Friday, November 11, 2005

The Marxist/Lincolnist Revolution of 1861

by Al Benson Jr.

Over the years I have mentioned, in many articles, the connections between what went on in Europe in 1848 and what went on in America from 1861-65. A few of these are probably still out there on various Internet sites.

Many have looked askance, or down their noses, at my research and contentions. It has never occurred to them that 1848 in Europe could ever have anything to do with 1861 in the United States. That thinking is way outside the box for them and most would just as soon stay inside the box. They are comfortable in there discussing battles, generals, strategies, personalities, etc. They don't wish to go where I have been. Or, as one homeschooling mom once said to me when I brought up the subject of the sainted Mr. Lincoln: "I'm a great fan of Abraham Lincoln. I don't want to go there with you." She didn't. Thankfully, others have been willing to make the trip, not because of anything I said or did, but on their own, because they sought the truth.

John J. Dwyer, in his excellent new history book "The War Between the States--America's Uncivil War" has made the connections. He has duly noted: "What became the single overarching revolution of 1848 failed in all eighteen places where it broke out. But the ideas spawned would survive to define the century that followed...America's conflict of 1861-65 in rarely considered in this context, at least by Americans. An awareness of it is critical in grasping the key philosophical principles at stake in the struggle between what became the Northern and Southern governments. Just as European theology, fashions and culture influenced 19th century America, particularly the North, so did European political theory. The tens of thousands of Europeans who participated in the 1848 revolutions and them immigrated to America (again, especially the North) accelerated this influence...The revolutionaries of 1848 faced an America with three different cultures, economies, and religious bases. They determined to remove those differences by a series of political manuevers." And, in many instances, their instrument for removing those differences was "The Communist Manifesto."

We might, indeed should, ask how close Lincoln and then the Radical Reconstructionist crowd after him came to implementing Marxist goals in the United States. So let's take a brief look at what Marx advocated for the overthrow of a country and see how close Lincoln & Associates approximated it.

Marx advocated the elimination of private property. The radicals advocated mandatory property taxes, to be determined by and payable to the government, or else the "owner's" property is duly "confiscated" (stolen). Does that one sound vaguely familiar to anyone today?

Marx sought a progressive, "graducated income tax." Mr. Lincoln gave us the Internal Revenue Service in 1862 and we are still "doubly blessed" with that institution today.

Marx wanted state control of banking. During the war years we got the Federal Banking Act. And Marx also sought state-controlled currency. Lincoln's administration gave us the National Banking Act in 1863. Mr. Marx wanted state-controlled labor, and today we have federal wage controls.

The Marxists advocated state-controlled agriculture. The Southern Redistrubution Act redistrubuted much property in the South into collectives. Much more was taken for the construction of "public" educational facilities (indoctrination centers). Naturally, all of this property was under the control of Yankee carpetbaggers.

And then, the crowning achievement--state controlled education. Marx sought "free education for all children in public schools." The Morrill Land Grant Act, passed during Mr. Lincoln's tenure in office authorized federal aid to established, government-controlled colleges. Naturally, with such aid came the attached strings--federal government regulations. And today, we in the South, as well as in the rest of the country, suffer with the illegitimate child of "Reconstruction" the government school system, which works overtime teaching the South's children to be ashamed of their history and heritage and what their ancestors fought for.

In light of all this, just ask yourself how identical were the goals of Marx and Lincoln and his radical followers. Go back and read the list again. I may be a bit dense, but I can't seem to find any major differences between Marxism and Lincolnism, but then, that's just me.

Ask yourself how many of these little Marxist/Lincolnist treats we all live with today, even under our supposedly "conservative" administration. Maybe we have already become the Marxist/Lincolnist States of Amerika and don't even realize it. But, then, as they say "the brainwashed never wonder" especially if they were "educated" in a government school!

Sunday, October 30, 2005

SECESSION !!! Part 2

by Al Benson Jr.

When the Southern states seceded they did so in a very orderly fashion. According to Clarence Carson's "A Basic History of the United States--Volume 3": "The procedure for secession was to have an election for delegates to a state convention, to meet in convention, and to adopt ordinances of secession. This was done in accord with the Southern understanding of what would be in keeping with the United States Constitution. It had, after all, been ratified by states acting through conventions. Could they not 'un-ratify' it--secede from the Union--in the same fashion?" Although Carson did not address the question, we know from sources previously mentioned that some Northern states had taken an identical position earlier in the 19th century.

In 1803, St. George Tucker, professor of law at the University of William and Mary had recorded some of the ratification statements for the state of Virginia in "Blackstone's Commentaries With Notes of Reference To The Constitution And Laws Of The Federal Government Of The United States and Of The Commonwealth of Virginia." Some of the ratification language for the state of Virginia is as follows: "We the delegates of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..." I submit if that is not a clear statement of the right of secession, then no one has ever heard one. And their ratification ordinances were accepted with that language included in them.

Based upon what we have seen to this point, the right of secession was never clearly in doubt in this country until the South seceded in 1860-61. At that point, what some Northern states had threatened to do three times prior suddenly became illegal and immoral in the eyes of many Northern politicians, particularly those that had a major interest in promoting and raising the tariffs.

According to columnist Joe Sobran: "...even many Northerners agreed that a sovereign state had the right to withdraw from the Union. A large body of people in the North were willing to accept a peaceful separation from the South. Lincoln had thousands arrested without trial for expressing such views, including several Maryland legislators who, while remaining in the Union, opposed using force to keep other states from seceding." So, many ordinary Northern folks did not have a major problem with the South leaving the Union, but certain creatures of a political nature did. The fact that earlier would-be secessionists had been Yankees was carefully swept under the historical rug. It's about time we lifted the rug up!

How about getting the double standard of one set of rules for the North and another set of rules for the South out in the open?

Whether you agree with the timing of the Southern states' secession or not is another matter. Even Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the Confederate States of America, didn't totally agree with the timing. He though the South should have waited until she had exhausted all possible legal remedies, yet in the final analysis, he remained loyal to his native state when she seceded. Timing wasn't, and isn't, the real point.

Serious consideration needs to be given, again, and again, to the fact that the states, any states, did have the right to secede, and that some states in both regions of the country had moved in that direction at one time or another.

