled by the Communist Party."

And Gannon further noted that: "In March 1967, The Southern Conference Educational Fund held a dinner in honor of Bond. (The SCEF was the successor to the Southern Conference for Human Welfare, which had been a very active Communist front. Bond became a member of the board of SCEF)." The "Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities" for the state of Louisiana, in 1964, published what has become known in conservative circles as "The Louisiana Report." This report detailed the activities of several Communist front organizations, one of which was the Southern Conference Educational Fund. So it would seem that Mr. Bond, in openly criticizing others for ignoring the United States Constitution, has had no trouble over the years in being associated with groups that would not object in the least to overthrowing the Constitution and all the governing principles this country was found upon. That being the case, it would seem that Bond's "concern" over others ignoring the Constitution is more than a little hypocritical.

Bond also has been a big fan of the reparations for slavery foolishness that has swept parts of black America. He said: "The churches seemed like the best place to begin." He feels that American blacks "want it (money)and need it--the churches have it. I don't think the churches are the only ones." Mr. Gannon also noted that Bond felt that American industy and businesses should pony up with reparations cash too. It would seem that Jesse Jackson and others have, in the past few years, taken their cue from Bond's original demands.

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a black pastor, has written a book called "SCAM--How the black leadership exploits black America." Rev. Peterson has told us of Mr. Bond that: "During the late 60s, Bond traveled to various college campuses and spoke out against the Vietnam War, declaring it 'racist.' He also spoke in black churches to begin the drumbeat for 'reparations' from whites for slavery. In his speeches he declared that capitalism wasn't the answer for blacks. The answer, he claimed, was a form of community socialism, where each member in a black neighborhood would have a say in who gets how much money and from whom." I submit that Mr. Bond is no dummy. He ought to know that socialism has never worked for any period of time anywhere. But, if you can talk enough people into it, and they never seem to get quite enough out of it, then you can make a fat living blaming other people for the problems you have created yourself.

Julian Bond is a prime example of what Rev. Peterson is talking about when he refers to black leadership exploiting its own people. And the NAACP is so busy fussing over Confederate symbols that just don't have any extra time to deal with such unimportant issues as black illiteracy or poverty. Those kind of issues wouldn't make new headlines and they aren't where the cash is. You might almost say that, with people like Julian Bond as "friends" of the black community, who needs enemies???

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

The War (for Southern independence) Was About Theology, Too

by Al Benson Jr.

Although it is an issue seldom discussed, the prevailing theologies of both North and South contributed mightily as one of the main reasons for the War of Northern Aggression. I have stated in the past that the tariff was an issue that was alive and well before the start of the war--and so was the theological issue.

This is an area almost no one is willing to touch. Yet another one of those carefully and studiously ignored issues, which, if even mentioned in some circles, might just take away from "the war was all about slavery" propaganda. And so the theological issue must be swept under the rug, and today's Leftist "historians" most fervently hope that no one will ever bother to pick up the corner of the rug and look underneath.

In his book "The South Under Siege 1830-2000" author Frank Conner has told us: "The Northerners who actually mounted te ideological war against the South were led primarily by ex-Congregationalist ministers. Although the issue they pushed was the abolition of slavery, in fact they were fighting a religious war--of secular humanism (ideological liberalism) against Christianity in America, using the South as their battleground."

"Their ideological war is one of the two key factors which largely explains the history of the relations between the North and the South from 1830 until now (the other is economics)." Mr. Conner has correctly noted that:"...ideological liberalism is a religion that generates radical-left politics." I have no problem agreeing with him there. We can also say that such a religion is the result of apostasy from the Christian faith.

C. Gregg Singer in his "A Theological Interpretation of American History" noted that: "After 1830 there was a growing philosophical cleavage between North and South. While the North was becoming increasingly subject to radical influences, the South was becoming increasingly conservative in its outlook." The noted Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell put it thusly: "The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders--they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground--Christianity and atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity is at stake." One might well wonder, given the bloody excesses of the 20th century, how the "progress" of humanity has fared.

Professor Singer has informed us that those who founded the Southern Presbyterian Church saw something in abolitionism far more penetrating and subversive than a mere protest against the evils of slavery. He says "They saw it as a continuation of the French Revolution, motivated by the same philosophy and pursuing the same ends. They saw it primarily as a humanistic revolt against Christianity and the world and life view of the Scriptures. They saw in it an expression of democratic philosophy which left no place for a sovereign God and accorded all prestige to a sovereign humanity instead."

