by Al Benson Jr.
The NAACP, often called by some "The National Association of Always Complaining People" held its 2004 annual convention in Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love. The national chairman, Julian Bond was on hand to, in the name of racial diversity, fuel the fires of racial agitation.
Bond took the obligatory swipe at the Bush administration. Every Left-wing political group is expected to take a shot at the Republicans. Whether they really mean it or not is another thing, but they are expected to do it just about as much as fleas are expected to infest a hound dog. It's part of the political game, and it fools a lot of people into voting Republican who should know better. They automatically reason that "anybody the NAACP is against I'm for" and so they take the bait. Please don't think that I am endorsing the Republicans. I have no use whatever for either of the two main political parties, which are, after all, just two different branches on the same tree of internationalism.
However, Bond said of the Republicans "They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division." Now that is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I've never noted that Mr. Bond has been any great defender of racial unity. The various groups he has belonged to have caused as much agitation between the races as anyone could hope to--and therein lies the real name of the game. None of these demagogues, Bond, Sharpton, Jackson, or any of the rest could make a living if there were no contention between the races. Racial animosity is their middle name and their meal ticket.
Bond also ranted that "They write an new constitution for Iraq, and they ignore the Constitution here at home." That statement is true, but on the other hand, I have never noticed Mr. Bond being any great champion and defender of the United States Constitution in the past.
In fact, Bond's political career has been a rather checkered, Left-leaning affair over the decades. The book "The Biographical Dictionary of the Left--Volume 2", by Francis X. Gannon (Western Islands Publishing, 1969) carries a whole section on Mr. Bond and his political affiliations. Mr. Gannon notes that Bond started his career in 1960 as a "racial agitator." Gannon continued: "Out of that experience he co-founded the Committee on Appeal for Human Rights, which soon merged with the racist and revolutionary Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNICK), a creation of Martin Luther King Jr."
In 1966, according to Mr. Gannon "Bond participated in the Communists 'National Guardian' forum on politics and policy. He became co-chairman of the National Conference for New Politics, a classical united front third party movement largely controlled by the Communist Party."
And Gannon further noted that: "In March 1967, The Southern Conference Educational Fund held a dinner in honor of Bond. (The SCEF was the successor to the Southern Conference for Human Welfare, which had been a very active Communist front. Bond became a member of the board of SCEF)." The "Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities" for the state of Louisiana, in 1964, published what has become known in conservative circles as "The Louisiana Report." This report detailed the activities of several Communist front organizations, one of which was the Southern Conference Educational Fund. So it would seem that Mr. Bond, in openly criticizing others for ignoring the United States Constitution, has had no trouble over the years in being associated with groups that would not object in the least to overthrowing the Constitution and all the governing principles this country was found upon. That being the case, it would seem that Bond's "concern" over others ignoring the Constitution is more than a little hypocritical.
Bond also has been a big fan of the reparations for slavery foolishness that has swept parts of black America. He said: "The churches seemed like the best place to begin." He feels that American blacks "want it (money)and need it--the churches have it. I don't think the churches are the only ones." Mr. Gannon also noted that Bond felt that American industy and businesses should pony up with reparations cash too. It would seem that Jesse Jackson and others have, in the past few years, taken their cue from Bond's original demands.
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a black pastor, has written a book called "SCAM--How the black leadership exploits black America." Rev. Peterson has told us of Mr. Bond that: "During the late 60s, Bond traveled to various college campuses and spoke out against the Vietnam War, declaring it 'racist.' He also spoke in black churches to begin the drumbeat for 'reparations' from whites for slavery. In his speeches he declared that capitalism wasn't the answer for blacks. The answer, he claimed, was a form of community socialism, where each member in a black neighborhood would have a say in who gets how much money and from whom." I submit that Mr. Bond is no dummy. He ought to know that socialism has never worked for any period of time anywhere. But, if you can talk enough people into it, and they never seem to get quite enough out of it, then you can make a fat living blaming other people for the problems you have created yourself.
Julian Bond is a prime example of what Rev. Peterson is talking about when he refers to black leadership exploiting its own people. And the NAACP is so busy fussing over Confederate symbols that just don't have any extra time to deal with such unimportant issues as black illiteracy or poverty. Those kind of issues wouldn't make new headlines and they aren't where the cash is. You might almost say that, with people like Julian Bond as "friends" of the black community, who needs enemies???
Friday, July 16, 2004
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
The War (for Southern independence) Was About Theology, Too
by Al Benson Jr.
Although it is an issue seldom discussed, the prevailing theologies of both North and South contributed mightily as one of the main reasons for the War of Northern Aggression. I have stated in the past that the tariff was an issue that was alive and well before the start of the war--and so was the theological issue.
This is an area almost no one is willing to touch. Yet another one of those carefully and studiously ignored issues, which, if even mentioned in some circles, might just take away from "the war was all about slavery" propaganda. And so the theological issue must be swept under the rug, and today's Leftist "historians" most fervently hope that no one will ever bother to pick up the corner of the rug and look underneath.
In his book "The South Under Siege 1830-2000" author Frank Conner has told us: "The Northerners who actually mounted te ideological war against the South were led primarily by ex-Congregationalist ministers. Although the issue they pushed was the abolition of slavery, in fact they were fighting a religious war--of secular humanism (ideological liberalism) against Christianity in America, using the South as their battleground."
