SPIRITUALISM AND THE LINCOLNS

by Al Benson Jr.

Back during those ancient times when Ronald Reagan was president the news media worked itself up into a frenzy over the revelation that Nancy Reagan had consulted an astrologer. The "news" media picked up the story and ran with it because there were still some "useful idiots" in the media that really believed Reagan was a conservative instead of an actor and they saw this story as their chance to get their licks in at a "conservative." Christians and conservatives were, in the main, not really happy about the revelation. It was, after all, their lack of discernment that helped put Reagan in the White House, and they proceeded to compound their error with George (read my lips, no new taxes) Bush in the next election. They have since triply compounded their error with George 2 (twice now)!!!

We also had rumors of St. Hilary's "conversations" with Eleanor Roosevelt (two left-wing harridans conversing "in the spirit" as it were. At least in some spirit). But the media didn't jump on that nearly as much as they did on Mrs. Reagan's revelation. However, for those who take the trouble to read history, such goings-on are really nothing new in our political history.

Mary Todd Lincoln had problems in the same area, which most contemporary "historians" either feign ignorance about or will not mention. As more evidence comes to light, we are also becoming more aware that old "Honest Abe" himself was somewhat "challenged" in this area.

According to several sources, Mrs. Lincoln was emotionally unstable at times. When her son, Willie, died, she struggled with that loss for several years and got to the point where she started visiting spiritualists in a futile effort to "contact" her dead son.

In his book "Abraham Lincoln," Benjamin P. Thomas records a friend of the Lincolns writing the following: "Mrs. Lincoln told me that she had been, the night before... out to Georgetown to see a Mrs. Laury, a spirtualist and she had made wonderful revelations to her about her little son Willie...Among other things she revealed that the cabinet were all enemies of the president, working for themselves, and that they would have to be dismissed and other called to his aid before he had success." Subsequent historical events would tend to make you wonder where Mrs. Laury got some of her information! Another writer made brief reference when he wrote: "The loss of the idolized Willie deeply disturbed her and she refused to enter the rooms in which he had died and been embalmed. She even held at least one seance in the White House to try to make contact with his departed soul." There were alot more than one!

The "Civil War Times Illustrated" magazine published an article in August of 1976 by Peggy Robbins entitled "The Lincolns and Spiritualism." Robbins confirmed the fact that spiritualism began to gain a foothold in the United States in 1848--the same year that the socialist revolts swept Europe--revolts that Mr. Lincoln was strongly in favor of! That was also the year that the "Women's Rights" movement held its convention in Seneca Falls, New York. All coincidence?

Robbins reported that during 1862, Mrs. Lincoln was involved with a number of mediums, some of whom were just out and out fakes. Historians have disagreed as to whether Lincoln, himself, believed in spiritualism, because, pragmatic politician that he was, he never gave anyone that inquired into his beliefs on this matter any kind of a straight answer. However, some indications have begun to surface that indicate Lincoln may have believed in spiritualism more than he cared to admit.

Charles M. Robinson III in his book "Shark of the Confederacy" which is a narrative of the history of the CSS Alabama, noted the following: "According to Carl Sandburg, the president went so far as to host a seance, partly in jest, in which he asked the spirit world how to catch the Confederate raider. Welles, (Secretary of the Navy) was present, along with Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and a reported for the 'Boston Gazette'..." According to Mr. Robinson, Lincoln really believed in spirtualism more than he cared to divulge openly. One can hardly picture political luminaries such as Gideon Welles and Edwin Stanton attending seances "in jest." Stanton, who was a master intriguer, doesn't seem to have had much time for fun and games unless they were at the expense of his political enemies.

In 1861 Mr. Lincoln did listen to a "lengthy dissertation on spiritualism" given by none other than Robert Dale Owen the socialist. This is the very same Robert Dale Owen that later gave the ultra-radical Thaddeus Stevens so much input into the drafting of the infamous 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Peggy Robbins listed Owen as a "distinguished author." In all that I've read about Mr. Owen, all that I can find to distinguish him is his committment to the promotion of socialism and other radical causes, many of which today are espoused by the political Left. Owen does seem to have had contact with the movers and shakers in Washington, and he had a strong committment to statist government control of the education process. One might be more than mildly curious as to how much influence Owen's socialism had on the administration in Washington.