This radical outlook and the plague of Unitarianism were what pervaded much of the North in the few decades before the War of Northern Aggression. Although the Unitarians were never exceedingly numerous, the fact that they had a number of the New England elite among their ranks contributed very much to their influence over much of the North. Although there were, no doubt, some sincere Christians in the Abolitionist Movement, there were also many Unitarians, who, having rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ and the infallibility of Holy Scripture, had an abiding hatred for the South, which had experienced somewhat of a spiritual revival in the 1830s and was more Calvinistic in its faith after that. The Unitarians had mauled Calvinism in the North, especially in New England, and now they most fervently desired to do the same thing in the South. Their radical, Christ-denying mindset helped much to set the tone of thinking in the North in the decades before the war.

The Unitarians and socialists had many views in common, and it did not bother the Unitarians one whit that there were so many socialists in the Union armies. Both groups hated God and wanted to ban Him to total irrelevancy and thereby make autonomous man the measure of all things--the "captain of his own soul." In their view the highest expression of man was the state--and therefore--it was up to the state (government) to instuct the rest of us how to live and what to think, and to then make sure we all did that via appropriate legislation, all for our own "good" of course. Would-be dictators of all stripes always seem to know what is "good" for the rest of us (themselves exempted naturally). And what seems to be "good" for us is usually better financially for them.

Although there were Christians in the North before the war, the Unitarian apostasy had so infected and infiltrated many Northern churches that it affected the Northern mindset and predisposed it toward an unreasonable hatred toward an increasingly Calvinistic South.

As much as many seek to deny or ignore them, the theological issues involved in the War of Northern Aggression were very real and they need to be further explored and discussed, as do the biblical reasons for secession--yet another issue of professional Leftist "historians" have neglected to inform us about.

(This article originally appreared on the Sierra Times website.)

Wednesday, July 07, 2004



A few years ago I read an interesting book written by Cliffor Dowdey entitled "The History Of The Confederacy 1832-1865." While I did not agree with all that Mr. Dowdey said, I felt that, in the main, he sought be fair to the South. His book brought out a point I had never even considered until I read it. He stated on pages 411 and 414 of his book that the Confederacy never had a formal, or official end. He noted that all the Confederate generals surrendered their armies, as none of them had the authority to surrender anything more, except possibly Robert E. Lee, as supreme commander of all Confederate forces in the field. Yet even he only surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia. Even President Jefferson Davis, when captured, was only captured. There was NEVER any formal surrender of the Confederate States as a nation or country. After World War 2 Germany and Japan surrendered and surrender documents were signed. No such event occurred for the Confederate States.

Although I mention Mr. Dowdey's book as my source for this information, I have checked out other sources and have not, to this point, found any information to contradict Mr. Dowdey's assertion. Other histories of the Confederate States have been checked into and they seem to be in silent agreement that the Confederacy never had an "official" end. Two of the best known are "A History of the Southern Confederacy" by Clement Eaton and "The Story of the Confederacy" by Robert Selph Henry. These books, both reliable histories, can be duly noted for their lack of any mention of a formal end for the Confederate States. They record the surrender of the various armies and all the horrible history that followed, but no mention is ever made at all of the Confederate States ever being formally terminated.

Alexander Stephens, in his monumental two-volume work "A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States" said much the same thing, except he expressed it in different terms. Stephens noted, in Volume One, the main reason for the War: "The conflict in principle arose from differing and opposing ideas as to the nature of what is known as the General Government...It was a strife between the principles of Federation on the one side, and Centralism, or Consolidation, on the other." Stephens was clearly stating that the struggle was over liberty on the one (Confederate) side vs. collectivism on the other (Northern) side. We might well ask, is our struggle today any different? Are we not still engaged in this battle? Stephens went on to disclaim slavery as the real cause of the war. He noted that "Some of the strongest anti-slavery men who ever lived were on the side of those who opposed the centralizing principles which led to the war." Stephens reiterated that fact on page 631 of Volume Two.

Moreover, Mr. Stephens contended that the true cause of the War for Southern Independence was not lost in the surrender of the various Confederate armies. He stated, in Volume Two of his work, starting on page 651: "So you see, my opinion is that the Cause which was lost at Appomattox Court House, was not the Federative Principles upon which American Free Institutions was based, as some have erroneously supposed. This is far from being one of the results of the War. The cause which was lost by the surrender of the Confederates, was only the maintenance of this principle by arms. It was not the principle they abandoned! They only abandoned their attempt to maintain it by physical force...This principle, therefore, though abandoned in its maintenance on battle-fields, still continues to live in all its vigor, in the forums of Reason, Justice, and Truth, and will, I trust, there continue to live forever."

