Even In Lincoln's Day Some Folks Recognized A Communist

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Awhile back I printed off an article from https://www.jacobinmag.com by an Andre Fleche called America's First Red Scare. The article seemed to me to be a mix of truth and error and Mr. Fleche's somewhat left of center bias seemed to show through.

But he did get some things right. He noted: "Advocates from both sides argued their case in print and in public. Conservative newspapers warned Missouri's citizens to beware of heeding the advice of 'scarlet red speakers.' Good advice, for there were quite a few of those around even then. Contrary to what we have been taught, communism and socialism were problems in this country starting at least in the early 1850s and not in the 1950s as we have been told in what passes for history books today. 

Fleche continued: "Slaveholders denounced abolitionists, immigrants, and activists as 'Pure red republicans! People rotten from the ground up, red all the way through to their kidneys'." That is true, but it was not only slaveholders that exposed them

Fleche observed that St. Louis Unionists armed themselves in order to prevent Missouri from seceding. He said: "Progressive Republicans, soldiers, and the German immigrant community took the lead. Revolutionary veterans from Europe, including such radicals as Heinrich Bornstein, editor of the St. Louis German language newspaper Anzeiger des Westens, played a prominent role in helping to organize the new Union volunteers." Notice Fleche's terminology here. "Progressive Republicans" Folks, that's just another term for socialist Republicans--the same kind of RINO's today that are willing to help the Democrats to try to defraud Trump of his legitimate vote count in the 2020 election.

Fleche's leftist bias bleeds through in his next comments. He tells us that "On May 10, 1861, the loyal regiments marched to the outskirts of town where they dispersed and disarmed a gathering of secessionist militias. As the victorious units marched their captives back through the city, radical journalists likened the scene to the revolution that had swept Europe in 1848."  One of them wrote: "It was one of those splendid moments when emotion glowing deep in the heart of the masses suddenly breaks into wild flame." The captured Confederates took a little different view. They said "These reds and forty-eighters are to blame for everything." This according to one conservative editor--and he was pretty close to the actual truth there.

Fleche contended that Southern secession  tried first and foremost to protect slavery in the South, which was a misnomer because Southerners could have stayed in the Union and still kept their slaves. Lincoln said as much. The second part of his contention was a little more accurate. He noted that "...by establishing a Southern nation, Confederates also sought to forestall progressive political and social change, which they believed threatened to transform the American republic."

Fleche observed, correctly, that "In the years before the Civil War, white Southern intellectuals grew increasingly worried about progressive Northern thinkers.  During the 1840s and 1850s, Northern reformers had advocated not only abolitionism, but also working-class trade unionism and utopian socialism. The Yankee editor, Horace Greeley  took the lead in popularizing radical politics. In the pages of his widely read newspaper, the New York Tribune, he exposed readers to the latest work of contemporary social theorists." One of those "contemporary social theorists" was Karl Marx, the supposed founder of present day communism. But, then,  Greeley was, himself, a socialist. I have on my shelf a book by Charles Sotheran called Horace Greeley  And Other Pioneers Of American Socialism. It was first published in 1915 and then again in 1971 by Haskell House Publishers in New York. I'm not sure if it's even still available. 

Greeley wasn't the only socialist around back in the day. There were lots of them around, lots earlier than we'd like to think.

And there were even some similarities with our situation today. In Missouri, many of the radical Unionists were in the city of St. Louis, while much the rest of Missouri was pretty conservative. How well does that pattern hold true today, not only in Missouri but in many of our other states as well. You have conservatives and patriots in the more rural areas of the state but the big cities are mostly, with some exceptions, socialistic politically. Same when it comes to elections. The big cities usually vote socialist while the rest of the state votes conservative. I know it works that way in Louisiana. And it did in Illinois and Indiana when we were there.

Years ago Dr. Clyde Wilson wrote an informative series of columns called The Yankee Problem in America. He was right. I don't recall if Dr. Wilson ever wrote a book by that title or not. He may have. Problem is, a lot of those Yankees that have been such a problem have also been socialists, and therein lies part of the problem.

Ongoing "Reconstruction"

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I have an email friend who is a fellow Copperhead. Like me, he was born in the bleak atmosphere of a New England that was affected by the cold chill of Unitarianism. It affected where he lived as it affected where I lived. Probably neither of us recognized that at the time, but we both realized in our innermost beings that something there wasn't quite right.