Robbins noted that there is ample proof that Lincoln attended a number of seances but she says that: "...it may be he did so not as a beliver but as a detached observer, there to look after his emotionally distraught wife." Robbins noted that Lincoln did have a strong curiousity regarding the supernatural because he tended toward superstition and "...had long been subject to dreams, visions, and premonitions."

One spiritualist the Lincolns received at the White House was a Lord Colchester. It seems he was allowed to hold several seances on the premises. It was reported, though, that Colchester's reputation was somewhat suspect, and a friend of the Lincolns, Noah Brooks, suggested to his rather bluntly, that he pack up his dog and pony show and move on to less controversial pastures.

During the latter part of 1862, Mrs. Lincoln attended several seances held by a Nettie Colburn. In order to keep Miss Colburn close to Washington, Mrs. Lincoln managed to get her a position in the Interior Department. Ahh, the blessings of patronage! Colburn held a seance in the White House in December of 1862.

Robbins noted in her article that: "Famous psychic investigator A. Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, termed this, the first of a number of meetings between Nettie Colburn and President Lincoln, 'one of the most important events in the history of spiritualism'."

Robbins, along with Charles Robinson, also observed that one seance held in the White House in April of 1863, was attended by Secretary of War Stanton and Secretary of the Navy Welles. It seems that some of these sessions were reported in the newspapers, but, oddly enough, Lincoln was never criticized for them.

We need to reflect a bit at this point. If Abraham Lincoln were a Christian, as some, even in the home school movement, have alleged over the years, why would he have allowed either his wife or himself to be drawn into such activity? One can most certainly sympathize with Mrs. Lincoln over the loss of a son, as one can sympathize with any mother over such a horrendous loss. We must wonder, though, if Mr. Lincoln were the Bible-believing Christian some have tried to convice us he was, would he not have sought some sort of biblical counsel and comfort for his wife, rather than allowing her to indulge in Scripturally forbidden spiritualism, and then going along for the ride, or worse, himself?

This is being written to attempt to reinforce the truth that our problems in this country began a lot earlier than most people want to admit. It proves that this country, having abandoned its Reformation foundations, had widely turned to apostasy by the time of the War of Northern Aggression, which ended up being the real American Revolution--our French Revolution--if you will. Religious apostasy was rampant, mostly in the North, from the highest eschelons to the lowest stations in society. Many have questioned, and I think properly, whether we really ever turned from this apostasy, in spite of all the so-called "revivals" since the end of that war. In my humble opinion, we have not. In many instances we have taken that apostasy one step further and secularized it in the form of a plethora of federal programs in areas the feds have no business whatever being in. Federal centralization and collectivism is a result of that apostasy. Until we do turn from it and return to the Triune God of the Scriptures this country will continue its downward spiral.


Bibliography

Abraham Lincoln--A Biography
by Benjamin P. Thomas
Alfred A. Knopf, New York, copyright 1952

The Lincolns and Spiritualism
by Peggy Robbins
Civil War Times Illustrated
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, August 1976

Shark of the Confederacy
by Charles M. Robinson III
Leo Cooper, London, copyright 1995

Lincoln and The Emperors
by A. R. Tyrner-Tyraner
Harcort, Brace & World Inc. New York, copyright 1962

Lincoln's Herndon--A Biography
by David Herbert Donald
Alfred A. Knopf, copyright 1948

Mary Todd Lincoln--Her Life and Letters
by Justin Turner & Linda Levitt Turner
Fromm International Publishing Corp. New York, copyright 1972

THE REVOLUTIONARY AS REPORTER

by Al Benson Jr.


Due to the encroaching religious apostasy in the United States, the years of the 1830s and 40s were notable, in that many experiments in socialist and communal living were instituted. Many who have read some history have heard of Robert Owen's failed socialist experiment in New Harmony, Indiana--the one Abe Lincoln thought so highly of. Or they may have heard about the religious socialism of groups like the Shakers, and how that eventually died out. Of all the socialist experiments in communal living tried in the U.S. virtually none have made a success of it. As all socialism eventually does, these efforts failed unless someone from the outside financed them and kept them afloat--much like this country today finances other socialist nations with "foreign aid" to keep them afloat. Barring such financial transfusions from the outside, such socialist entities usually fall on their collectivist faces in rather short order.