"Their ideological war is one of the two key factors which largely explains the history of the relations between the North and the South from 1830 until now (the other is economics)." Mr. Conner has correctly noted that:"...ideological liberalism is a religion that generates radical-left politics." I have no problem agreeing with him there. We can also say that such a religion is the result of apostasy from the Christian faith.
C. Gregg Singer in his "A Theological Interpretation of American History" noted that: "After 1830 there was a growing philosophical cleavage between North and South. While the North was becoming increasingly subject to radical influences, the South was becoming increasingly conservative in its outlook." The noted Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell put it thusly: "The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders--they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground--Christianity and atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity is at stake." One might well wonder, given the bloody excesses of the 20th century, how the "progress" of humanity has fared.
Professor Singer has informed us that those who founded the Southern Presbyterian Church saw something in abolitionism far more penetrating and subversive than a mere protest against the evils of slavery. He says "They saw it as a continuation of the French Revolution, motivated by the same philosophy and pursuing the same ends. They saw it primarily as a humanistic revolt against Christianity and the world and life view of the Scriptures. They saw in it an expression of democratic philosophy which left no place for a sovereign God and accorded all prestige to a sovereign humanity instead."
This radical outlook and the plague of Unitarianism were what pervaded much of the North in the few decades before the War of Northern Aggression. Although the Unitarians were never exceedingly numerous, the fact that they had a number of the New England elite among their ranks contributed very much to their influence over much of the North. Although there were, no doubt, some sincere Christians in the Abolitionist Movement, there were also many Unitarians, who, having rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ and the infallibility of Holy Scripture, had an abiding hatred for the South, which had experienced somewhat of a spiritual revival in the 1830s and was more Calvinistic in its faith after that. The Unitarians had mauled Calvinism in the North, especially in New England, and now they most fervently desired to do the same thing in the South. Their radical, Christ-denying mindset helped much to set the tone of thinking in the North in the decades before the war.
The Unitarians and socialists had many views in common, and it did not bother the Unitarians one whit that there were so many socialists in the Union armies. Both groups hated God and wanted to ban Him to total irrelevancy and thereby make autonomous man the measure of all things--the "captain of his own soul." In their view the highest expression of man was the state--and therefore--it was up to the state (government) to instuct the rest of us how to live and what to think, and to then make sure we all did that via appropriate legislation, all for our own "good" of course. Would-be dictators of all stripes always seem to know what is "good" for the rest of us (themselves exempted naturally). And what seems to be "good" for us is usually better financially for them.
Although there were Christians in the North before the war, the Unitarian apostasy had so infected and infiltrated many Northern churches that it affected the Northern mindset and predisposed it toward an unreasonable hatred toward an increasingly Calvinistic South.
As much as many seek to deny or ignore them, the theological issues involved in the War of Northern Aggression were very real and they need to be further explored and discussed, as do the biblical reasons for secession--yet another issue of professional Leftist "historians" have neglected to inform us about.
(This article originally appreared on the Sierra Times website.)
Although it is an issue seldom discussed, the prevailing theologies of both North and South contributed mightily as one of the main reasons for the War of Northern Aggression. I have stated in the past that the tariff was an issue that was alive and well before the start of the war--and so was the theological issue.
This is an area almost no one is willing to touch. Yet another one of those carefully and studiously ignored issues, which, if even mentioned in some circles, might just take away from "the war was all about slavery" propaganda. And so the theological issue must be swept under the rug, and today's Leftist "historians" most fervently hope that no one will ever bother to pick up the corner of the rug and look underneath.
In his book "The South Under Siege 1830-2000" author Frank Conner has told us: "The Northerners who actually mounted te ideological war against the South were led primarily by ex-Congregationalist ministers. Although the issue they pushed was the abolition of slavery, in fact they were fighting a religious war--of secular humanism (ideological liberalism) against Christianity in America, using the South as their battleground."
"Their ideological war is one of the two key factors which largely explains the history of the relations between the North and the South from 1830 until now (the other is economics)." Mr. Conner has correctly noted that:"...ideological liberalism is a religion that generates radical-left politics." I have no problem agreeing with him there. We can also say that such a religion is the result of apostasy from the Christian faith.
C. Gregg Singer in his "A Theological Interpretation of American History" noted that: "After 1830 there was a growing philosophical cleavage between North and South. While the North was becoming increasingly subject to radical influences, the South was becoming increasingly conservative in its outlook." The noted Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell put it thusly: "The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders--they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground--Christianity and atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity is at stake." One might well wonder, given the bloody excesses of the 20th century, how the "progress" of humanity has fared.
Professor Singer has informed us that those who founded the Southern Presbyterian Church saw something in abolitionism far more penetrating and subversive than a mere protest against the evils of slavery. He says "They saw it as a continuation of the French Revolution, motivated by the same philosophy and pursuing the same ends. They saw it primarily as a humanistic revolt against Christianity and the world and life view of the Scriptures. They saw in it an expression of democratic philosophy which left no place for a sovereign God and accorded all prestige to a sovereign humanity instead."
This radical outlook and the plague of Unitarianism were what pervaded much of the North in the few decades before the War of Northern Aggression. Although the Unitarians were never exceedingly numerous, the fact that they had a number of the New England elite among their ranks contributed very much to their influence over much of the North. Although there were, no doubt, some sincere Christians in the Abolitionist Movement, there were also many Unitarians, who, having rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ and the infallibility of Holy Scripture, had an abiding hatred for the South, which had experienced somewhat of a spiritual revival in the 1830s and was more Calvinistic in its faith after that. The Unitarians had mauled Calvinism in the North, especially in New England, and now they most fervently desired to do the same thing in the South. Their radical, Christ-denying mindset helped much to set the tone of thinking in the North in the decades before the war.