In light of our history, the Southern position on secession is much more sound than current "historians" or should we call them "hysterians" would have us believe--and therein lies much food for thought.

And, as an afterthought, there is currently a group in Vermont that has met, and issued papers dealing with Vermont's possible secession from the Union, so the North is at it again. Let's stay tuned and find out what happens up there.

Saturday, October 29, 2005


Is the Right to Secede Historically Defensible? by Al Benson Jr. MANY have argued over whether the Southern states had the right to secede from the Union before the War of Northern Aggression. Some have myopically taken the position of "once in the Union always in the Union." Others, with a better grasp of historical context have said that if the states that ratified the Constitution had not had the right to secede they never would have entered the Union to begin with. Most "historians" (and I use that term loosely) today take the standard Unionist position that the states never had secession rights and they studiously bury any opposing viewpoints as deep beneath everyone's notice as possible. The rights of individual states to secede from the Union is something they would rather you did not dwell on too much--might get people to thinking, you know, and they can't have that! So what about the right of a state or states to secede from the Union as was the case in 1860-61? For starters, let us go back to the Declaration of Independence. Look at the opening sentence. It states: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them to another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal status to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." What is being addressed here but secession? This is not my opinion alone. Others much more astute than I have voiced such thoughts also. In the book "Liberty, Order and Justice" by James McClellan (Center for Judicial Studies, Washington, D.C.) the author, on page 65, in referring to the colonists states: "...they turned in the final stages of resistance to thoughts about the nature of free government. In the end, they came reluctantly to the conclusion that secession was their only recourse." Remember, McClellan was writing about 1776, not 1861. He clearly labels what the colonists did in regard to Great Britain as secession. Far be it from me to disagree with him on that point! In effect, the thirteen colonies seceded from Great Britain. If secession was wrong, we should still be a British colony, at least according to some people. Some sources have stated that, after the Constitutional Convention, several of the states balked at the idea of a strong central government. According to a booklet published by the Women for Constitutional Government in August of 1991, seven states included the right of secession in their acts of ratification. Four of these states were New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. Hardly the heart of Dixie! Some researchers have discovered that, apparently, from our earlies days, Northern folks thought that secession was clearly legan and constitutional. The question has been raised--and I think it is a valid one--would these states have knowingly gotten themselves into a "union" they could not withdraw from under any circumstances? Given the predisposition of the American mindset toward liberty at that point in history, I think such a proposition is patently absurd. Secession was often on the minds of those in our early days who did not hail from the South. In his book "Reconstruction During the Civil War In The United States of America" (Houghton, Mifflin & Co., Boston, 1895), Eben Greenough Scott observed: "How little weight must be given to the professions of loyalty to the Union by either section may be estimated from the fact that, down to the Civil War of 1861, there had rarely been a time when the danger of dissolution, at the hands of one side or the other, was not threatening the Union." That secession was a Northern sentiment every bit as much or more than a Southern one was dealt with by Scott when he said: "Nor, as the public utterances and private correspondence of New England leaders disclose, was their reason or propriety in the threats of dissolution of the general Union, and the formation of a particular one, embracing the New England states only, merely because of the rampant Federalism of the locality had met with a rebuff. The conduct of New England during the Embargo and the War of 1812 has ever since then received such unsparing condemnation, that merely to mention it is to reoopen a mortifying chapter of our history..." In other words, via the Hartford Convention and other related instances, some Northern states were contemplating secession. It would seem that in 1813 & 14 they felt secession was right and proper. How, then, did it become so wrong in 1861? To be continued in Part Two

Saturday, September 17, 2005

The South

by Daniel Benson

A history student went to the South
Learned about the red and the gray
Had to learn it by word of mouth
'Cause no school would tell it that way

Understood some of what he was told
Listened carefully to each soul
Realized the truth never gets old
Decided learning wasn't a toll

Wished the truth would come out
And pledged to teach it by word of mouth
Realized this fight would be a big bout
For each one who will listen and will not pout

As they really learn what went on in the South
Told lies in each school they attended
Yet, taught only by word of mouth
A lie was mended.

Saturday, September 03, 2005


by Al Benson Jr.

The Holy Scriptures warn in many places against the Lord's people having anything to do with fortune tellers, astrologers, and those who seek to communicate with the dead. Leviticus 19:31, 20:16, and Deuteronomy 18:11 record some of these warnings. People that profess a belief in the Bible and the Christian faith are warned to avoid these activities as they would the plague. Deuteronomy 18:12 states: "For all that do these things are an abomination to the Lord:..." The truth presented in Scripture is that all who seek to deal in these forbidden areas, all who seek to converse with the dead, are, in reality, influenced by what they do come into contact with. And what they come into contact with is not really deceased friends or dear old Uncle Louie, but something infinitely more demonic.

We hear much today about satanic activity and increased occult incidents, as if those were something that had, somehow, just sprung up in the last decade or so. In truth, activities in these realms have gone on for thousands of years, else the Lord would not have issued the prohibitions He did in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Even in this country such activities are not new. Many well known personalities in our history have been caught up in these forbidden practices. Aside from the Lincolns, one of the most well-known during the 19th century was Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of that infamous abolitionist propaganda piece "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Harriet, along with her prominent brother, Henry Ward Beecher, were two of the children of Rev. Lyman Beecher, a mostly orthodox Calvinist preacher that did, in some instances, struggle with the biblical doctrine of election. Although orthodox in most areas, Lyman Beecher's departure in this critical area into the "New School" concept of free will was a costly error for his family.

In time, just about all of his children departed from his mostly Calvinist faith, some to slide into outright apostasy. Henry Ward Beecher, for all his vaunted reputation as an orator and preacher of national importance, tossed aside sound biblical doctrines throughout his life as if he were discarding old, used overcoats. Finally, near the end of his days, he was, for all practical purposes, a Unitarian in spirit if not in name.

And then there was Harriet Beecher Stowe's departures into spiritualism. This initually started, according to Milton Rugoff, in his book "The Beechers" in 1843, when Harriet visited her brother, Henry and his wife. Henry started "mesmerizing" (hypnotising) Harriet, an experience that is described on page 267 of Rugoff's book. According to Rugoff, Harriet was convinced that she "had been brought to the verge of the spirit land." This particular session so frightened Henry's wife that she would not even stay in the same room where it occurred. It must have been a real beaut! Harriet later consorted with at least two other hypnotists and became intrigued with the concept as a way of communication with the spirit world--something she should have had nothing to do with according to biblical prohibitions. She, like brother Henry, had departed from her father's faith, and the further she got away the more bizarre her activities became.

