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.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
HENRY CLAY'S "AMERICAN (Socialist) SYSTEM"
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?
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
LINCOLN'S SOCIALIST LEGIONS
(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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)