Brook Farm was no exception. According to the "Encyclopedia Britannica--eleventh edition (1910, Brook Farm was "the name applied to a tract of land in West Roxbury, Massachusetts, on which, in 1841-47 a communistic experiment was unsuccessfully tried. The experiment was one of the practical manifestations of the spirit of transcendentalism in New England..." I'd be willing to bet current editions of encyclopedias wouldn't be honest enough to label Brook Farm as a "communistic experiment"! To some degree, the Transcendentalists were somewhat the 19th century forerunners of what today passes for the "New Age" movement.

While Brook Farm was experimenting with its socialist fantisies, one of the projects there was the publication of a weekly journal called "The Harbinger." This left-of-center journal was quite the publication. Among those luminaries that wrote for it were George Ripley and Charles A. Dana, although it took occasional contributions from James Russel Lowell, John Greenleaf Whittier, Unitarian clergyman Thomas Wentworth Higginson (of Secret Six fame) and utopian socialist Horace Greeley. Socialism, it seems, had captured the minds of the elite among the elite. Such behaviour is usually the result of religious apostasy.

At this point it is interesting to note that both Horace Greeley and Charles Dana had connections with this left-leaning journalistic undertaking. Again, our "history" books, if such they can be called, have failed to mention to socialism of Greeley, or the pivotal role of Dana in events having to do with the War of Northern Aggression.

After Brook Farm folded, Dana joined the staff of the "New York Tribune" Greeley's paper. In 1848 Dana traveled to Europe to cover a news event there. Three guesses as to what that event was! In that year he wrote letters to the "Tribune" and other papers covering the socialist revolts in Europe in which Karl Marx played a prominent part. One might wonder, had he a suspicious mind, who Mr. Dana made contact with while he was sojourning in Europe and covering the revolution there. Perhaps the title of the old movie "Don't Start the Revolution Without Me" could have applied to Mr. Dana. At any rate, Dana returned to the United States in 1849 and was made managing editor of the "Tribune" just under Greeley.

It was Dana that, in 1851, two short years later, formally engaged the services of one Karl Marx as a regular contributor to the pages of the "Tribune." Coincidence? Of course, it had to be, seeing that we all know there are no such thing as leftwing conspiracies, only rightwing ones, that is, if you believe the likes of St. Hilary, who is quite busy positioning herself for a run at the presidency in 2008.

In his capacity as managing editor, Dana used the newspaper to promote the radical abolitionist cause. So what else is new?

However, in 1862, Dana and Greeley came to a parting of the ways. Like most socialists, they couldn't really get along with each other over the long haul. Dana, being younger, wanted rapid changes, while Greeley, being older, was content to take a more Fabian approach in order to secure revolution.

No sooner were Dana's connections with the "Tribune" severed that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, always quick to spot the potential of a revolutionary, snapped him up and made him a "Special Investigating Agent" for the War Department. It would appear that Dana was quite useful to Stanton. Even Father Abraham called him "the eyes of the administration." Dana spent much time at the front and he reported to Stanton on the methods and capabilities of different generals. Dana urged that Grant be placed in supreme command of all Union armies in the field. Dana was also Assistant Secretary of War in 1864-65. He was involved in other journalistic activities later in life and was a writer of some renown. However, his strong socialist leanings before the War of Northern Aggression are mostly what concern us. His hiring of Karl Marx to write for Greeley's newspaper in 1851 does make you wonder just what contacts he had while in Europe in 1848. Was the home-grown socialist revolutionary masquerading as a reporter while in Europe to give the "party faithful" the latest input on the situation in Europe so they would know how to react in the United States???

Dana's strong desire to see Grant placed in supreme command reminds me that Friedrich Engels, Marx's cohort, also felt much more secure about the North being able to prevail in the struggle once Grant was placed in command. With my suspicious mind, it makes me wonder what these men knew about Ulysses S. Grant that the "history" books have not seen fit to reveal to us common folks. Dana also had a very high opinion of the military ability of the Grand Arsonist of Georgia, William Tecumseh Sherman. And we are all well aware of what wonders Sherman's "scorched earth" policy accomplished in Georgia. Little known is the fact that some of the 1848 revolutionaries from Europe that had fled to America and become generals in Mr. Lincoln's armies were on Sherman's staff. Another little tidbit the "history" books conveniently forgot to mention!