By 1851 she was writing installments of "Uncle Tom's Cabin." That propaganda piece was so well touted that, within a few years, Abraham Lincoln, when meeting Harriet personally, referred to her as "the little lady that started the big war."

At this point I feel I should pose a question. If Harriet persisted in her experiments in the spirit world (and we know she was heavily into this in later years) then, to just what extent did this kind of activity influence what she wrote in "Uncle Tom's Cabin"? I believe it is worth raising the question as to just what influences may have been present when Harriet wrote. Where did some of the ideas she expressed come from? Were they really hers? Or was there some other source? Has she opened herself up to become some sort of "transmission belt" for something in the spirit world? Harriet did write other books, but this one was easily her most influential.

Harriet's son, Henry, (probably named for her brother) drowned in the Connecticut River on July 9, 1857. This threw Harriet into a depression that lasted for months. Note the paralell of a lost son with Mrs. Lincoln. Harriet was concerned about her son's eternal destination, as she was unsure of his relationship with God when he died. To ease her feelings, Harriet resorted to spiritualism in an attempt to contact her dead son. According to Rugoff, other family members were also into this sort of thing. Even Harriet's husband, Calvin Stowe, also had "visions" and said he often saw his dead first wife.

Had Harriet and her family not abandoned sound biblical teaching they probably would not have gotten involved in all this to begin with. In an article written for a newspaper after her son's death, Harriet sought to connect spirtualism with biblical miracles--another grave error on her part.

For all his problems with election vs. free will, old Lyman Beecher would never have coutenanced his childrens' slide into apostasy, yet, unwittingly, he had helped sow the seeds himself when he embraced "free will" over biblical truth.

You may be tempted to look at all this and say "So what"? If so, try viewing our history from a Christian perspective (something they didn't teach you in school). Ask yourself "What has apostasy had to do with the decline of America in the past 150 years? The biblical answer is "much in every way."

People such as Harriet Beecher Stowe and Henry Ward Beecher had a tremendous influence on the direction this country, particularly in the North, took during the middle-to-late 1800s. Ideas do have consequences. If these people and others we could name, were indeed, traveling the road to apostasy, even if they did not realize it, what sort of influence did this trend have on the country, and particularly on the Northern attitudes before and during the War of Northern Aggression?

Years ago, a friend, Pastor Ennio Cugini, of the Clayville Church in Rhode Island, told me that all of America's problems, in one form or another, could be traced back to the root cause of apostasy. At that time, I don't think I fully grasped all that his statement implied. By God's grace, I have learned a little since then. At this point in our history, viewing what has gone on and is now transpiring, I have to agree with Pastor Cugini. He had it all figured out long before most people even thought about it.

If this country was begun, both from Plymouth and Jamestown, with Christian foundations, heritage and history, and people have willingly departed from that, can we honestly expect anything but problems and tribulation? God said "This is the way, walk ye in it." We have not done so. Like those shallow thinkers who should "God bless America" do we expect a sovereign God to bless disobedience? If so, then we are even dumber than the Communists give us credit for being.

If this country were to return to its biblical, Reformation roots in repentance, seeking God's forgiveness, we might have a chance. Nothing less will suffice. The Bible reveals the truth about the human condition apart from Jesus Christ. Let us begin to give heed to that truth, that whatever actions we take might be undertaken with the undergirding power and authority of God's Word. Deo Vindice!

Tuesday, August 30, 2005


by Al Benson Jr.

Back during those ancient times when Ronald Reagan was president the news media worked itself up into a frenzy over the revelation that Nancy Reagan had consulted an astrologer. The "news" media picked up the story and ran with it because there were still some "useful idiots" in the media that really believed Reagan was a conservative instead of an actor and they saw this story as their chance to get their licks in at a "conservative." Christians and conservatives were, in the main, not really happy about the revelation. It was, after all, their lack of discernment that helped put Reagan in the White House, and they proceeded to compound their error with George (read my lips, no new taxes) Bush in the next election. They have since triply compounded their error with George 2 (twice now)!!!

We also had rumors of St. Hilary's "conversations" with Eleanor Roosevelt (two left-wing harridans conversing "in the spirit" as it were. At least in some spirit). But the media didn't jump on that nearly as much as they did on Mrs. Reagan's revelation. However, for those who take the trouble to read history, such goings-on are really nothing new in our political history.

Mary Todd Lincoln had problems in the same area, which most contemporary "historians" either feign ignorance about or will not mention. As more evidence comes to light, we are also becoming more aware that old "Honest Abe" himself was somewhat "challenged" in this area.

According to several sources, Mrs. Lincoln was emotionally unstable at times. When her son, Willie, died, she struggled with that loss for several years and got to the point where she started visiting spiritualists in a futile effort to "contact" her dead son.

In his book "Abraham Lincoln," Benjamin P. Thomas records a friend of the Lincolns writing the following: "Mrs. Lincoln told me that she had been, the night before... out to Georgetown to see a Mrs. Laury, a spirtualist and she had made wonderful revelations to her about her little son Willie...Among other things she revealed that the cabinet were all enemies of the president, working for themselves, and that they would have to be dismissed and other called to his aid before he had success." Subsequent historical events would tend to make you wonder where Mrs. Laury got some of her information! Another writer made brief reference when he wrote: "The loss of the idolized Willie deeply disturbed her and she refused to enter the rooms in which he had died and been embalmed. She even held at least one seance in the White House to try to make contact with his departed soul." There were alot more than one!

The "Civil War Times Illustrated" magazine published an article in August of 1976 by Peggy Robbins entitled "The Lincolns and Spiritualism." Robbins confirmed the fact that spiritualism began to gain a foothold in the United States in 1848--the same year that the socialist revolts swept Europe--revolts that Mr. Lincoln was strongly in favor of! That was also the year that the "Women's Rights" movement held its convention in Seneca Falls, New York. All coincidence?