He moved from Northern New England down to West Virginia, where he seems quite content. We moved all over the place, depending on circumstances, ending up in Illinois several years ago, and from there we came to North Louisiana. Knowing our concern for their heritage and history, the good Southern folks accepted us and we have been more comfortable in the South than we had been anywhere else (except when I lived in Oklahoma briefly during the late 1960s).

Anyway, this friend, like me, studies history and keeps a weather eye on the political scene. Just recently he emailed me with some observations. He noted that, after looking at history, he had concluded that the "Civil War" never really ended--and it sure didn't end when Lee walked out of the courthouse at Appomattox. Technically it didn't end then--it limped along for a little more than  another two months. But even for that, it didn't really "end." You see, the War of Northern Aggression (which it what it really was), was a culture war. It's main agenda was the total destruction of Southern culture, history, and heritage, and that all didn't end when the fighting ceased and so the War had to continue But they had to cover that fact up and so they ceased to call it a war and they renamed it--they started calling it Reconstruction. This was his take on it and I have to admit, I can't really disagree with him. I'd figured out the same thing awhile back. 

It had always amazed me that "reconstruction" was Karl Marx's term. He had called for "the reconstruction of s social world" in regard to changing the worldview of the South. His Radical Abolitionist friends in the North seized on his terminology (as a possible hidden tribute to him) when they gave a name to what they planned to do to the South.

Over the years, I have contended that "reconstruction" never really ended and instead  the Establishment, Shadow Government, or whatever you want to call them, has just continued it under a varied collage of different titles--affirmative action, global warming, no child left behind, or whatever other noble-sounding fiction they thought would befuddle the public at large. My Copperhead friend had concluded the same thing. Interestingly enough, he and I had come up with our conclusions totally independently of one another. Each of us looked at the evidence we had been able to amass--and we came up with the same conclusion as the other.

Reminds me of a situation several years ago now, back when I started digging up evidence for Lincoln being in love with the Marxists and socialists. I had put together quite a bit of evidence on Lincoln's affinity for the Left and published some of it in a couple articles when I got an email from a man in North Carolina indicating that he had found the same thing. He shared his sources with me and it turned out a lot of them were not the same sources I had used, but they were just as authoritative.

This goes to show you that there are a lot of people out there quietly doing the homework and connecting the dots and much of what they find ends up on blog spots and websites. I don't think most people realize how many blog spots there are out there, but there are thousands of them and lots and lots of them come from a patriotic, American perspective. The Deep State may be trying to censor conservative viewpoints and they may be trying to shut down some of the bigger patriotic websites and they may succeed to a degree. If such does happen, then many  people who are aware of some of these more obscure sites will start checking out the "second string" of sites where they can get their news. The days of the  "big 3" in the prostitute press controlling all the news are over. Millions of people nowadays realize the Main Stream Media is pure hogwash and they constantly search out the alternate media for their news--and part of the alternate media is these thousands upon thousands of blog spots--and I don't think the Deep State can shut them all down no matter how much they'd love to.

There are lots of us out here digging up the stuff the establishment media would rather have buried and the Marxist "historians" have kept under wraps for years. They can't hide it all anymore, and that fact will eventually be their undoing.

The Desire For Total Control

The latest commentary by our two political commentators as they take a long view on history.
Al Benson Jr.

The Desire For Total Control

by Schwartz & Viscount

It goes way, way back. Check out the Tower of Babel in the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament. Man wanted to reach to Heaven by his own efforts, to be God, as it were. If you read the Genesis account you see that he didn't quite make it. However, that has not stopped his efforts in that direction for centuries and they continue to this day.

The Caesars controlled the Roman Empire, which was all of southern Europe, the eastern Mediterranean area, and much of North Africa; the known world at that time. Caesar (depending on which one) was a benevolent dictator. You could have whatever religious beliefs you wanted to--as long as you recognized Caesar as Lord. The Christians wouldn't, couldn't, do that, hence Caesar would not have total control--and that was where their problems began. For them, Jesus the Christ was Lord, not Caesar. When Caesar tried to force the issue, and a lot of Christians died, it was the beginning of the end for Rome.

For us in this country, it goes back to the British Empire. King Henry started the Church of England, a.k.a. the Anglican, or, in this country, the Episcopal Church. Henry wanted everyone to worship the way he thought was right, although there was more to it than that. This resulted in the Pilgrims, separatists by belief, leaving England and coming to America so they would not be under the king's control in their worship.