The Unitarians and socialists had many views in common, and it did not bother the Unitarians one whit that there were so many socialists in the Union armies. Both groups hated God and wanted to ban Him to total irrelevancy and thereby make autonomous man the measure of all things--the "captain of his own soul." In their view the highest expression of man was the state--and therefore--it was up to the state (government) to instuct the rest of us how to live and what to think, and to then make sure we all did that via appropriate legislation, all for our own "good" of course. Would-be dictators of all stripes always seem to know what is "good" for the rest of us (themselves exempted naturally). And what seems to be "good" for us is usually better financially for them.
Although there were Christians in the North before the war, the Unitarian apostasy had so infected and infiltrated many Northern churches that it affected the Northern mindset and predisposed it toward an unreasonable hatred toward an increasingly Calvinistic South.
As much as many seek to deny or ignore them, the theological issues involved in the War of Northern Aggression were very real and they need to be further explored and discussed, as do the biblical reasons for secession--yet another issue of professional Leftist "historians" have neglected to inform us about.
(This article originally appreared on the Sierra Times website.)
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Silent Witnesses (TO THE NON-SURRENDER OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT)
by AL BENSON JR.
A few years ago I read an interesting book written by Cliffor Dowdey entitled "The History Of The Confederacy 1832-1865." While I did not agree with all that Mr. Dowdey said, I felt that, in the main, he sought be fair to the South. His book brought out a point I had never even considered until I read it. He stated on pages 411 and 414 of his book that the Confederacy never had a formal, or official end. He noted that all the Confederate generals surrendered their armies, as none of them had the authority to surrender anything more, except possibly Robert E. Lee, as supreme commander of all Confederate forces in the field. Yet even he only surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia. Even President Jefferson Davis, when captured, was only captured. There was NEVER any formal surrender of the Confederate States as a nation or country. After World War 2 Germany and Japan surrendered and surrender documents were signed. No such event occurred for the Confederate States.
Although I mention Mr. Dowdey's book as my source for this information, I have checked out other sources and have not, to this point, found any information to contradict Mr. Dowdey's assertion. Other histories of the Confederate States have been checked into and they seem to be in silent agreement that the Confederacy never had an "official" end. Two of the best known are "A History of the Southern Confederacy" by Clement Eaton and "The Story of the Confederacy" by Robert Selph Henry. These books, both reliable histories, can be duly noted for their lack of any mention of a formal end for the Confederate States. They record the surrender of the various armies and all the horrible history that followed, but no mention is ever made at all of the Confederate States ever being formally terminated.
Alexander Stephens, in his monumental two-volume work "A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States" said much the same thing, except he expressed it in different terms. Stephens noted, in Volume One, the main reason for the War: "The conflict in principle arose from differing and opposing ideas as to the nature of what is known as the General Government...It was a strife between the principles of Federation on the one side, and Centralism, or Consolidation, on the other." Stephens was clearly stating that the struggle was over liberty on the one (Confederate) side vs. collectivism on the other (Northern) side. We might well ask, is our struggle today any different? Are we not still engaged in this battle? Stephens went on to disclaim slavery as the real cause of the war. He noted that "Some of the strongest anti-slavery men who ever lived were on the side of those who opposed the centralizing principles which led to the war." Stephens reiterated that fact on page 631 of Volume Two.
Moreover, Mr. Stephens contended that the true cause of the War for Southern Independence was not lost in the surrender of the various Confederate armies. He stated, in Volume Two of his work, starting on page 651: "So you see, my opinion is that the Cause which was lost at Appomattox Court House, was not the Federative Principles upon which American Free Institutions was based, as some have erroneously supposed. This is far from being one of the results of the War. The cause which was lost by the surrender of the Confederates, was only the maintenance of this principle by arms. It was not the principle they abandoned! They only abandoned their attempt to maintain it by physical force...This principle, therefore, though abandoned in its maintenance on battle-fields, still continues to live in all its vigor, in the forums of Reason, Justice, and Truth, and will, I trust, there continue to live forever."
Stop and analyze what Stephens has told us. The causes for which the Confederate States came into being, Christian self-government and the rights of the individual states within the framework of a federation (Confederacy) still exist. They have not been, nor can they ever be, truly done away with. They can not be done away with because the concepts of self-government and limited national power are scriptural. (Galatians 5:22-23 and Romans 13:1-7)
The true reasons for which the Confederate States were organized (even though some of the original founders may not have fully realized them) are not gone. They remain to this day. The struggle we blithly refer to as the "Civil War" did not resolve anything except which side had the most money, guns, and men. All it proved is that one country can prevail over another militarily if it has superior numbers and resources. The Northern bayonet drove truth to the ground, but it will not be able to keep it there forever.
It just may be, in God's Providence, that the Confederate States had no formal end because the truths she stood for (albeit imperfectly), rooted in Holy Scripture, also have no end.
Alexander Stephens bore eloquent testimony that the Cause still lives, even as its adherents still live today. The spirit of secession, which is akin to biblical separation, thrives in our day. What remains is for those that understand these truths in this hour in our history to proclaim them and to teach them to their children, and their neighbors, and their fellow church members, as opportunity is provided.
This article originally appeared on the web site of the Southern Independence Party of Louisiana.
http://www.sipoflouisiana.org
Check out this website, as well as the web site for the Federation of States.