Robbins reported that during 1862, Mrs. Lincoln was involved with a number of mediums, some of whom were just out and out fakes. Historians have disagreed as to whether Lincoln, himself, believed in spiritualism, because, pragmatic politician that he was, he never gave anyone that inquired into his beliefs on this matter any kind of a straight answer. However, some indications have begun to surface that indicate Lincoln may have believed in spiritualism more than he cared to admit.

Charles M. Robinson III in his book "Shark of the Confederacy" which is a narrative of the history of the CSS Alabama, noted the following: "According to Carl Sandburg, the president went so far as to host a seance, partly in jest, in which he asked the spirit world how to catch the Confederate raider. Welles, (Secretary of the Navy) was present, along with Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and a reported for the 'Boston Gazette'..." According to Mr. Robinson, Lincoln really believed in spirtualism more than he cared to divulge openly. One can hardly picture political luminaries such as Gideon Welles and Edwin Stanton attending seances "in jest." Stanton, who was a master intriguer, doesn't seem to have had much time for fun and games unless they were at the expense of his political enemies.

In 1861 Mr. Lincoln did listen to a "lengthy dissertation on spiritualism" given by none other than Robert Dale Owen the socialist. This is the very same Robert Dale Owen that later gave the ultra-radical Thaddeus Stevens so much input into the drafting of the infamous 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Peggy Robbins listed Owen as a "distinguished author." In all that I've read about Mr. Owen, all that I can find to distinguish him is his committment to the promotion of socialism and other radical causes, many of which today are espoused by the political Left. Owen does seem to have had contact with the movers and shakers in Washington, and he had a strong committment to statist government control of the education process. One might be more than mildly curious as to how much influence Owen's socialism had on the administration in Washington.

Robbins noted that there is ample proof that Lincoln attended a number of seances but she says that: " may be he did so not as a beliver but as a detached observer, there to look after his emotionally distraught wife." Robbins noted that Lincoln did have a strong curiousity regarding the supernatural because he tended toward superstition and "...had long been subject to dreams, visions, and premonitions."

One spiritualist the Lincolns received at the White House was a Lord Colchester. It seems he was allowed to hold several seances on the premises. It was reported, though, that Colchester's reputation was somewhat suspect, and a friend of the Lincolns, Noah Brooks, suggested to his rather bluntly, that he pack up his dog and pony show and move on to less controversial pastures.

During the latter part of 1862, Mrs. Lincoln attended several seances held by a Nettie Colburn. In order to keep Miss Colburn close to Washington, Mrs. Lincoln managed to get her a position in the Interior Department. Ahh, the blessings of patronage! Colburn held a seance in the White House in December of 1862.

Robbins noted in her article that: "Famous psychic investigator A. Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, termed this, the first of a number of meetings between Nettie Colburn and President Lincoln, 'one of the most important events in the history of spiritualism'."

Robbins, along with Charles Robinson, also observed that one seance held in the White House in April of 1863, was attended by Secretary of War Stanton and Secretary of the Navy Welles. It seems that some of these sessions were reported in the newspapers, but, oddly enough, Lincoln was never criticized for them.

We need to reflect a bit at this point. If Abraham Lincoln were a Christian, as some, even in the home school movement, have alleged over the years, why would he have allowed either his wife or himself to be drawn into such activity? One can most certainly sympathize with Mrs. Lincoln over the loss of a son, as one can sympathize with any mother over such a horrendous loss. We must wonder, though, if Mr. Lincoln were the Bible-believing Christian some have tried to convice us he was, would he not have sought some sort of biblical counsel and comfort for his wife, rather than allowing her to indulge in Scripturally forbidden spiritualism, and then going along for the ride, or worse, himself?

This is being written to attempt to reinforce the truth that our problems in this country began a lot earlier than most people want to admit. It proves that this country, having abandoned its Reformation foundations, had widely turned to apostasy by the time of the War of Northern Aggression, which ended up being the real American Revolution--our French Revolution--if you will. Religious apostasy was rampant, mostly in the North, from the highest eschelons to the lowest stations in society. Many have questioned, and I think properly, whether we really ever turned from this apostasy, in spite of all the so-called "revivals" since the end of that war. In my humble opinion, we have not. In many instances we have taken that apostasy one step further and secularized it in the form of a plethora of federal programs in areas the feds have no business whatever being in. Federal centralization and collectivism is a result of that apostasy. Until we do turn from it and return to the Triune God of the Scriptures this country will continue its downward spiral.


Abraham Lincoln--A Biography
by Benjamin P. Thomas
Alfred A. Knopf, New York, copyright 1952

The Lincolns and Spiritualism
by Peggy Robbins
Civil War Times Illustrated
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, August 1976

Shark of the Confederacy
by Charles M. Robinson III
Leo Cooper, London, copyright 1995

Lincoln and The Emperors
by A. R. Tyrner-Tyraner
Harcort, Brace & World Inc. New York, copyright 1962

Lincoln's Herndon--A Biography
by David Herbert Donald
Alfred A. Knopf, copyright 1948

Mary Todd Lincoln--Her Life and Letters
by Justin Turner & Linda Levitt Turner
Fromm International Publishing Corp. New York, copyright 1972

Wednesday, July 20, 2005


by Al Benson Jr.

Due to the encroaching religious apostasy in the United States, the years of the 1830s and 40s were notable, in that many experiments in socialist and communal living were instituted. Many who have read some history have heard of Robert Owen's failed socialist experiment in New Harmony, Indiana--the one Abe Lincoln thought so highly of. Or they may have heard about the religious socialism of groups like the Shakers, and how that eventually died out. Of all the socialist experiments in communal living tried in the U.S. virtually none have made a success of it. As all socialism eventually does, these efforts failed unless someone from the outside financed them and kept them afloat--much like this country today finances other socialist nations with "foreign aid" to keep them afloat. Barring such financial transfusions from the outside, such socialist entities usually fall on their collectivist faces in rather short order.

Brook Farm was no exception. According to the "Encyclopedia Britannica--eleventh edition (1910, Brook Farm was "the name applied to a tract of land in West Roxbury, Massachusetts, on which, in 1841-47 a communistic experiment was unsuccessfully tried. The experiment was one of the practical manifestations of the spirit of transcendentalism in New England..." I'd be willing to bet current editions of encyclopedias wouldn't be honest enough to label Brook Farm as a "communistic experiment"! To some degree, the Transcendentalists were somewhat the 19th century forerunners of what today passes for the "New Age" movement.

