Even The Washington Post Dared To Hint At Lincoln's Socialist Proclivities

 by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Back in July of 2019 Gillian Brockell did an article for The Washington Post which dealt with Abraham Lincoln and his socialist leanings.

She made a point of telling her readers that "Of course, Lincoln was not a socialist, nor communist, nor Marxist, just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer aren't. But Lincoln and Marx--born only nine years apart--were contemporaries. They had many mutual friends, read each other's work and, in 1865, exchanged letters. When Lincoln served his sole term in Congress in the late 1840s, the young lawyer from Illinois became close friends with Horace Greeley, a fellow Whig who served briefly alongside him. Greeley was better known as the founder of the New York Tribune..."

Horace Greeley was also, as Donnie Kennedy and I wrote in our book Lincoln's Marxists, a utopian socialist. But then, a lot of Lincoln's friends were socialists, or communists.

Brockell duly noted that Karl Marx was "intensely interested" in the plight of American slaves. Sure he was! The man who advocated the biggest system of slavery the world has ever known was concerned with the plight of American slaves! Give your readers a break, lady! Most of them except for the "useful idiots" trained to be Marxists know better. 

Brockell observed that, like many Republicans, Lincoln was a steady reader of the Tribune and if you think he didn't read the material Marx wrote for the Tribune, nearly 500 articles, then you just ain't paying attention.

It was noted by Brockell that there were two factors that helped Lincoln in his presidential quest--"First, the support of former German revolutionaries who had become key players in the Republican Party; and second, the support of the party's newspaper, the Tribune. Look at what she is telling us here. Two of the main aids to Lincoln becoming president were the help of the Forty-Eighter socialists and communists who had basically infiltrated the new Republican Party and the  help of a newspaper run by a utopian socialist. Sounds like most of Lincoln's help came from the political left. You don't suppose the reason for that was that the leftists of that day already knew where Lincoln was coming rom, do you? You have to wonder if Lincoln's comments about labor being prior to and independent of capitol had anything to do with this.

We were also told by Brockell that "Marx was friends with Charles A. Dana, an American socialist fluent in German who was managing editor of the New York Tribune. He was the one who hired Marx to write for the Tribune. And Brockell has told us that, once Lincoln took office, "his alliance with socialists didn't stop. Dana left the Tribune to become Lincoln's eyes and ears in the War Department..." Dana informed Lincoln, among other things, about what he thought of his generals.

Our book Lincoln's Marxists noted, on page 50, that Dana served under Edwin M. Stanton as assistant secretary of war in the Lincoln administration. That was a pretty lofty national position to be held by a socialist in the 1860s. So much for those folks that try to tell us we never had a problem with socialism or communism in this country until the 1930s. Such folks are either naive or they hope the rest of us are.

Arthur R. Thompson, in his informative work To The Victors Go The Myths And Monuments noted of Dana, on page 198 that: "Charles Dana was a vice president of the National Convention of Associations. He was a member of the Prodhonian Club, nicknamed the 48ers of America, composed mainly of Americans who  participated in the revolution of 1848-1849 in Europe. In 1848 he spent eight months covering the revolutions for the New York Tribune, and he shared Marx's views. Dana wrote that the purpose of the uprisings was 'not simply to change the form of governments, but to change the form of society.' He did more than report. Dana is  but one example of reporters who participated in revolutionary activities and then posed as impartial observers as 'reporters.' This has long been a tactic of the Left, and continues to this day." 

Brockell reiterated once more that "Lincoln never took up the mantle of socialism" as if to tell us that we should now ignore all she has told us about Mr. Lincoln and he leftist coterie in Washington. Mr. Lincoln did not have to "take up the mantle. His actions spoke louder than his words. I have long contended that while Lincoln may not have been a Marxist he most assuredly had a socialist worldview and he had no problem whatever with socialists and communists. He was perfectly comfortable around them and their leftist views. The only thing Lincoln ever "emancipated" people from was their God-given liberties--and he was a master at that.

America's Hidden History of "Lincoln's Marxists"

The My Pillow Guy

 Check out the latest on

https://lindelltv.com

And be sure to watch the video.

Al

John Brown The Terrorist

 by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Recently on my other blog spot I did an article in which I mentioned the name of one of the first terrorists in America, John Brown of Kansas and Harpers Ferry, Virginia "fame." I was taken to task for daring to call "Preacher Brown" a terrorist, and this by a "useful idiot" that seemed to think Brown was some sort of hero because he butchered people that were either slave owners or those he thought might be slaveowners.

Now I never heard anywhere that Brown was ever a preacher, ordained or otherwise. Two of those that supported Brown's terrorist activities were preachers--Unitarian preachers--which is a whole different animal than a Christian preacher.

The best book I ever read about Brown's terrorism was written by historian Otto Scott several years ago now and was called The Secret Six: The Fool As Martyr. and was published by the Foundation for American Education. I don't know if these folks are even still in business or not but you might check out Amazon to see if you can still find the book. Scott gave much valuable information about Brown and those that financially supported his terrorism--a group called The Secret Six. I did articles on each one of the six for my old hard copy newsletter The Copperhead Chronicle, which I am no longer able to publish.

Brown, at least in  his Kansas depredations, had the support of two socialist Forty-eighters, a fact that Donnie Kennedy and I noted in our book Lincoln's Marxists. 