And, as time passed, the children of the Pilgrims and Puritans had major problems with King George over taxes on tea and other things, and finally, at Lexington and Concord, King George discovered that he did not have the total control he craved. The "Divine Right of Kings" was, in the final analysis, only their desire to control all in their realms. In the end, it did not work out. Not that some of what replaced them has been much better in many instances!

But the quest for control continued on (as it still does in our day)! Our ULN-civil war was really not about freeing the slaves; it was, in the end, about controlling the whole country. Lincoln didn't want a country "half slave and half free"--he wanted it, politically, ALL slave. And he accomplished this--more than 80 years after our Declaration of Independence and the victory over King George. One way he sought to control it was with a heavy tariff, beneficial only to the North, which the South ended up paying most of. But that is another story.

Fact is, Lincoln sought (to commend and promote Union troops) many openly socialistic men as officers; men who had failed in their 1848 efforts to coerce the German populace and others into swallowing their Marxist/socialist ideas in Europe. Having failed in Europe they naturally matriculated to the US, where they could then force their brand of total control on an unsuspecting American populace--starting in the South.

You have to ask the question; did some of these guys induce some of the atrocities committed by Sherman and Sheridan  in their wanton destruction of many of the wonderful homes/plantations in the South, along with all the other property they destroyed. One author called Sherman's men in South Carolina "A legion of devils." An apt description! But these were the same tactics used by Hitler and Stalin.

Friends, that is Communism (Marxism)--control by force and destruction. In your minds it may seem far fetched or absurd, but think about this: Is taking over the Communications Commission what the Marxists are doing by forcing local radio and television stations to be controlled by the "already fake news" outlets? Is this one more way to control what is supposed to be an entity for the expression of our free speech (First Amendment Rights)? The FCC has out-stepped its bounds by allowing this to happen.

In fact, you might ask the question--"Who owns the airwaves--the FCC or God?" If the answer is God, then possibly the FCC should think about shutting its doors and sending its people home.We don't expect that to happen, though, because for the bureaucrats the agenda is always control. Little by little, so no one notices, their intention is always control! 

Update 1/15/17
In regard to total control, please read the most recent article on 
https://revisedhistory.wordpress.com
dealing with driverless cars and the United Nations' Agenda 21 program which would shut us all up in sardine can apartments in megacities, unable to go anywhere except where these new driverless cars are willing to take us. All for our own "good" of course.

New post on http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com
from a history professor about some of the folks that really won the Civil War.
Hint: They were not right-wingers!  1/16/18

The Republican Party--Can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit?

by Al Benson Jr.

By no stretch of the wildest imagination can the Republican Party be considered truly conservative and/or patriotic. I realize such a statement will shock some folks who grew up with the myth that the Republican Party was the "party of small government."

If you doubt, just go back and look at the history of the GOP. Who was its first presidential candidate back in 1856? Anyone know? It was John Charles (Pathfinder) Fremont. Actually Fremont didn't find too many of the paths--Kit Carson, his scout found most of them, but Fremont got the credit. Fremont was, by any accurate definition, a radical that leaned hard left in his political views. When the War of Northern Aggression broke out Fremont, who had a command in Missouri, ended up with a whole cadre of socialist Forty-eighters (Lincoln's Marxists) in his command.

When Fremont had run for president in 1856, Frederick Hassaurek, one of the socialist Forty-eighters campaigned all over the Midwest for him. That fact established a relationship between Fremont and the Forty-eighters. And when Fremont didn't make the cut in 1856 the Forty-eighters had to wait another four years until Abraham Lincoln came along and, as they had done for Fremont, so they did for Lincoln. They worked for his election and when the war started they thronged to serve in his armies, and some of them served in the early Republican Party. A couple of Forty-eighters even helped to write the Republican Party platform in 1860--hardly what you would call an auspicious "conservative" beginning for the party.

Real conservatism has seldom been part of the Republican Party agenda.  Perceived conservatism has though. Perceived conservatism is great for getting conservative support from people who have not done the homework, and they serve as good window dressing to make others think conservatism thrives where it really doesn't. For some background material on the early Republican Party and the Forty-eighters, read the book Lincoln's Marxists.  