Dana's background from Brook Farm on, leaves no doubt that he was a radical revolutionary, just the sort to support the Union cause in the War. I have noted in other articles that many of these European radicals and revolutionaries seemed to end up in high positions, either in the Union army, in the admistration of Lincoln, or in some kind of comfortable office after the War. It seems that, in many cases, socialist revolution pays its adherents well. All this should begin to make us aware of how early our country was subverted and taken over by the enemies of Christ and the reformed Christian faith. In the final analysis, that's what it is all about. Apostasy from the Christian faith has its secular rewards, and in our day we are reaping those "rewards." A noted Communist once said that much of the "patriotism" of the 20th century would really be communism. Due to the insidious nature of apostasy, he was correct.

THAT BAKER BOY

by Al Benson Jr.

The War of Northern Aggression and the transformation of the United States from a confederation of sovereign states into a socialist democracy brought to the fore many "interesting" characters.

One of the most "interesting" specimens ever to slither out from under the collectivist Yankee rock was Lafayette C. Baker. Steward Sifakis in "Who Was Who in the Civil War" described Baker as "A thoroughly unsavory character..." And Sifakis continued in that vein, noting, of Baker that he "remained that way for the duration and after." Not exactly a glowing tribute to Mr. Baker's integrity! But, then, Baker seems to have been another of those typical Yankees for whom anything goes if it gets him what he wants. For Baker, mental Marxist that he was, the end truly justified the means. He seems to have had some connections with both Secretary of War Seward and Secretary of War Stanton, which might just lead one to wonder about their integrity also. Baker ended up becoming a special agent of the Provost's branch of the War Department, charged with rooting out corruption anywhere he found it in the Union war effort. Sifakis noted that, of the corruption he was charged with rooting out "he was not of strong enough character to refrain from engaging in it himself."

In order for him to have enough authority to root out all that corruption (while engaging in it himself) he was given a military rank, first as a colonel, and later as a brigadier general, though he rarely commanded any troops. During the war years he was chief of the military Secret Service.

Nathaniel Weyl in "The Battle Against Disloyalty" had described the U. S. War Department thusly: "In the Civil War and Reconstruction eras, the United States War Department bore some traces of resemblance to the Soviet Secret Police. Its leaders were zealots who believed that if the ends didn't justify the means, nothing else could. Wherever possible, the operated in secrecy, through military rather than civilian courts. Guilt by association became a fundamental axiom; perjury was richly rewarded;..." Thus was the situation under the command of Edwin McMasters Stanton, who many have believed over the years, had a hand in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

Baker had a rather checkered past. As head of the military Secret Service, he had, in the past, been a vigilante in California in the 1850s. Weyl has noted that in early days he was an itinerent mechanic. Sifakis has added to that: " Born in New York, he appears to have lived in Michigan, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco during his prewar years. Some of his occupations included claim jumping and vigilantism." Interesting that, as a vigilante, he would have gone after some of the people that made their living as he had made his, claim jumping. But then that may be a pretty good way to get rid of the competition.

During his tenure in Washington during and after the war, he used the same methods he had used successfully in California. Weyl noted of him that: "In Washingon he used the same methods that had proved so successful in his vigilante days, disregarding due process of law, habeas corpus, or any of the other constitutional frills that normally prevent the imprisonment of Americans at the whim of the military. For the next three years, Baker led a life of frenzied activity, pouncing on spies, bounty jumpers, conspirators, counterfeiters, and speculators, making arrests personally where possible and in the process accumulating a small fortune." Weyl's comments support those of Sifakis, who noted that Mr. Baker just couldn't seem to keep his hands out of the cookie jar while he sliced off the hands of others doing the same thing. Weyl has described him, again, agreeing with Sifakis, as: "An enormously vain and unscrupulous person, Baker was also a congenital liar, intriguer, and twister." Just the right sort of person for Mr. Stanton's War Department, as Stanton, himself, had somewhat of a reputation along those lines.

Weyl also noted that: "Baker was part of the powerful personal machine that War Secretary Edwin M. Stanton had created. As soon as Booth's bullet struck down Lincoln, Stanton became the controlling power of government." And that's what the assassination was really all about--who was to wield the power in Washington--Lincoln, the king of political patronage, or Stanton and the radical abolitionist Republicans. Baker was the perfect foil for Stanton--and if both Baker and Stanton were not openly Marxists, then they were philosophical "kissin' cousins."