While Brook Farm was experimenting with its socialist fantisies, one of the projects there was the publication of a weekly journal called "The Harbinger." This left-of-center journal was quite the publication. Among those luminaries that wrote for it were George Ripley and Charles A. Dana, although it took occasional contributions from James Russel Lowell, John Greenleaf Whittier, Unitarian clergyman Thomas Wentworth Higginson (of Secret Six fame) and utopian socialist Horace Greeley. Socialism, it seems, had captured the minds of the elite among the elite. Such behaviour is usually the result of religious apostasy.

At this point it is interesting to note that both Horace Greeley and Charles Dana had connections with this left-leaning journalistic undertaking. Again, our "history" books, if such they can be called, have failed to mention to socialism of Greeley, or the pivotal role of Dana in events having to do with the War of Northern Aggression.

After Brook Farm folded, Dana joined the staff of the "New York Tribune" Greeley's paper. In 1848 Dana traveled to Europe to cover a news event there. Three guesses as to what that event was! In that year he wrote letters to the "Tribune" and other papers covering the socialist revolts in Europe in which Karl Marx played a prominent part. One might wonder, had he a suspicious mind, who Mr. Dana made contact with while he was sojourning in Europe and covering the revolution there. Perhaps the title of the old movie "Don't Start the Revolution Without Me" could have applied to Mr. Dana. At any rate, Dana returned to the United States in 1849 and was made managing editor of the "Tribune" just under Greeley.

It was Dana that, in 1851, two short years later, formally engaged the services of one Karl Marx as a regular contributor to the pages of the "Tribune." Coincidence? Of course, it had to be, seeing that we all know there are no such thing as leftwing conspiracies, only rightwing ones, that is, if you believe the likes of St. Hilary, who is quite busy positioning herself for a run at the presidency in 2008.

In his capacity as managing editor, Dana used the newspaper to promote the radical abolitionist cause. So what else is new?

However, in 1862, Dana and Greeley came to a parting of the ways. Like most socialists, they couldn't really get along with each other over the long haul. Dana, being younger, wanted rapid changes, while Greeley, being older, was content to take a more Fabian approach in order to secure revolution.

No sooner were Dana's connections with the "Tribune" severed that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, always quick to spot the potential of a revolutionary, snapped him up and made him a "Special Investigating Agent" for the War Department. It would appear that Dana was quite useful to Stanton. Even Father Abraham called him "the eyes of the administration." Dana spent much time at the front and he reported to Stanton on the methods and capabilities of different generals. Dana urged that Grant be placed in supreme command of all Union armies in the field. Dana was also Assistant Secretary of War in 1864-65. He was involved in other journalistic activities later in life and was a writer of some renown. However, his strong socialist leanings before the War of Northern Aggression are mostly what concern us. His hiring of Karl Marx to write for Greeley's newspaper in 1851 does make you wonder just what contacts he had while in Europe in 1848. Was the home-grown socialist revolutionary masquerading as a reporter while in Europe to give the "party faithful" the latest input on the situation in Europe so they would know how to react in the United States???

Dana's strong desire to see Grant placed in supreme command reminds me that Friedrich Engels, Marx's cohort, also felt much more secure about the North being able to prevail in the struggle once Grant was placed in command. With my suspicious mind, it makes me wonder what these men knew about Ulysses S. Grant that the "history" books have not seen fit to reveal to us common folks. Dana also had a very high opinion of the military ability of the Grand Arsonist of Georgia, William Tecumseh Sherman. And we are all well aware of what wonders Sherman's "scorched earth" policy accomplished in Georgia. Little known is the fact that some of the 1848 revolutionaries from Europe that had fled to America and become generals in Mr. Lincoln's armies were on Sherman's staff. Another little tidbit the "history" books conveniently forgot to mention!

Dana's background from Brook Farm on, leaves no doubt that he was a radical revolutionary, just the sort to support the Union cause in the War. I have noted in other articles that many of these European radicals and revolutionaries seemed to end up in high positions, either in the Union army, in the admistration of Lincoln, or in some kind of comfortable office after the War. It seems that, in many cases, socialist revolution pays its adherents well. All this should begin to make us aware of how early our country was subverted and taken over by the enemies of Christ and the reformed Christian faith. In the final analysis, that's what it is all about. Apostasy from the Christian faith has its secular rewards, and in our day we are reaping those "rewards." A noted Communist once said that much of the "patriotism" of the 20th century would really be communism. Due to the insidious nature of apostasy, he was correct.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005


by Al Benson Jr.

The War of Northern Aggression and the transformation of the United States from a confederation of sovereign states into a socialist democracy brought to the fore many "interesting" characters.

One of the most "interesting" specimens ever to slither out from under the collectivist Yankee rock was Lafayette C. Baker. Steward Sifakis in "Who Was Who in the Civil War" described Baker as "A thoroughly unsavory character..." And Sifakis continued in that vein, noting, of Baker that he "remained that way for the duration and after." Not exactly a glowing tribute to Mr. Baker's integrity! But, then, Baker seems to have been another of those typical Yankees for whom anything goes if it gets him what he wants. For Baker, mental Marxist that he was, the end truly justified the means. He seems to have had some connections with both Secretary of War Seward and Secretary of War Stanton, which might just lead one to wonder about their integrity also. Baker ended up becoming a special agent of the Provost's branch of the War Department, charged with rooting out corruption anywhere he found it in the Union war effort. Sifakis noted that, of the corruption he was charged with rooting out "he was not of strong enough character to refrain from engaging in it himself."

In order for him to have enough authority to root out all that corruption (while engaging in it himself) he was given a military rank, first as a colonel, and later as a brigadier general, though he rarely commanded any troops. During the war years he was chief of the military Secret Service.

Nathaniel Weyl in "The Battle Against Disloyalty" had described the U. S. War Department thusly: "In the Civil War and Reconstruction eras, the United States War Department bore some traces of resemblance to the Soviet Secret Police. Its leaders were zealots who believed that if the ends didn't justify the means, nothing else could. Wherever possible, the operated in secrecy, through military rather than civilian courts. Guilt by association became a fundamental axiom; perjury was richly rewarded;..." Thus was the situation under the command of Edwin McMasters Stanton, who many have believed over the years, had a hand in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

Baker had a rather checkered past. As head of the military Secret Service, he had, in the past, been a vigilante in California in the 1850s. Weyl has noted that in early days he was an itinerent mechanic. Sifakis has added to that: " Born in New York, he appears to have lived in Michigan, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco during his prewar years. Some of his occupations included claim jumping and vigilantism." Interesting that, as a vigilante, he would have gone after some of the people that made their living as he had made his, claim jumping. But then that may be a pretty good way to get rid of the competition.