With socialist and Unitarian support it would seem that John Brown was a tool of the left in his day. It would also seem that he still is. I recently read an article by Ken Braun on https://capitalresearch.org which stated: "John Brown! Live like him' was the rallying cry of John 'J.J. Jacobs, author of the Weatherman Manifesto, a 1969 political treatise that argued for the formation of a revolutionary communist terror sect  soon to be known to history as the Weather Underground. John Brown was a hero for Jacobs and other founders of the Weathermen. In 1975, long after Jacobs had left the terrorist bombing organization, the Weather Underground published Osawatomie, a radical left magazine named for one of the military engagements in which Brown led his rebel force of radical abolitionists. So much for the good intentions of "Preacher Brown"!

James Bovard on https://jimbovard.com had an interesting article on Brown up on his site for December 2, 2009.

He said: "He (Brown) was held in high esteem by many great men of his day. Ralph Waldo Emerson compared him to Jesus, declaring that Brown would 'make the gallows as glorious as the cross.' Henry David Thoreau placed Brown above the freedom fighters of the American Revolution. the fact that Emerson and Thoreau turned  into cheerleaders for John Brown  was among the worst failings for each of them. Both Emerson and Thoreau started out denouncing politics as a snare and a fraud. And both of them fell for Brown and his vision of progress via slaughtering innocent people."

Ralph Waldo Emerson was a Unitarian preacher, so his support for Brown's terrorism is understandable and Thoreau was also a Unitarian. Unitarians have supported leftist causes for generations now.

It just may be time for some of today's well-intentioned "useful idiots" to learn how to do a little homework on their own and check out some of those leftist characters they support. That would be nice, but I ain't holding my breath until it  happens.

They Want To Steal Our History

 by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

The Deep State and the radical left, globalists all, are trying to steal our history. They do not want us to know our history or understand where we came from and why. They realize, more than we do, that those that have no grasp of their history, culture, and heritage have no real future. They seek to control our history so they can control our future. If they control our future then they control  our destiny and then, like all idolaters, they can shape us in their own leftist image.

One way they do this is with false history, like this horrible 1619 Project that is currently used in many public schools now. Donald Trump became aware of this program and sought to deny funding to public schools that used it. I don't know how he made out with that and the recent election that was stolen from him will deny him and opportunity to pursue it further.

Interestingly enough, a writer of Western fiction seems to have had more of a grasp of the importance of real history than most people in our day do. I am referring to the late Elmer Kelton. He wrote mostly about West Texas. He grew up on a ranch in West Texas where his father was a ranch foreman so Kelton knew the history of his area. He was well acquainted with the kind of people and places he wrote about. He was part of it and it was part of him, which is as it should be.

His comments about history were insightful. In his autobiography Sandhills Boy he wrote: "South of the ranch headquarters, in the middle of an open pasture, was  the grave of a cowboy killed by horse thieves many years before. Riding by that solemn place, I was reminded of the old song, 'Bury Me Not On The Lone Prairie.'  It certainly was lone and lonely.  That grave, and the stories the cowboys told, awakened a wonder that stayed with me. They made history come alive. They provided a living connection between past and present, a realization that events of a hundred years ago and more still affect our daily lives, our beliefs and attitudes.  They are part of who and what we are. The more we know about them, the better we know ourselves."

Whether we realize it or not, our history affects us because we are all a part of it. I remember, years ago now being told about a man in the South who said "the past is not dead. It is not even past." There is a certain sense in which he was right. The only time history is boring is when it is taught in school and is limited to dates and personalities whose history we do not know. General so and so fought a battle at such and such a place in 1864--period! That is boring history. To make history come alive we need to ask why he fought the battle and what did he believe. 

More and more as I have studied history, I have found that Elmer Kelton's view of it is accurate. Our history is part of all of us. I had a Confederate ancestor from North Carolina who was a captain in a North Carolina infantry regiment. Why did he fight? Did he go to war just so he could keep his slaves? I never read about him having any. Or did he go to war because his state was invaded? He lost part of one leg at Spotsylvania. Did he go through that particular hell so he could preserve slavery? I rather doubt that. The majority of the men that fought for the Confederacy did not own slaves and who in his right mind would be willing to endure four years of battle and death so his neighbor up the road apiece could keep his twenty slaves?  Yet this is the false narrative we are asked to believe because leftist "historians" so called continue to throw it in our faces and teach it to our children. It's balderdash, which is a nice way of saying it's bovine fertilizer, not history.

And this false narrative has shaped generations of our kids, both North and South. This fake history is used as an excuse to tear down our monuments and desecrate our flags and the Marxists among us love to have it so. As long as they can foist this claptrap on us we do not learn our real history or why our ancestors really fought. When we are taught accurate history that is reflected in how we think today. When we are lied to about our history and truth is denigrated, that affects us also, and not in a positive way.

So those closet leftists that crawl around among us teach us false history and that affects how we view our ancestors and our past and the culture they bequeathed to us. If the leftists can teach us skewed history then that affects how we view our past then they get to decide for us what our future will be because we will not understand our past.

History is not some dead thing that has no effect on us in our lives. History affects how we think and how we view life and what we will teach our kids about their past. If we let the Marxist element control our future via false history then neither we or our kids have any real future. Our future is really their future--a Marxist future.

Years ago when I was in a shop getting some printing done I inadvertently ended up in a conversation with a man that said to me "Communism liberates people." My reply to his foolishness was "May my children never live under the 'liberty' you promote." Now, with a Harris/Biden duo waiting in the political wings my children may yet end up living under some sort of communist "liberty"--something I have fought against most of my life. I sought to teach my kids accurate history. I guess we will have to wait and see who tries to teach their children history.