A few years ago I read an interesting book written by Cliffor Dowdey entitled "The History Of The Confederacy 1832-1865." While I did not agree with all that Mr. Dowdey said, I felt that, in the main, he sought be fair to the South. His book brought out a point I had never even considered until I read it. He stated on pages 411 and 414 of his book that the Confederacy never had a formal, or official end. He noted that all the Confederate generals surrendered their armies, as none of them had the authority to surrender anything more, except possibly Robert E. Lee, as supreme commander of all Confederate forces in the field. Yet even he only surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia. Even President Jefferson Davis, when captured, was only captured. There was NEVER any formal surrender of the Confederate States as a nation or country. After World War 2 Germany and Japan surrendered and surrender documents were signed. No such event occurred for the Confederate States.
Although I mention Mr. Dowdey's book as my source for this information, I have checked out other sources and have not, to this point, found any information to contradict Mr. Dowdey's assertion. Other histories of the Confederate States have been checked into and they seem to be in silent agreement that the Confederacy never had an "official" end. Two of the best known are "A History of the Southern Confederacy" by Clement Eaton and "The Story of the Confederacy" by Robert Selph Henry. These books, both reliable histories, can be duly noted for their lack of any mention of a formal end for the Confederate States. They record the surrender of the various armies and all the horrible history that followed, but no mention is ever made at all of the Confederate States ever being formally terminated.
Alexander Stephens, in his monumental two-volume work "A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States" said much the same thing, except he expressed it in different terms. Stephens noted, in Volume One, the main reason for the War: "The conflict in principle arose from differing and opposing ideas as to the nature of what is known as the General Government...It was a strife between the principles of Federation on the one side, and Centralism, or Consolidation, on the other." Stephens was clearly stating that the struggle was over liberty on the one (Confederate) side vs. collectivism on the other (Northern) side. We might well ask, is our struggle today any different? Are we not still engaged in this battle? Stephens went on to disclaim slavery as the real cause of the war. He noted that "Some of the strongest anti-slavery men who ever lived were on the side of those who opposed the centralizing principles which led to the war." Stephens reiterated that fact on page 631 of Volume Two.
Moreover, Mr. Stephens contended that the true cause of the War for Southern Independence was not lost in the surrender of the various Confederate armies. He stated, in Volume Two of his work, starting on page 651: "So you see, my opinion is that the Cause which was lost at Appomattox Court House, was not the Federative Principles upon which American Free Institutions was based, as some have erroneously supposed. This is far from being one of the results of the War. The cause which was lost by the surrender of the Confederates, was only the maintenance of this principle by arms. It was not the principle they abandoned! They only abandoned their attempt to maintain it by physical force...This principle, therefore, though abandoned in its maintenance on battle-fields, still continues to live in all its vigor, in the forums of Reason, Justice, and Truth, and will, I trust, there continue to live forever."
Stop and analyze what Stephens has told us. The causes for which the Confederate States came into being, Christian self-government and the rights of the individual states within the framework of a federation (Confederacy) still exist. They have not been, nor can they ever be, truly done away with. They can not be done away with because the concepts of self-government and limited national power are scriptural. (Galatians 5:22-23 and Romans 13:1-7)
The true reasons for which the Confederate States were organized (even though some of the original founders may not have fully realized them) are not gone. They remain to this day. The struggle we blithly refer to as the "Civil War" did not resolve anything except which side had the most money, guns, and men. All it proved is that one country can prevail over another militarily if it has superior numbers and resources. The Northern bayonet drove truth to the ground, but it will not be able to keep it there forever.
It just may be, in God's Providence, that the Confederate States had no formal end because the truths she stood for (albeit imperfectly), rooted in Holy Scripture, also have no end.
Alexander Stephens bore eloquent testimony that the Cause still lives, even as its adherents still live today. The spirit of secession, which is akin to biblical separation, thrives in our day. What remains is for those that understand these truths in this hour in our history to proclaim them and to teach them to their children, and their neighbors, and their fellow church members, as opportunity is provided.
This article originally appeared on the web site of the Southern Independence Party of Louisiana.
http://www.sipoflouisiana.org
Check out this website, as well as the web site for the Federation of States.
THE SPIRITUAL SIDE OF SECESSION
BY AL BENSON JR.
Because it is almost never discussed, most people do not even begin to realize that Southern secession also had a spiritual side as well as a political one, and often the spiritual affected the political. The idea that the South only seceded so she could keep her slaves is a ludicrous fabrication of the government "education" system. The South could have preserved the institution of slavery had her states remained part of the Union. After all, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri, for one reason or another all remained in the Union and they all got to keep their slaves.
The apostle Paul, in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, in what we call chapter 6, tells us the following: ""Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness; and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?...Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you: (2 Cor 6:14, 15, & 17)" Paul was telling the Corinthian Christians, God's Israel in Corinth, to separate themselves from the taint of the world system, from its anti-Christ worldview and lifestyle. Sound advice in any age.
Starting in the early 1830s, there was a revival of Reformed Christianity in the South, and due to the galloping apostasy in much of the North, many serious Southerners began to look at secession as the political equivalent of biblical separation. In this they were not wrong. With a strengthening political worldview, a growing number of Southern Christians viewed the rampant unitarianism and transcendentalism in many Northern churches and decided they did not want such a spiritual abberation working its way into their assemblies.