During his tenure in Washington during and after the war, he used the same methods he had used successfully in California. Weyl noted of him that: "In Washingon he used the same methods that had proved so successful in his vigilante days, disregarding due process of law, habeas corpus, or any of the other constitutional frills that normally prevent the imprisonment of Americans at the whim of the military. For the next three years, Baker led a life of frenzied activity, pouncing on spies, bounty jumpers, conspirators, counterfeiters, and speculators, making arrests personally where possible and in the process accumulating a small fortune." Weyl's comments support those of Sifakis, who noted that Mr. Baker just couldn't seem to keep his hands out of the cookie jar while he sliced off the hands of others doing the same thing. Weyl has described him, again, agreeing with Sifakis, as: "An enormously vain and unscrupulous person, Baker was also a congenital liar, intriguer, and twister." Just the right sort of person for Mr. Stanton's War Department, as Stanton, himself, had somewhat of a reputation along those lines.

Weyl also noted that: "Baker was part of the powerful personal machine that War Secretary Edwin M. Stanton had created. As soon as Booth's bullet struck down Lincoln, Stanton became the controlling power of government." And that's what the assassination was really all about--who was to wield the power in Washington--Lincoln, the king of political patronage, or Stanton and the radical abolitionist Republicans. Baker was the perfect foil for Stanton--and if both Baker and Stanton were not openly Marxists, then they were philosophical "kissin' cousins."

In his penchant for self-promotion, Baker, at one point, wrote a book "History of the United States Secret Service." Sifakis has noted that the work is interesting for the portrait it paints of Baker's personality, but otherwise, is just isn't all that reliable. Baker passed from this life in 1868. There are those that say he was murdered to keep him quiet.

There are also those that say that Baker's men did not kill the real John Wilkes Booth after Lincoln's assassination, but that the man they really killed was a Booth look-alike, Captain James William Boyd, a former Confederate agent who worked for the War Department and, although he was older, bore quite a resemblance to Booth. But, then, I guess that is another story.

Thursday, June 23, 2005


by Al Benson Jr.

I have previously noted the socialist (and communist) support Mr. Lincoln received from many Forty-Eighter socialists from Europe during the War of Northern Aggression. Many of these European socialists joined Lincoln's army and became generals, as well as officers of other ranks. I have also commented about the socialist support in Europe that Lincoln received and how much he was admired by Karl Marx.

In keeping with my contention that socialism was alive and well in this country long before most people are willing to admit that it was, I felt that a brief look at Lincoln's election in 1860 would be helpful. Lincoln received the support of socialists even before the war started. The socialists saw something in Lincoln's "cause" they could identify with.

Although many Germans in 1860 had favored Seward, they gladly switched over to Lincoln once he had endorsed a homestead law and an anti-nativist "Dutch Plank" for the Republican Party platform. The "Dutch Plank" for the Republican Party platform was written by none other than Forty-Eighter socialist Carl Schurz, who was a member of the Republican Platform Committee. It is worth noting here that the almost baby-new Republican Party already had, in 1860, socialists helping to write the party's platform.

Schurz, in his autobiography, alluded to this, although somewhat modestly, as if he did not want people to grasp his full involvement. Schurz wrote: "I was appointed a member of the Committee on Resolutions that had to draw up the Republican platfor, and in that committee was permitted to write a paragraph concerning the naturalization laws so that the Republican Party be washed clean of the taint of Knownothingism...I also took part in formulating the anti-slavery declarations of the platform..."

There were many Germans in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Missouri, and Lincoln, although professing to be a "reluctant" candidate, was very conscious of the German vote. Pragmatic politician that he was, Lincoln purchased the German language newspaper "Illinois Staatsanzeiger." He bought the whole thing, lock, stock, and barrel, press included. I find it quite amusing that Lincoln is so often portrayed in the "history" (hystery) books as the poor, humble, hayseed politician, just trying to make his way in the world as a country lawyer. Obviously if he could afford to purchase a newspaper he was not quite as poor as we have been led to believe.

As the campaign of 1860 continued the Republicans even got hold of German orators to stress the importance of "German issues" in the campaign. As we observe these tactics and see what goes on in our elections today, we must be tempted to see the truth of the statement in the Book of Proverbs which says that the thing that has been is that which shall be and there is nothing new under the sun.

Forty-Eighters other than Schurz supported and worked for Lincoln. Edward Solomon did, and he ended up becoming governor of Wisconsin in 1862. Sigmund Kaufman, yet another Forty-Eighter, was also a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1860. We might well speculate on how many other delegates were socialists that we don't know about yet.

Other Forty-Eighters and socialists that supported Lincoln were writer Casper Butts, journalists Friedrich Kapp and Gustave Struve. Although some of these men did not get into combat as did the socialist generals in the Union armies, they supported Lincoln and the war effort on the journalistic front. The efforts of these men and their support for Lincoln and his centralizing policies have borne bitter fruit for the country even down to our own day. Unfortunately, in our day, we are forced to live with the results of their actions.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005


by Al Benson Jr.

Awhile back, I reprinted an article from "The Free Market" in the hardcopy version of The Copperhead Chronicle dealing with the socialism of Henry Clay and how Clay's socialism had beena shining example for pragmatic politicians of the stripe of "Honest Abe."

Recently, establishment historian Robert V. Remini wrote a book entitled "Henry Clay Statesman for the Union." Remini went into some detail in describing what Henry Clay euphemistically called his "American System." Remini's remarks were quite revelatory and he seemed genuinely enthused regarding Clay's agenda and mindset. So what else is new with establishment historians?

Of Clay, Remini said: "The idea of the (American) system had been in his mind for years. In numerous speeches he had discussed several of its parts. Now he grasped the unity of his program as a unique expression of what needed to be done by the government to benefit Americans in all sections and among all classes and economic endeavors. It was a vision of progress, a bold reformulation of the relationship between government and society." Let us be a little more blunt than Remini was and state it a little more plainly. Henry Clay planned to take civil government into areas it had no business being in. He had a socialistic view of what government should be "doing" for people. It was the 19th century version of "I'm from Washington and I'm here to help you."