In his penchant for self-promotion, Baker, at one point, wrote a book "History of the United States Secret Service." Sifakis has noted that the work is interesting for the portrait it paints of Baker's personality, but otherwise, is just isn't all that reliable. Baker passed from this life in 1868. There are those that say he was murdered to keep him quiet.

There are also those that say that Baker's men did not kill the real John Wilkes Booth after Lincoln's assassination, but that the man they really killed was a Booth look-alike, Captain James William Boyd, a former Confederate agent who worked for the War Department and, although he was older, bore quite a resemblance to Booth. But, then, I guess that is another story.

SOCIALIST INFLUENCE IN THE ELECTION OF 1860

by Al Benson Jr.


I have previously noted the socialist (and communist) support Mr. Lincoln received from many Forty-Eighter socialists from Europe during the War of Northern Aggression. Many of these European socialists joined Lincoln's army and became generals, as well as officers of other ranks. I have also commented about the socialist support in Europe that Lincoln received and how much he was admired by Karl Marx.

In keeping with my contention that socialism was alive and well in this country long before most people are willing to admit that it was, I felt that a brief look at Lincoln's election in 1860 would be helpful. Lincoln received the support of socialists even before the war started. The socialists saw something in Lincoln's "cause" they could identify with.

Although many Germans in 1860 had favored Seward, they gladly switched over to Lincoln once he had endorsed a homestead law and an anti-nativist "Dutch Plank" for the Republican Party platform. The "Dutch Plank" for the Republican Party platform was written by none other than Forty-Eighter socialist Carl Schurz, who was a member of the Republican Platform Committee. It is worth noting here that the almost baby-new Republican Party already had, in 1860, socialists helping to write the party's platform.

Schurz, in his autobiography, alluded to this, although somewhat modestly, as if he did not want people to grasp his full involvement. Schurz wrote: "I was appointed a member of the Committee on Resolutions that had to draw up the Republican platfor, and in that committee was permitted to write a paragraph concerning the naturalization laws so that the Republican Party be washed clean of the taint of Knownothingism...I also took part in formulating the anti-slavery declarations of the platform..."

There were many Germans in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Missouri, and Lincoln, although professing to be a "reluctant" candidate, was very conscious of the German vote. Pragmatic politician that he was, Lincoln purchased the German language newspaper "Illinois Staatsanzeiger." He bought the whole thing, lock, stock, and barrel, press included. I find it quite amusing that Lincoln is so often portrayed in the "history" (hystery) books as the poor, humble, hayseed politician, just trying to make his way in the world as a country lawyer. Obviously if he could afford to purchase a newspaper he was not quite as poor as we have been led to believe.

As the campaign of 1860 continued the Republicans even got hold of German orators to stress the importance of "German issues" in the campaign. As we observe these tactics and see what goes on in our elections today, we must be tempted to see the truth of the statement in the Book of Proverbs which says that the thing that has been is that which shall be and there is nothing new under the sun.

Forty-Eighters other than Schurz supported and worked for Lincoln. Edward Solomon did, and he ended up becoming governor of Wisconsin in 1862. Sigmund Kaufman, yet another Forty-Eighter, was also a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1860. We might well speculate on how many other delegates were socialists that we don't know about yet.

Other Forty-Eighters and socialists that supported Lincoln were writer Casper Butts, journalists Friedrich Kapp and Gustave Struve. Although some of these men did not get into combat as did the socialist generals in the Union armies, they supported Lincoln and the war effort on the journalistic front. The efforts of these men and their support for Lincoln and his centralizing policies have borne bitter fruit for the country even down to our own day. Unfortunately, in our day, we are forced to live with the results of their actions.

HENRY CLAY'S "AMERICAN (Socialist) SYSTEM"

by Al Benson Jr.


Awhile back, I reprinted an article from "The Free Market" in the hardcopy version of The Copperhead Chronicle dealing with the socialism of Henry Clay and how Clay's socialism had beena shining example for pragmatic politicians of the stripe of "Honest Abe."

Recently, establishment historian Robert V. Remini wrote a book entitled "Henry Clay Statesman for the Union." Remini went into some detail in describing what Henry Clay euphemistically called his "American System." Remini's remarks were quite revelatory and he seemed genuinely enthused regarding Clay's agenda and mindset. So what else is new with establishment historians?