The late Dr. C. Gregg Singer, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Seminary when he was alive, has written: "The South was even more articulate in its opposition to democratic liberalism of all kinds. Here again, we must distinguish between that opposition that was directed against abolitionism and the anti-slavery movement simply because they threatened a Southern institution, and the opposition which arose because of a very deep insight into the meaning of abolitionism as an expression of basic radicalism which had far greater implications than a mere crusade against slavery as such." In other words, Singer pointed out that many insightful Southern folks opposed the abolitionists not merely because of the slavery issue, but because of what they represented philosophically and theologically.
Singer continued: "As a result there was in the South a far greater consciousness of the theological radicalism lurking behind the anti-slavery crusade, and also a much keener insight into the growing radicalism in Northern thought in its many and varied implications for constitutional government in this country, and its effect on the American way of life." Singer has noted that: "after 1830 there was a growing philosophical and theological cleavage between the North and the South. While the North was becoming increasingly subject to radical influences, the South was becoming increasingly conservative in its outlook."
Theologian James Henley Thornwell stated the situation even more clearly than that. Of course he was right there on hand at the time and so could observe firsthand what whas happening. He said: "The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders--they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground--Christianity and atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity is at stake." Folks, I submit that's pretty straightforward. Thornwell was no theological novice. He saw the issue clearly. Note his mention of socialists and communists. He was ahead of his time.
Sheldon Vanauken once observed that, during the Nineteenth century "the North was for empire; the South for independence."It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which was the Biblical position. It should be clear that, for many Southerners, the issue of secession was not only political, but also theological.
*For those interested in reading more about secession I have published a booklet entitled "A Theological and Political View of the Doctrine of Secession." It sells for $4.00 plus .50 for shipping. Send requests to The Copperhead Chronicle P O Box 55 Sterlington, Louisiana 71280.
Because it is almost never discussed, most people do not even begin to realize that Southern secession also had a spiritual side as well as a political one, and often the spiritual affected the political. The idea that the South only seceded so she could keep her slaves is a ludicrous fabrication of the government "education" system. The South could have preserved the institution of slavery had her states remained part of the Union. After all, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri, for one reason or another all remained in the Union and they all got to keep their slaves.
The apostle Paul, in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, in what we call chapter 6, tells us the following: ""Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness; and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?...Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you: (2 Cor 6:14, 15, & 17)" Paul was telling the Corinthian Christians, God's Israel in Corinth, to separate themselves from the taint of the world system, from its anti-Christ worldview and lifestyle. Sound advice in any age.
Starting in the early 1830s, there was a revival of Reformed Christianity in the South, and due to the galloping apostasy in much of the North, many serious Southerners began to look at secession as the political equivalent of biblical separation. In this they were not wrong. With a strengthening political worldview, a growing number of Southern Christians viewed the rampant unitarianism and transcendentalism in many Northern churches and decided they did not want such a spiritual abberation working its way into their assemblies.
The late Dr. C. Gregg Singer, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Seminary when he was alive, has written: "The South was even more articulate in its opposition to democratic liberalism of all kinds. Here again, we must distinguish between that opposition that was directed against abolitionism and the anti-slavery movement simply because they threatened a Southern institution, and the opposition which arose because of a very deep insight into the meaning of abolitionism as an expression of basic radicalism which had far greater implications than a mere crusade against slavery as such." In other words, Singer pointed out that many insightful Southern folks opposed the abolitionists not merely because of the slavery issue, but because of what they represented philosophically and theologically.
Singer continued: "As a result there was in the South a far greater consciousness of the theological radicalism lurking behind the anti-slavery crusade, and also a much keener insight into the growing radicalism in Northern thought in its many and varied implications for constitutional government in this country, and its effect on the American way of life." Singer has noted that: "after 1830 there was a growing philosophical and theological cleavage between the North and the South. While the North was becoming increasingly subject to radical influences, the South was becoming increasingly conservative in its outlook."
Theologian James Henley Thornwell stated the situation even more clearly than that. Of course he was right there on hand at the time and so could observe firsthand what whas happening. He said: "The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders--they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground--Christianity and atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity is at stake." Folks, I submit that's pretty straightforward. Thornwell was no theological novice. He saw the issue clearly. Note his mention of socialists and communists. He was ahead of his time.
Sheldon Vanauken once observed that, during the Nineteenth century "the North was for empire; the South for independence."It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which was the Biblical position. It should be clear that, for many Southerners, the issue of secession was not only political, but also theological.
*For those interested in reading more about secession I have published a booklet entitled "A Theological and Political View of the Doctrine of Secession." It sells for $4.00 plus .50 for shipping. Send requests to The Copperhead Chronicle P O Box 55 Sterlington, Louisiana 71280.
Sunday, June 20, 2004
"Public Schools...a sacred institution"
by Al Benson Jr.
The Southern Baptist Convention in its annual meeting in Indianapolis in June, 2004 had the golden opportunity to do some real groundbreaking work for the Christian community at large and they very quickly and willingly let that opportunity slip by. It was another one of those issues that church leaders don't want to "get involved" in, quite possibly because so many of them, lacking any historical perspective, view it as a "secular" issue. And showing concern for a secular issue might just divert peoples' attention away from a concern about the immanent return of Christ and the "rapture" and if that happened then all of those "end times" books out there would not sell as well.
According to an article on WorldNetDaily a resolution was presented to the convention by "Baptist activists" Bruce N. Shortt and T. C. Pinckney which "calls upon the millions of members of the denomination to take their kids out of public schools and either homeschool them or send them to Christian schools." Mr. Shortt stated that: "They didn't want to touch this (government schools) issue; its radioactive." Shortt noted that "there was a parade of SBC leaders and members of the Resolutions Committee speaking vehemently against it." Short, being a realist, was not surprised at the outcome. He observed that Baptists have traditionally supported the government schools, and he said "(Public schools) are almost viewed as a sacred tradition." More's the pity!
