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"

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.

Lincoln assassination series booklet

Check out series of articles about Lincoln assassination on
https://revisedhistory.wordpress.com    that ran for the month of May.

If all goes well I plan to make a little booklet out of this series so that those who
may not have seen it might be able to get it in printed form.

If you have any friends you think may be interested pass this brief article along to them. Costs for
the booklet will be minimal, but I will have to pay for printing costs.

Al Benson Jr.

If anyone has questions about this booklet please contact me at cpprhd10@aol.com and title your communication "Booklet". Thank you.

"Searching For Lincoln"

by Al Benson Jr.

A lady back east sent me a copy of an excellent documentary DVD on the Abraham Lincoln the "history" book don't tell us about. It arrived here yesterday. Last evening (Aug 31) I watched it. Usually I don't spend lots of time watching DVDs. I am busy enough that I never seem to quite get around to them. Maybe once every six months or so I get to one, but no more often than that.

This one, though, was worth taking the time to watch, and for those that would like to be aware of the Lincoln the "history" books don't bother to inform us about I would recommend it.

It goes into Lincoln's entire life, his views on race (which were "racist"), his views on secession (he was right in 1848 but not in 1860) and that was only because he put forth those views just before the start of the 1848 socialist revolts in Europe.He had odd views on the Constitution and states' rights (he thought the Union was formed before the States). He wasn't even close to accurate and his far out views cost the country over 600,000 lives. But he changed the system of government (and that's what it was really all about). Obviously the folks that put all this together did lots of homework. It should be required viewing in every history class in the country.

If you would like more information you can go to the website www.searchingforlincoln.com  and check it out. The information I received said folks "...can rent it for a few dollars (to be sure they want it, obviously) and then download it for about $20. After that they can burn it to a DVD if they wish to have a hard copy. They can purchase a hard copy from the website."

The lady that sent it to me also noted, for those interested in purchasing the DVD, "If it is a group purchase--an SCV or UDC chapter, say, or your relatives--do it through me; there is a discount for multiple copies.  I think the price goes from around $20 to $15 per DVD." Her name is Valerie Protopapas and you can contact her at 14 Peartree Lane, Huntington Station, New York 11746

The DVD was produced by Darlin Productions.

The Republican Party: There are NO conservative roots there

by Al Benson Jr.

Awhile back, I received an email from a conservative activist who was busily urging people to try to get the Republican Party "back to its conservative roots." My initial thought was--what conservative roots? Anyone who had done any research as to the origins  of the Republican Party and is not wearing blinders has got to realize that the Republican Party in this country had radical, leftist beginnings, hardly to be considered conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Back in early 2008, author, columnist and researcher Alan Stang (since deceased) did a review of Donnie Kennedy's and my book Lincoln's Marxists. The title of his article was The Republican Party--Red From the Start. I thought his title was quite appropriate. My Stang understood what many conservatives do not seem to grasp, that the Republican Party was really leftist in its origins. While I sincerely appreciate the sincerity and intent of many conservatives, I feel they have got to begin to do the homework and wake up and realize what the Republican Party really is.

For years I've been getting mail urging me to vote Republican so as to fight against the "liberal Democrats." The people that promote and send this stuff out must think we are all stupid enough to actually think that all Republicans are conservative and all Democrats are liberal. What about fighting against liberal Republicans that are really no different than liberal Democrats? Ahh, we aren't even supposed to know enough to ask that question, are we?

So let's take a brief look at the "conservative" roots of the Republican Party.  When the Republican Party ran its first presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, back in 1856, Fremont had the backing of several men who were socialist refugees from the failed socialist/communist revolts in Europe in 1848; (they were known as "Forty-Eighters). One of the most well known of these was Friedrich Hassaurek, an Austrian socialist, who stumped the Midwest in Fremont's behalf. It did little good at that point, as Fremont was beaten. However, it is worth noting  that when the War (of Northern Aggression) broke out in 1861, General Fremont ended up with a goodly number of these Forty-Eighter socialists and communists on his military staff while the war was in progress. The Forty-Eighter socialists  seem to have flocked to Fremont. What did they know about the august General that our "history" books have not bothered to reveal to us?

Although Fremont was beaten in 1856,  the socialists and communists  were nothing if not patient. In 1860 they found another candidate worthy of their leftist support--Abraham Lincoln. So, in the presidential campaign of 1860, the Forty-Eighters all came out for Lincoln. Carl Wittke, author of Refugees of Revolution noted that: "Lincoln was fully aware of the political influence of the Forty-Eighters in the campaign of 1860, in persuading many of their countrymen to desert the Democratic allegiance for the Republicans..." It appears that the Forty-Eighters had quite a bit of influence in the Republican Convention in 1860--even helping to write parts of the party's platform. So much for "conservatism" at the Republican roots!

Establishment historian, James McPherson, told us in his book Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution that Mr. Lincoln had championed the cause of the socialists and communists in Europe in 1848. You can find the quote about that on pages 24 and 25 of McPherson's book. So why, then, would Lincoln not embrace their unstinting support for his presidential aspirations in 1860? One can, quite accurately, label this whole scenario The Red Roots of the Republican Party.

If socialists and communists supported Fremont in 1856 and Lincoln in 1860 and 1864, we can hardly label the beginnings of the Republican Party as "conservative" now, can we? The roots of the Republican Party were anything but conservative. At best, they might be considered deep pink.  Our decent, patriotic folks in this country need to start becoming aware of this so they will not be guilty of trying to take us back to Republican "conservative" roots that do not, and never did, exist.

It is true that the Republican Party did take a more conservative tack in the late 1940s and 50s, and even through the early 60s, but only out of political necessity; it hardly reflects the foundation and origins of the GOP.

It is worth noting that, in 1860, the Democrats were the real conservatives, while the Republicans were the left-leaning radicals. People today should know the difference--and the real history. The fact that most don't, reveals the lack of depth in what most of us received in government schools that passed for education. Sadly, what most of us received was little more than leftist propaganda.