Of Clay, Remini said: "The idea of the (American) system had been in his mind for years. In numerous speeches he had discussed several of its parts. Now he grasped the unity of his program as a unique expression of what needed to be done by the government to benefit Americans in all sections and among all classes and economic endeavors. It was a vision of progress, a bold reformulation of the relationship between government and society." Let us be a little more blunt than Remini was and state it a little more plainly. Henry Clay planned to take civil government into areas it had no business being in. He had a socialistic view of what government should be "doing" for people. It was the 19th century version of "I'm from Washington and I'm here to help you."

No doubt it sounded noble to the naive--a beneficient federal government reaching down, in spite of the sovereignty of state governments, to "help" the common man. Such unmitigated hogwash even gives the liberals and do-gooders of today goose bumps! We've now had the Feds doing this for more years than any of us have been alive, and look where it has gotten us. Anytime Washington "helps" someone it is the kiss of death. Whether consciously, or otherwise, their "help" always seems to mean further redistribution of someone else's wealth (Marxism).

But Remini has taken us even further. He has informed us that..."Clay's American System was intended to strengthen the bonds that tied the nation together into a single whole. It was intened to ensure the perpetuity of a united country." With a statement like that from his biographer, my guess is that no one would ever label Mr. Clay a rank secessionist! He was 110% pro-nationalist, pro-Union, and pro-socialist--all the way (like several American presidents we are all too familiar with).

Remini mentioned that a big part of Clay's program was internal improvements, in other words, the federal government does in and for the states (certain states) what they should be doing for themselves. Naturally some states, mostly in the Northern half of the country, would get a few more "internal improvements" than did most of the Southern states. But, hey, the Southern states got to participate in Clay's program too--they got to help pay for it!

Clay stated: "All the powers of this government should be interpreted in reference to its first, its best, its greatest object, the Union of these states." In other words, Clay felt the main object of the federal government was not to follow its constitutional limitations and guidelines, but rather to perpetuate the Union at any cost. In 1861, one of Mr. Clay's greatest and most ardent admirers called for 75,000 troops to invade the South, under the guise of "preserving the Union." How much of a leap was it from that to Bill Clinton having our planes bomb the daylights out of Kosovo because we had a "moral imperative" to do so, or to George Bush invading Iraq "to spread democracy" in the Middle East. I submit the distance between them is not all that great.

I have noted, for years, that socialism was alive and well in this country since before the middle of the 19th century. We had Robert Owen and his socialist experiment in New Harmony, Indiana in 1829 and we had Henry Clay with his vision of a unified socialist "nation" even before that. And yet unthinking conservatives still try to tell us that all our problems started with FDR 110 years later! Boys, wake up and smell the coffee! This country has been in the throes of some kind of socialism since the 1820s--NOT the 1920s--the 1820s, and its high time we woke up long enough to smell the decay!

A resurgent Confederate Movement, if it is Christian, might hold some hope for the future, but probably not the immediate future--and if Confederate and Southern Heritage folks don't begin to get their kids out of the government schools that might not happen either. Barring this hope, and a genuine spiritual revival, the near future for this country looks rather bleak. Either way, God will build His kingdom. The question is--will this country be a part of the building, or will it, like so many others, end up on the ash heap of history?

LINCOLN'S SOCIALIST LEGIONS

(Yankees and Socialists--Birds of a Feather

by Al Benson Jr.


During the War of Northern Aggression it has been reported that over 180,000 Germans fought in the Union armies. This number was buttressed by thousands of Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, Czechs and Irish. The majority of these were probably honest, hardworking people, yet the question must be asked--with a population of around 22 million in the North as opposed to 9 million in the South--why did the North have so many foreign troops in her armies?

Francis Springer, in his book "War for What?" puts the number even higher. He has noted: "It seems strange that the North, with such vast human resources, should find it necessary to resort to recruiting men abroad. The 1860 census shows 4,100,000 foreign born in this country, mostly located in the North, but there were 500,000 men in the Northern army of foreign birth, or 90,000 more than 10% of the foreign population, indicating that 90,000 Northern soldiers, and probably more, were recruited abroad."