Shortt noted that there were six resolutions of one sort or another offered on education. The Resolutions Committee, rather than dealing with any of them only sent out a resolution that warned against "the cultural drift of our nation toward secularism." This anemic resolution totally avoided dealing with any real issues and solved no problems for anyone except those on the committee who apparantly wished to wash their hands as quickly as possible of the whole affair.
Of course anyone with a brain can easily discern that much of our cultural drift toward secularism is caused by and takes place within the confines of the government school system, but hey folks, let's dont bother calling a space a spade. One can only conclude from all this that, at the leadership levels, the Southern Baptists (and unfortunately the leaders in many other denominations as well) are committed to and sold out to the government school system. So they "preach the Gospel" on Sunday morning and then on Monday morning they sent out their youthful charges back into an "educational" system that totally denies that what they preached on Sunday has any meaning or relevance in the lives of our youth, and apparently they love to have it so. It would appear that much of the church leadership in this country takes the same position in regard to government schooling that the Yankee mentality assumes toward Abraham Linoln.
There will never be any meaningful change in the direction this country is going in until the Christians finally wake up and realize that, in their love for government education, they are allowing the souls of their children and grandchildren to be subverted. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to find out the mindset of those that originated the government school system in this country. A few years ago I published a little booklet called "The Unitarian/Socialist Foundations of Public Education. I only have a handful of copies left but would be willing to sell them for $3.00 apiece to anyone interested. In this booklet I described the mindset of those that founded pubic (government) schools in this country. Surely if I could come up with that information then some of these church leaders could also.
Part of the problem is that assuming the responsibility for your children's education requires just that--responsibility--and sadly, most Christians today do not really want that. It's much easier just to send the kids off to the public brain laundry and then sit back and gripe when all does not go well, as it usually doesn't. Until Christians wake up and realize the crying need to take their children and secede from the government schools then the current "drift toward secularism" will continue, and many Christians will be found to be supporting it. Sorry folks, but that's the way it is.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
"TO PRESERVE THE UNION"
(and make a little money for my friends)
by Al Benson Jr.
We have been fed so much baloney over the years about the reasons for the War of Northern Aggression that you almost get sick of listening to some of them. We have been told that the war was fought so the South could keep her slaves. The fact that she could have done this by remaining in the Union is never mentioned--and the establishment "historians" hope you never think enough about it to bring it up. The more inane and transparent the slavery question becomes the more its proponents push it--almost to the level of irrationality. It's like, for them, the only issue in the world that has ever existed or ever will exist is one over a slavery that died over 140 years ago. Slavery in Africa today, forget that, it's not relevant to the slavery question. You can't beat white Southerners
over the head with present-day African slavery so it's just not important.
Then there are those that seek to take a somewhat more realistic approach to the question and they state that Lincoln inaugurated and fought the war to preserve the Union. The question then naturally arises, who was he preserving it for, certainly not "we the people."
In his book "North Against South" Professor Emeritus of History at the College of William and Mary, Ludwell H. Johnson, has observed, in regard to the war that: "The Republicans could recruit their ranks by using the war as a bountiful source of patronage, as well as by accomodating the various interests that had rallied to their banner. Many people at every social and political level regarded the Union cause primarily as an opportunity to make money or to advance their public careers, or both." Not to be outdone, the federal government, on March 3, 1863, passed the Captured and Abandoned Property Act. Professor Johnson has noted that "The latter's main concern was cotton, and its execution confirmed Southerners in their belief that the real object of the war was to rob them. Property of a non-warlike nature taken by Federal forces was regarded as 'captured'; property whose owners were absent, presumably within Confederate lines, was considered 'abandoned.' The Treasury Department was responsible for its collection or administration. This led to a great proliferation of the department's bureaucracy,..." And Johnson continued: "The full extent of fraud perpetrated by these swarms of agents will never be known. In corrup collusion with army officers, they got up expeditions whose sole purpose was to capture cotton." So, between Yankee bureaucrats and corrupt Yankee officers, they were all going to make a bundle off Southern misery. It could well be said of them that, in their support for the Union, "their hypocrisy knew no bounds."
The ill-fated Red River Campaign of Yankee General Commissary Banks was a prime example. In his interesting book "War Along the Bayous" author William Riley Brooksher has told us that: "Despite Banks' strenuous efforts to control activities involving cotton, Washington and (Rear Admiral) Porter together were too much for him. So pervasive was the scramble for cotton and so broad was the influence of some speculators that even Banks' own headquarters boat had brought a 'whole regiment' of speculators, most 'bearing licenses from Washington.' Everybody seemed to be in on the act as civilians and a portion of the military scrambled for cotton taking it with little regard for ownership or the needs of the expedition. So determined and desperate were they for transportation for their bonanza that cotton was piled on gunboats and coal barges emptied to make room for it. The use of threats and bribes was not overlooked either." Brooksher relates the story of one naval lieutenant, patrolling the mouth of the Red River, who was offered another stripe if he would let cotton through and he was threatened with dismissal if he wouldn't. Rear Admiral Porter had his hand in the pot too. He detailed several vessels to go out collecting cotton. In fact the Navy was so much into grabbing Southern cotton that according to Army Captain John S. Cooney it "was about the principle thing the navy did." One observer rather cynically noted that while the army did all the dirty work fighting the Confederates, the Navy then rolled in, once the fighting was over, picked up all the Southern cotten they could get their hands on, and they got one third of the money it brought in as a prize, while all the soldiers that slogged through the bayous and fought the Confederates got nothing, except casualties. As I said earlier, it really makes you wonder who Mr. Lincoln was "preserving the Union" for.