So, over the years, the Republican Party has worked to fool the voting public into thinking it is something it is not--patriotic and conservative! You might be tempted to say "well that was then but this is now." Okay--show me the difference between what they did then and what they are doing now. In 2012 you had Ron Paul running for president, and he had won several states, one of them Louisiana where I live. I went to the party caucus in Monroe in 2012 and Ron Paul got 80% of the vote there. Romney got 20%. It was the same in most other Louisiana cities that we checked. However, when the state caucus was held in Shreveport shortly after, with Ron Paul having 80% of the delegates statewide, the state Republican Establishment decided it was not going to seat Ron Paul's 80%--it was going to seat and recognize Romney's 20%. When the 80% of legitimate delegates complained the Republican Establishment called the police in and they made sure the illegitimate 20% were the delegates that were recognized. Lots of folks have forgotten this. I haven't. The Republican Establishment in Louisiana (and several other states) stole their state from Ron Paul and handed it to Mitt Romney. Why? Because they realized that Romney was not going to beat Obama and Obama was supposed to get a second term. Romney was the weakest Republican they could have nominated--same as in 2008 when McCain got the nod. Everyone knew he wasn't going to beat Obama, wasn't supposed to beat Obama. If I had a suspicious mind I'd be tempted to say "the fix was in." But far be it from me to think such thoughts. The Republicans are noted for putting up weak candidates in years the Democrats are supposed to win.

And 2016 is no different. One of the stable of Establishment candidates was supposed to win and then lose to Hillary in the general election. So far it hasn't worked out that way, but it will eventually if the "conservative" Republicans can figure out a way to deep six Donald Trump. He was the real spoiler in their plan and he has hung on to the bitter end. If he gets enough delegates to take the nomination then the Republican Establishment will have to find a way to deny him the nomination--because he is not supposed to win--Hillary is! And you can tell the way the Republican Establishment is acting that this is the game plan. They are bending over backwards to smear Trump. Conservatives--so called--are stating openly that if Trump wins the nomination they will not support him. They are howling that Trump is not a real conservative. The question then arises--are they??? Not hardly.

One thing you have to realize--at the national level and most state levels, the Republican and Democratic parties share the same socialist worldview and so they scratch one another's backs because they promote identical socialist agendas and they don't want some rank outsider coming along to upset the apple cart they have worked at filling for the last several decades.. Both parties, working together, have moved this country a long way down the road to One World government. That's their real agenda.

Doug Parris wrote an interesting article that appeared on http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com on April 8th. Mr. Parris noted some of the less-than-conservative actions of the "party of small government" in recent years. He said: "...from 1988 to 2012 the Party elites successfully rebuffed the candidacies and enormous grassroots movements of Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul, all of whom were treated as hostile invaders and their millions of supporters as vermin, despised and rejected. And the odd candidates the Party occasionally elected in their stead loyally compromised away the principles that animated their supporters." In other words, they sold out!

So Mr. Parris feels that the Republican Party is on its last legs, that  it's almost finished whether they end up  stopping Trump or not. Parris describes the GOP bosses as "flexible." Is that a good description or what? So we end up with a Republican Party that tries to convince people it is conservative when all it is at this point is irrelevant. And as long as they can fool the voters they don't really care. It's all a game, a charade, a political scam if you will to make people think you have two different parties with two different worldviews when all you really have is one internationalist, socialist party with two names.

To Southern Folks: The Republican Party Will Not Save You (and they are not really trying to)

by Al Benson Jr.

Too many folks here in the South really believe that the Republican Party is the "party of small government" that is out there manfully trying to protect them from the "liberal Democrats." It sounds so good when you read the Republican Party literature during an election year. Unfortunately, much of what sounds good to people often turns out to be bovine fertilizer and the Republican "concern" for limited government is one of the biggest piles of that around.

The Republican Party is not really concerned about limited government and if you look at their history, there have really been very few times when they were. Their first presidential candidate, John C. (pathfinder) Fremont back in 1856 leaned to the left politically, and when the War of Northern Aggression commenced he had several Forty-eighter socialists under his command. Donnie Kennedy and I have documented this in our book Lincoln's Marxists. Their next candidate, Abraham Lincoln, was just as far to the left, but the "history" books don't bother to tell you any of that. Better for the establishment if you don't know. Except, thanks to authors like Tom DiLorenzo, the word is getting out about what Lincoln really was, and there are others as well.