Author William Burton, in his book "Melting Pot Soldiers" deals with the foreign soldiers in the Yankee armies. He quotes a correspondent for the "London Daily Telegraph" as stating that the foreign soldiers in the Union armies has scant use for the abolitionists and their "holy crusade". German immigrant Valentin Bechler, according to Burton, told his wife "I wish all abolitionists were in Hell."

One of the most carefully concealed facts over the decades about Mr. Lincoln's armies is that he had an amazing number of European socialists under uniform during the War. Only recently has information regarding this started to surface. Up until a few years ago it was one of the most studiously ignored facts and aspects of the War. Establishment "historians" (or maybe we should label them "hysterians" in their messianic quest to give us the "correct" spin on the War and the reasons for it just knew in their hearts that we didn't need this kind of information, so they labored mightily to make sure we were not exposed to it.

It has been reported that as many as 5,000 European socialists and communists from the failed 1848 socialist revolts in Europe served in the Union armies in one place or another. Some sources have placed that number closer to 10,000. After these socialists failed in their revolutionary aims in Europe in 1848-49, many came to America. A good portion of them felt that what they had failed to do in Europe in 48 and 49 might just be accomplished here in America during the War of Northern Aggression. In "Forty-Eighters In The Union Armies" it has been stated: "The failure of their revolutionary hopes in Europe did not prevent them from taking up arms again in 1861 to defend the very principles they had fought for in 1848 and 1849; union, freedom, and democracy." Please go back and reread that last quote. Let it sink in.

These European socialists viewed the War of Northern Aggression as an extension of their socialist hopes for Europe. If you consider that fact, the entire scope and reason for that War, from the Yankee perspective, takes on a whole new meaning. No longer was it a struggle to "preserve the Union" as given to us by the Founding Fathers, rather it was a struggle to preserve and extend the influence of European socialism in America. Author William Burton has revealed that August (von) Willich, the "Communist with a heart" "...was not reluctant to lecture his soldiers on the virtues of socialism." If we have a record of this one instance of that being done, one wonders how many other places it occurred that have gone unreported.

One amazing thing about these European socialists and communists is how many of them managed to end up with high-ranking positions in the Union armies. I will list a few here so you get the idea.

Franz Sigel--Major General

Carl Schurz--Major General

August (von)Willich--Major General

Sandor (Alexander) Asboth--Brigadier General on Fremont's staff

August Becker--called "Red" Becker (on account of his political leanings?)--Chaplain for the 8th New York

Ludwig (Louis) Blenker--Brigadier General of volunteers

Isidor Busch--Captain of Fremont's staff

Johann Fiala--Lt. Colonel and topographical engineer on Fremont's staff

Scores of other socialists and communists could be listed if space permitted, but I think you begin to get the idea. The ethnic and ideological makeup of Mr. Lincoln's army has yet to be fully exposed.

If we are to begin to try to understand the War from a Yankee perspective, we must, at all costs, take the strong socialist influence exerted on Mr. Lincoln's army into consideration.

The fact that so many European socialists and communists looked upon Mr. Lincoln's War of Aggression as an extension of their own aggressive aspirations and political desires should begin to speak volumes about the true nature of the Union cause--no matter what the "Hystery" books tell us. Mr. Lincoln was known to be friendly to the cause of socialism. Establishment historian James McPherson has admitted that Mr. Lincoln championed the cause of the leaders of the 48 revolts in Europe. In 1848 he was all in favor of secession (for the socialists in Europe) but in 1860 he was adamantly opposed to it for Christian Southerners. That fact, alone, should give you some indication as to where Mr. Lincoln was really coming from and it should help to explain why, in 1861, the socialists flocked to own his "holy cause."

A BRIEF LOOK AT CARL SCHURZ

Socialist Revolutionary, Yankee General, Secretary of the Interior (Socialism Pays in Yankeeland)

by Al Benson Jr.


Many who study the history of the 19th century have heard of Carl Schurz. To most others the name will be meaningless. However, Schurz was quite active and influential in the country's history in the 19th century. You might almost say he was one of the "historians'" best kept secrets.

Carl Schurz was one of Abe Lincoln's socialist generals during the War of Northern Aggression. Honest historians (a rare breed of animal) will admit that there were many socialists in Mr. Lincoln's armies. As we have pointed out in the past, socialists seemed rather attracted to Mr. Lincoln's cause of "preserving the Union." That the price for such a "preservation" was the ever-increasing power of a strong central government at the expense of the rights of the states bothered them not at all. Lincoln, had, after all, championed their cause in Europe in 1848, so they could do no less for him in the 1860s.