Such situations demonstrate an ongoing trend in the Lincoln administration--the blending of big government and big business, something we still struggle under today--a kind of coroprate fascism.
Frank Conner has noted in "The South Under Siege 1830-2000" that Northern capitalists "turned increasingly to the federal government to pay the high peripheral costs of industrializing the US." And Professor Thomas DiLorenzo in "The Real Lincoln" observed that, at the war's end "Government became more militaristic and began a quest for empire; myriad socialistic income and wealth-transfer schemes were adopted(and are still being adopted); and the Jeffersonian notion that 'that government governs best which governs least' was abandoned in favor of today's philsophy that nothing--not even the rules of golf--should be beyond the control of the federal government."
So Lincoln "preserved the Union" and the incomes of his fat cat establishment friends, but only the Almighty fully comprehends the cost of that to the rest of us. And today we live in a culture and with a government "education" system, both of which must be seceded from if we are ever to have any chance at making things better for our grandchildren or their children.
(and make a little money for my friends)
by Al Benson Jr.
We have been fed so much baloney over the years about the reasons for the War of Northern Aggression that you almost get sick of listening to some of them. We have been told that the war was fought so the South could keep her slaves. The fact that she could have done this by remaining in the Union is never mentioned--and the establishment "historians" hope you never think enough about it to bring it up. The more inane and transparent the slavery question becomes the more its proponents push it--almost to the level of irrationality. It's like, for them, the only issue in the world that has ever existed or ever will exist is one over a slavery that died over 140 years ago. Slavery in Africa today, forget that, it's not relevant to the slavery question. You can't beat white Southerners
over the head with present-day African slavery so it's just not important.
Then there are those that seek to take a somewhat more realistic approach to the question and they state that Lincoln inaugurated and fought the war to preserve the Union. The question then naturally arises, who was he preserving it for, certainly not "we the people."
In his book "North Against South" Professor Emeritus of History at the College of William and Mary, Ludwell H. Johnson, has observed, in regard to the war that: "The Republicans could recruit their ranks by using the war as a bountiful source of patronage, as well as by accomodating the various interests that had rallied to their banner. Many people at every social and political level regarded the Union cause primarily as an opportunity to make money or to advance their public careers, or both." Not to be outdone, the federal government, on March 3, 1863, passed the Captured and Abandoned Property Act. Professor Johnson has noted that "The latter's main concern was cotton, and its execution confirmed Southerners in their belief that the real object of the war was to rob them. Property of a non-warlike nature taken by Federal forces was regarded as 'captured'; property whose owners were absent, presumably within Confederate lines, was considered 'abandoned.' The Treasury Department was responsible for its collection or administration. This led to a great proliferation of the department's bureaucracy,..." And Johnson continued: "The full extent of fraud perpetrated by these swarms of agents will never be known. In corrup collusion with army officers, they got up expeditions whose sole purpose was to capture cotton." So, between Yankee bureaucrats and corrupt Yankee officers, they were all going to make a bundle off Southern misery. It could well be said of them that, in their support for the Union, "their hypocrisy knew no bounds."
The ill-fated Red River Campaign of Yankee General Commissary Banks was a prime example. In his interesting book "War Along the Bayous" author William Riley Brooksher has told us that: "Despite Banks' strenuous efforts to control activities involving cotton, Washington and (Rear Admiral) Porter together were too much for him. So pervasive was the scramble for cotton and so broad was the influence of some speculators that even Banks' own headquarters boat had brought a 'whole regiment' of speculators, most 'bearing licenses from Washington.' Everybody seemed to be in on the act as civilians and a portion of the military scrambled for cotton taking it with little regard for ownership or the needs of the expedition. So determined and desperate were they for transportation for their bonanza that cotton was piled on gunboats and coal barges emptied to make room for it. The use of threats and bribes was not overlooked either." Brooksher relates the story of one naval lieutenant, patrolling the mouth of the Red River, who was offered another stripe if he would let cotton through and he was threatened with dismissal if he wouldn't. Rear Admiral Porter had his hand in the pot too. He detailed several vessels to go out collecting cotton. In fact the Navy was so much into grabbing Southern cotton that according to Army Captain John S. Cooney it "was about the principle thing the navy did." One observer rather cynically noted that while the army did all the dirty work fighting the Confederates, the Navy then rolled in, once the fighting was over, picked up all the Southern cotten they could get their hands on, and they got one third of the money it brought in as a prize, while all the soldiers that slogged through the bayous and fought the Confederates got nothing, except casualties. As I said earlier, it really makes you wonder who Mr. Lincoln was "preserving the Union" for.
Such situations demonstrate an ongoing trend in the Lincoln administration--the blending of big government and big business, something we still struggle under today--a kind of coroprate fascism.
Frank Conner has noted in "The South Under Siege 1830-2000" that Northern capitalists "turned increasingly to the federal government to pay the high peripheral costs of industrializing the US." And Professor Thomas DiLorenzo in "The Real Lincoln" observed that, at the war's end "Government became more militaristic and began a quest for empire; myriad socialistic income and wealth-transfer schemes were adopted(and are still being adopted); and the Jeffersonian notion that 'that government governs best which governs least' was abandoned in favor of today's philsophy that nothing--not even the rules of golf--should be beyond the control of the federal government."