Today I read an article on LewRockwell.com by Paul Gottfried called  Neocons Hate the South. Mr. Gottfried noted that since the shootings in Charleston "GOP officials have been scrambling to comply with leftist demands that Southern whites be stripped of visible signs of their Confederate heritage. The GOP has actually been downplaying the Confederacy for years..." I recall, a few years back now, when Cheney was Vice-President, someone of note in the South passed away and the was a Confederate flag at the funeral home where he was displayed. Cheney refused to even go in until that Confederate flag was removed. This is your Republican's "love" for the South and your heritage. Gottfried noted that: "Neoconservatives have long stood out from other Republicans and members of Conservatism Inc. by virtue of the intensity of their loathing for the white South." And at this point in time, it seems that these are the people that control the Republican Party. The Republicans don't hesitate to use the Southern vote to help them gain control of Congress--but look at what has happened since they got control in November, 2014. Has government gotten any smaller? Are the Republicans really trying to stave off the efforts of the "liberal" Democrats for more and bigger government? Hardly! What has happened is that the public, if they really take the trouble to look, will find that what we really have in Washington is a melding together of both political parties into one group and it is predominently liberal/left in its outlook and the Republicans, for all their "conservative" rhetoric are more than willing to go along with much of what Comrade Obama has planned for the country.

So our path down the road to some sort of European socialism will be promoted by two political parties who claim to disagree with one another but who are willing to work together to forge the chains of socialism around the necks of the American people.

And they particularly want to forge those chains on people in the South because that is the region that balks most consistently against the wiles of big government. Make no mistake about it--both parties in Washington hate your guts of you are Southern. You stand for everything that their One World government agenda is opposed to. The South is the last part of the country that even makes any pretention to the Christian faith, and that is their real enemy. Christ and the Confederacy have to go in the South and so all symbols and flags that remind anyone of either one must be purged--and the Republicans will work just as eagerly at that as will any black NAACP member! They hate your faith. They hate your heritage. They want them both gone and you had better wake up and realize that.

As for Confederate flags and monuments we are going to have to start looking for private property to put them on, preferably along highways where they have some visibility. But we can pretty well figure, with the present purge, that any "public" property will not be healthy for our heritage. I've just read where they have, in Memphis, decided to dig up Bedford Forrest and his wife and to re-inter them somewhere less "public" than where they are now. I suppose at this point the authorities in Memphis are on the lookout for some "potter's field" out in the boonies where they hope no one will ever go to rebury them.

Folks, I've stated before in articles that the Republican Party ain't your friend and that if you really are conservative or patriotic then you need to start looking somewhere else. Folks in the South have got to start looking for another political savior because the Republicans won't cut the mustard--and actually there is no salvation in politics anyway. North or South, only the Lord can straighten out the mess we find ourselves in today so maybe we had better get on our knees and ask Him what He wants us to do--and if the mess is to be straightened out He will want us to do something, not just sit it out and wait for the "rapture."

Follow up on Donnie Kennedy Interview

by Al Benson Jr.

I talked with Donnie Kennedy on Tuesday morning, August 19th regarding his interview on the Alan Colmes show on Fox Radio. Most folks realize that Colmes is a rank liberal, and Donnie realized that before he went on his show, so he knew where  Colmes would be coming from.

Donnie felt that he held his own pretty well during the interview and although I did not get to hear it, I think he probably did too. I have heard Donnie talk on tv before in front of questionable hosts and he held his own.

Part of the reason he agreed to the interview was to have an opportunity to get a little exposure for the book he and I co-authored, "Lincoln's Marxists." We have felt that, with this book, we covered the kind of material that the "historians"--so called, just love to leave out regarding Mr. Lincoln, the Republican Party, and the socialist and Communist influence that was very prevalent in this country at that time, and has continued on ever since.

There are many on the left that have commented on our book and the blanket charge they all throw at is is "they say Lincoln was a Communist." In fact, we have not said that, but then, who are these people to worry about facts? Their agenda is to spread propaganda, not truth. We have said that Lincoln and the Republican Party were influenced by socialists and communists and there is evidence to back that up. If you want to know where, then you will have to read the book. It's all in there and we give sources, but we never said "Lincoln was a communist."

One of our major concerns is that folks in the Southern and Confederate Movements have been almost totally unaware of this. Both Donnie and I have given speeches to Southern groups over the past few years and when you bring up some of the material we've dug up on Lincoln's involvement with the socialist "Forty-eighters" from Europe you can see people's jaws drop! They never heard this until we dealt with it--which tells you something about the quality of what passes of history nowadays, even in conservative circles.

Lord willing, we plan to keep on hammering away with this information. People, North and South, need to know the real history and we try to provide as much of it as we are able to in "Lincoln's Marxists."