Stop and analyze what Stephens has told us. The causes for which the Confederate States came into being, Christian self-government and the rights of the individual states within the framework of a federation (Confederacy) still exist. They have not been, nor can they ever be, truly done away with. They can not be done away with because the concepts of self-government and limited national power are scriptural. (Galatians 5:22-23 and Romans 13:1-7)

The true reasons for which the Confederate States were organized (even though some of the original founders may not have fully realized them) are not gone. They remain to this day. The struggle we blithly refer to as the "Civil War" did not resolve anything except which side had the most money, guns, and men. All it proved is that one country can prevail over another militarily if it has superior numbers and resources. The Northern bayonet drove truth to the ground, but it will not be able to keep it there forever.

It just may be, in God's Providence, that the Confederate States had no formal end because the truths she stood for (albeit imperfectly), rooted in Holy Scripture, also have no end.

Alexander Stephens bore eloquent testimony that the Cause still lives, even as its adherents still live today. The spirit of secession, which is akin to biblical separation, thrives in our day. What remains is for those that understand these truths in this hour in our history to proclaim them and to teach them to their children, and their neighbors, and their fellow church members, as opportunity is provided.

This article originally appeared on the web site of the Southern Independence Party of Louisiana.

Check out this website, as well as the web site for the Federation of States.



Because it is almost never discussed, most people do not even begin to realize that Southern secession also had a spiritual side as well as a political one, and often the spiritual affected the political. The idea that the South only seceded so she could keep her slaves is a ludicrous fabrication of the government "education" system. The South could have preserved the institution of slavery had her states remained part of the Union. After all, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri, for one reason or another all remained in the Union and they all got to keep their slaves.

The apostle Paul, in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, in what we call chapter 6, tells us the following: ""Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness; and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?...Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you: (2 Cor 6:14, 15, & 17)" Paul was telling the Corinthian Christians, God's Israel in Corinth, to separate themselves from the taint of the world system, from its anti-Christ worldview and lifestyle. Sound advice in any age.

Starting in the early 1830s, there was a revival of Reformed Christianity in the South, and due to the galloping apostasy in much of the North, many serious Southerners began to look at secession as the political equivalent of biblical separation. In this they were not wrong. With a strengthening political worldview, a growing number of Southern Christians viewed the rampant unitarianism and transcendentalism in many Northern churches and decided they did not want such a spiritual abberation working its way into their assemblies.

The late Dr. C. Gregg Singer, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Seminary when he was alive, has written: "The South was even more articulate in its opposition to democratic liberalism of all kinds. Here again, we must distinguish between that opposition that was directed against abolitionism and the anti-slavery movement simply because they threatened a Southern institution, and the opposition which arose because of a very deep insight into the meaning of abolitionism as an expression of basic radicalism which had far greater implications than a mere crusade against slavery as such." In other words, Singer pointed out that many insightful Southern folks opposed the abolitionists not merely because of the slavery issue, but because of what they represented philosophically and theologically.

Singer continued: "As a result there was in the South a far greater consciousness of the theological radicalism lurking behind the anti-slavery crusade, and also a much keener insight into the growing radicalism in Northern thought in its many and varied implications for constitutional government in this country, and its effect on the American way of life." Singer has noted that: "after 1830 there was a growing philosophical and theological cleavage between the North and the South. While the North was becoming increasingly subject to radical influences, the South was becoming increasingly conservative in its outlook."

Theologian James Henley Thornwell stated the situation even more clearly than that. Of course he was right there on hand at the time and so could observe firsthand what whas happening. He said: "The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders--they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground--Christianity and atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity is at stake." Folks, I submit that's pretty straightforward. Thornwell was no theological novice. He saw the issue clearly. Note his mention of socialists and communists. He was ahead of his time.

Sheldon Vanauken once observed that, during the Nineteenth century "the North was for empire; the South for independence."It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which was the Biblical position. It should be clear that, for many Southerners, the issue of secession was not only political, but also theological.

*For those interested in reading more about secession I have published a booklet entitled "A Theological and Political View of the Doctrine of Secession." It sells for $4.00 plus .50 for shipping. Send requests to The Copperhead Chronicle P O Box 55 Sterlington, Louisiana 71280.