So Lincoln "preserved the Union" and the incomes of his fat cat establishment friends, but only the Almighty fully comprehends the cost of that to the rest of us. And today we live in a culture and with a government "education" system, both of which must be seceded from if we are ever to have any chance at making things better for our grandchildren or their children.
Sunday, June 13, 2004
A LITTLE MORE ABOUT MR. LINCOLN
by Al Benson Jr.
Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, author of the excellent book "The Real Lincoln" which is reported now to have around 75,000 copies sold, has passed along to us much valuable information on Mr. Lincoln that you can just bet will never make the "history" books for the brainwashed in the government's re-education camps people mistakenly refer to as public schools.
In a recent article on LewRockwell.com, Professor DiLorenzo gave much documentation on Lincoln's economic policies that people never find out about.
Professor DiLorenzo informed us that: "Lincoln was an advocate of a central bank that could print paper or fiat money that was not necessarily redeemable in gold or silver. Central banking was the third plank of the Lincolnian/Mercantilist agenda which, along with the protectionist Morrill tariff and corporate welfare for railroad corporations, was put into place during the Lincoln administration with the National Currency Acts...Lincoln's banking legislation was the precursor to the Fed, and all the monetary instability Americans have suffered because of it."
This is interesting information, something you simply will not get most places. Lincoln was an advocate of a central banking system. So was Karl Marx. Lincoln advocated a banking system that could print basically fiat money that you would not necessarily be able to redeem for gold or silver. That's exactly the same way our federal reserve notes operate today.
DiLorenzo, taking information from the book by Jeffery Hummel, "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" has told us that "the pre-Lincoln American banking system that existed roughly from 1845-1862, known as the 'free banking era' was arguably the most stable banking system in American history despite all of its flaws and imperfections (which exist in all banking systems). Central banking introduced the instability of inflation that only fiat currency that is not backed by gold or silver can create."
Over the years many conservatives have lauded Lincoln for his monetary policies and gotten quite angry at those who would dare to attack their patron saint. One conservative publication, back in the 1990s actually had to request of one of its columnists that he stop writing articles exposing the truth about Lincoln because that expose' was costing the owner of the publication the partiotic subscribers he needed to make a living from the publication. It is a pretty sad state of affairs when the conservatives and the patriots get mad at those who tell them the truth. It reminds one of the old question from the Scriptures "Am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" In some patriotic circles the answer to that question today is a resounding "yes!!!"
Professor DiLorenzo and others in our day have turned up a wealth of information exposing the "great emancipator" for what he really was, just another socialist-minded, grasping, pragmatic politician, who was quite adept at quoting Scripture to fool the uninitiated who listened to his speeches. And it must have worked, because the trend has continued and is continuing in our day, and the government school-educated sheeple never question any of it. It gives new meaning to that car bumpersticker that says "The brainwashed never wonder."
by Al Benson Jr.
Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, author of the excellent book "The Real Lincoln" which is reported now to have around 75,000 copies sold, has passed along to us much valuable information on Mr. Lincoln that you can just bet will never make the "history" books for the brainwashed in the government's re-education camps people mistakenly refer to as public schools.
In a recent article on LewRockwell.com, Professor DiLorenzo gave much documentation on Lincoln's economic policies that people never find out about.
Professor DiLorenzo informed us that: "Lincoln was an advocate of a central bank that could print paper or fiat money that was not necessarily redeemable in gold or silver. Central banking was the third plank of the Lincolnian/Mercantilist agenda which, along with the protectionist Morrill tariff and corporate welfare for railroad corporations, was put into place during the Lincoln administration with the National Currency Acts...Lincoln's banking legislation was the precursor to the Fed, and all the monetary instability Americans have suffered because of it."
This is interesting information, something you simply will not get most places. Lincoln was an advocate of a central banking system. So was Karl Marx. Lincoln advocated a banking system that could print basically fiat money that you would not necessarily be able to redeem for gold or silver. That's exactly the same way our federal reserve notes operate today.
DiLorenzo, taking information from the book by Jeffery Hummel, "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" has told us that "the pre-Lincoln American banking system that existed roughly from 1845-1862, known as the 'free banking era' was arguably the most stable banking system in American history despite all of its flaws and imperfections (which exist in all banking systems). Central banking introduced the instability of inflation that only fiat currency that is not backed by gold or silver can create."
Over the years many conservatives have lauded Lincoln for his monetary policies and gotten quite angry at those who would dare to attack their patron saint. One conservative publication, back in the 1990s actually had to request of one of its columnists that he stop writing articles exposing the truth about Lincoln because that expose' was costing the owner of the publication the partiotic subscribers he needed to make a living from the publication. It is a pretty sad state of affairs when the conservatives and the patriots get mad at those who tell them the truth. It reminds one of the old question from the Scriptures "Am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" In some patriotic circles the answer to that question today is a resounding "yes!!!"
Professor DiLorenzo and others in our day have turned up a wealth of information exposing the "great emancipator" for what he really was, just another socialist-minded, grasping, pragmatic politician, who was quite adept at quoting Scripture to fool the uninitiated who listened to his speeches. And it must have worked, because the trend has continued and is continuing in our day, and the government school-educated sheeple never question any of it. It gives new meaning to that car bumpersticker that says "The brainwashed never wonder."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)