No doubt it sounded noble to the naive--a beneficient federal government reaching down, in spite of the sovereignty of state governments, to "help" the common man. Such unmitigated hogwash even gives the liberals and do-gooders of today goose bumps! We've now had the Feds doing this for more years than any of us have been alive, and look where it has gotten us. Anytime Washington "helps" someone it is the kiss of death. Whether consciously, or otherwise, their "help" always seems to mean further redistribution of someone else's wealth (Marxism).

But Remini has taken us even further. He has informed us that..."Clay's American System was intended to strengthen the bonds that tied the nation together into a single whole. It was intened to ensure the perpetuity of a united country." With a statement like that from his biographer, my guess is that no one would ever label Mr. Clay a rank secessionist! He was 110% pro-nationalist, pro-Union, and pro-socialist--all the way (like several American presidents we are all too familiar with).

Remini mentioned that a big part of Clay's program was internal improvements, in other words, the federal government does in and for the states (certain states) what they should be doing for themselves. Naturally some states, mostly in the Northern half of the country, would get a few more "internal improvements" than did most of the Southern states. But, hey, the Southern states got to participate in Clay's program too--they got to help pay for it!

Clay stated: "All the powers of this government should be interpreted in reference to its first, its best, its greatest object, the Union of these states." In other words, Clay felt the main object of the federal government was not to follow its constitutional limitations and guidelines, but rather to perpetuate the Union at any cost. In 1861, one of Mr. Clay's greatest and most ardent admirers called for 75,000 troops to invade the South, under the guise of "preserving the Union." How much of a leap was it from that to Bill Clinton having our planes bomb the daylights out of Kosovo because we had a "moral imperative" to do so, or to George Bush invading Iraq "to spread democracy" in the Middle East. I submit the distance between them is not all that great.

I have noted, for years, that socialism was alive and well in this country since before the middle of the 19th century. We had Robert Owen and his socialist experiment in New Harmony, Indiana in 1829 and we had Henry Clay with his vision of a unified socialist "nation" even before that. And yet unthinking conservatives still try to tell us that all our problems started with FDR 110 years later! Boys, wake up and smell the coffee! This country has been in the throes of some kind of socialism since the 1820s--NOT the 1920s--the 1820s, and its high time we woke up long enough to smell the decay!

A resurgent Confederate Movement, if it is Christian, might hold some hope for the future, but probably not the immediate future--and if Confederate and Southern Heritage folks don't begin to get their kids out of the government schools that might not happen either. Barring this hope, and a genuine spiritual revival, the near future for this country looks rather bleak. Either way, God will build His kingdom. The question is--will this country be a part of the building, or will it, like so many others, end up on the ash heap of history?

Monday, June 13, 2005


(Yankees and Socialists--Birds of a Feather

by Al Benson Jr.

During the War of Northern Aggression it has been reported that over 180,000 Germans fought in the Union armies. This number was buttressed by thousands of Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, Czechs and Irish. The majority of these were probably honest, hardworking people, yet the question must be asked--with a population of around 22 million in the North as opposed to 9 million in the South--why did the North have so many foreign troops in her armies?

Francis Springer, in his book "War for What?" puts the number even higher. He has noted: "It seems strange that the North, with such vast human resources, should find it necessary to resort to recruiting men abroad. The 1860 census shows 4,100,000 foreign born in this country, mostly located in the North, but there were 500,000 men in the Northern army of foreign birth, or 90,000 more than 10% of the foreign population, indicating that 90,000 Northern soldiers, and probably more, were recruited abroad."

Author William Burton, in his book "Melting Pot Soldiers" deals with the foreign soldiers in the Yankee armies. He quotes a correspondent for the "London Daily Telegraph" as stating that the foreign soldiers in the Union armies has scant use for the abolitionists and their "holy crusade". German immigrant Valentin Bechler, according to Burton, told his wife "I wish all abolitionists were in Hell."

One of the most carefully concealed facts over the decades about Mr. Lincoln's armies is that he had an amazing number of European socialists under uniform during the War. Only recently has information regarding this started to surface. Up until a few years ago it was one of the most studiously ignored facts and aspects of the War. Establishment "historians" (or maybe we should label them "hysterians" in their messianic quest to give us the "correct" spin on the War and the reasons for it just knew in their hearts that we didn't need this kind of information, so they labored mightily to make sure we were not exposed to it.

It has been reported that as many as 5,000 European socialists and communists from the failed 1848 socialist revolts in Europe served in the Union armies in one place or another. Some sources have placed that number closer to 10,000. After these socialists failed in their revolutionary aims in Europe in 1848-49, many came to America. A good portion of them felt that what they had failed to do in Europe in 48 and 49 might just be accomplished here in America during the War of Northern Aggression. In "Forty-Eighters In The Union Armies" it has been stated: "The failure of their revolutionary hopes in Europe did not prevent them from taking up arms again in 1861 to defend the very principles they had fought for in 1848 and 1849; union, freedom, and democracy." Please go back and reread that last quote. Let it sink in.

These European socialists viewed the War of Northern Aggression as an extension of their socialist hopes for Europe. If you consider that fact, the entire scope and reason for that War, from the Yankee perspective, takes on a whole new meaning. No longer was it a struggle to "preserve the Union" as given to us by the Founding Fathers, rather it was a struggle to preserve and extend the influence of European socialism in America. Author William Burton has revealed that August (von) Willich, the "Communist with a heart" "...was not reluctant to lecture his soldiers on the virtues of socialism." If we have a record of this one instance of that being done, one wonders how many other places it occurred that have gone unreported.

One amazing thing about these European socialists and communists is how many of them managed to end up with high-ranking positions in the Union armies. I will list a few here so you get the idea.

Franz Sigel--Major General

Carl Schurz--Major General

August (von)Willich--Major General

Sandor (Alexander) Asboth--Brigadier General on Fremont's staff

August Becker--called "Red" Becker (on account of his political leanings?)--Chaplain for the 8th New York

Ludwig (Louis) Blenker--Brigadier General of volunteers

Isidor Busch--Captain of Fremont's staff

Johann Fiala--Lt. Colonel and topographical engineer on Fremont's staff

Scores of other socialists and communists could be listed if space permitted, but I think you begin to get the idea. The ethnic and ideological makeup of Mr. Lincoln's army has yet to be fully exposed.

If we are to begin to try to understand the War from a Yankee perspective, we must, at all costs, take the strong socialist influence exerted on Mr. Lincoln's army into consideration.

The fact that so many European socialists and communists looked upon Mr. Lincoln's War of Aggression as an extension of their own aggressive aspirations and political desires should begin to speak volumes about the true nature of the Union cause--no matter what the "Hystery" books tell us. Mr. Lincoln was known to be friendly to the cause of socialism. Establishment historian James McPherson has admitted that Mr. Lincoln championed the cause of the leaders of the 48 revolts in Europe. In 1848 he was all in favor of secession (for the socialists in Europe) but in 1860 he was adamantly opposed to it for Christian Southerners. That fact, alone, should give you some indication as to where Mr. Lincoln was really coming from and it should help to explain why, in 1861, the socialists flocked to own his "holy cause."

Tuesday, May 31, 2005


Socialist Revolutionary, Yankee General, Secretary of the Interior (Socialism Pays in Yankeeland)

by Al Benson Jr.

Many who study the history of the 19th century have heard of Carl Schurz. To most others the name will be meaningless. However, Schurz was quite active and influential in the country's history in the 19th century. You might almost say he was one of the "historians'" best kept secrets.

Carl Schurz was one of Abe Lincoln's socialist generals during the War of Northern Aggression. Honest historians (a rare breed of animal) will admit that there were many socialists in Mr. Lincoln's armies. As we have pointed out in the past, socialists seemed rather attracted to Mr. Lincoln's cause of "preserving the Union." That the price for such a "preservation" was the ever-increasing power of a strong central government at the expense of the rights of the states bothered them not at all. Lincoln, had, after all, championed their cause in Europe in 1848, so they could do no less for him in the 1860s.

Schurz has been called "a refugee from the European uprisings in 1848." The author of that quote did not bother to tell his readers that the "political uprisings" in Europe at that time were mostly socialist revolts. Yet another author labeled Schurz as "the charismatic refugee from Prussian militarism." Note how these authors totally ignore the socialistic aspects of what happened in Europe in 1848. You aren't supposed to know that socialists and communists were involved.

Schurz was attending the University of Bonn when he became immersed in the 1848 socialist upheavals. When those revolts ultimately failed Schurz fled the country (Germany) after having been a lieutenant in the anti-government "militia." He went first to Switzerland, later to England, and then to France, which country expelled him as a "dangerous foreigner." He then returned to England, later to come to America in 1852.

Schurz ended up in the midwest, where his first notable political activity was to support the radical abolitionist John C. Fremont in his presidential asperations in 1856. By 1858 he was campaigning for Lincoln. As a reward for his services to Mr. Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election he was appointed as Minister to Spain in 1861. He returned from Europe in 1862, at which time he was appointed a brigadier general in Lincoln's army.

Schurz, like many other forty-eighter socialist refugees, did not always agree with his more conservative German brethren. In typical socialist fashion, the forty-eighters were noted for the ultra-liberal, leftist political views and for their hostility toward organized religion. Many were anti-Christian "freethinkers." Like many other socialists, Schurz survived the War. Later he served a term in the Senate and then became Secretary of the Interior in the Hayes Administration.

Carl Schurz is just one example of how European socialists seemed to arrive in this country, almost broke, and then ended up in all sorts of important military and political situations. One would think that, in the supposed "land of the free" any form of socialism or collectivism would be a natural impediment. Rather, it seems that socialism turns out to be an advantage--at least since the advent of the Lincoln Administration.

I wonder how many of our government schooled students have ever been told that a former Secretary of the Interior was a European socialist. Not many I'll wager. Most people, even the patriotic ones, have no concept of how active a part European socialists took in our military and government in the mid-to-late 19th century. Socialist influence has been exerted on this country for a lot longer than most people would like to think about. Americans need to go back and reread their history with much more of a critical eye than they have heretofore. Socialism pays in America--thanks to the efforts of Honest Abe and most of those that followed him.

Friday, February 04, 2005

Children and Competition

by Daniel Benson

This year a government school district in Lincoln, Rhode Island had decided to eliminate the district's annual spelling bee, which involved students in grades 4 through 8. The school administrator said she did this because she felt the spelling bee ran afoul of the federal mandates of the "No Child Left Behind" act. She felt it was about one student winning, while the others got left behind, and she was concerned with student "self-esteem."

Here we see something that bothers me. This year we will no longer be able to know which students excel above and beyond the others, for they (the school system) now believes in making mindless drones that can no longer think for themselves, but act, dress, and talk in a certain way. We will no longer have anyone from that school district who can possibly become anyone who will be great in our society, as they are snuffing out any chance that these kids feel they can excel over others.

No more student athletes, no more honor roll, no more contest plays, or anything else that might make one student feel they were not good enough. So where does this take our future in this country, if every government school ends up doing just this to our kids? How many of us will sit back and let this happen as our kids are taught to be no better or different than the next person?

I was taught to be the best I could be, to excel in whatever studies I could, and was happy to do so--but now the government schools will teach someone like me to be just like Johnny sitting in the corner--dunce cap and all. They felt the spelling bee didn't help students to reach a higher goal, but I simply ask--how do they know what the goal is if there is nothing for them to try to reach?

They say they want all kids to have a high level of self-esteem so that they can go anywhere they wish, but then give them nothing to say "that is where I want to be"--no way to challenge them so they build confidence, strength, and the ability to think in every situation. That is now in the process of being taken away from them.

Parents in that school district now seem surprised and unsure about the decision that was reached, but the school district said they had no problem deciding. This makes me wonder where our next generation is headed. I would simply ask that we take our kids' lives seriously and try to do the best for them seriously, and that we reconsider the option of sending them to the state so they can make slaves of their minds. Consider, instead, the possibility of educating your kids at home, so they grow up not only strong, but also with minds of their own, so they can think on their own, and, Lord willing, act of their own when the need arises. God never intended for us to be "left behind" nor did He intend for us to be slaves to a school system that will not help our kids to become something great when the potential is there.