Schurz has been called "a refugee from the European uprisings in 1848." The author of that quote did not bother to tell his readers that the "political uprisings" in Europe at that time were mostly socialist revolts. Yet another author labeled Schurz as "the charismatic refugee from Prussian militarism." Note how these authors totally ignore the socialistic aspects of what happened in Europe in 1848. You aren't supposed to know that socialists and communists were involved.

Schurz was attending the University of Bonn when he became immersed in the 1848 socialist upheavals. When those revolts ultimately failed Schurz fled the country (Germany) after having been a lieutenant in the anti-government "militia." He went first to Switzerland, later to England, and then to France, which country expelled him as a "dangerous foreigner." He then returned to England, later to come to America in 1852.

Schurz ended up in the midwest, where his first notable political activity was to support the radical abolitionist John C. Fremont in his presidential asperations in 1856. By 1858 he was campaigning for Lincoln. As a reward for his services to Mr. Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election he was appointed as Minister to Spain in 1861. He returned from Europe in 1862, at which time he was appointed a brigadier general in Lincoln's army.

Schurz, like many other forty-eighter socialist refugees, did not always agree with his more conservative German brethren. In typical socialist fashion, the forty-eighters were noted for the ultra-liberal, leftist political views and for their hostility toward organized religion. Many were anti-Christian "freethinkers." Like many other socialists, Schurz survived the War. Later he served a term in the Senate and then became Secretary of the Interior in the Hayes Administration.

Carl Schurz is just one example of how European socialists seemed to arrive in this country, almost broke, and then ended up in all sorts of important military and political situations. One would think that, in the supposed "land of the free" any form of socialism or collectivism would be a natural impediment. Rather, it seems that socialism turns out to be an advantage--at least since the advent of the Lincoln Administration.

I wonder how many of our government schooled students have ever been told that a former Secretary of the Interior was a European socialist. Not many I'll wager. Most people, even the patriotic ones, have no concept of how active a part European socialists took in our military and government in the mid-to-late 19th century. Socialist influence has been exerted on this country for a lot longer than most people would like to think about. Americans need to go back and reread their history with much more of a critical eye than they have heretofore. Socialism pays in America--thanks to the efforts of Honest Abe and most of those that followed him.

Children and Competition

by Daniel Benson

This year a government school district in Lincoln, Rhode Island had decided to eliminate the district's annual spelling bee, which involved students in grades 4 through 8. The school administrator said she did this because she felt the spelling bee ran afoul of the federal mandates of the "No Child Left Behind" act. She felt it was about one student winning, while the others got left behind, and she was concerned with student "self-esteem."

Here we see something that bothers me. This year we will no longer be able to know which students excel above and beyond the others, for they (the school system) now believes in making mindless drones that can no longer think for themselves, but act, dress, and talk in a certain way. We will no longer have anyone from that school district who can possibly become anyone who will be great in our society, as they are snuffing out any chance that these kids feel they can excel over others.

No more student athletes, no more honor roll, no more contest plays, or anything else that might make one student feel they were not good enough. So where does this take our future in this country, if every government school ends up doing just this to our kids? How many of us will sit back and let this happen as our kids are taught to be no better or different than the next person?

I was taught to be the best I could be, to excel in whatever studies I could, and was happy to do so--but now the government schools will teach someone like me to be just like Johnny sitting in the corner--dunce cap and all. They felt the spelling bee didn't help students to reach a higher goal, but I simply ask--how do they know what the goal is if there is nothing for them to try to reach?

They say they want all kids to have a high level of self-esteem so that they can go anywhere they wish, but then give them nothing to say "that is where I want to be"--no way to challenge them so they build confidence, strength, and the ability to think in every situation. That is now in the process of being taken away from them.

Parents in that school district now seem surprised and unsure about the decision that was reached, but the school district said they had no problem deciding. This makes me wonder where our next generation is headed. I would simply ask that we take our kids' lives seriously and try to do the best for them seriously, and that we reconsider the option of sending them to the state so they can make slaves of their minds. Consider, instead, the possibility of educating your kids at home, so they grow up not only strong, but also with minds of their own, so they can think on their own, and, Lord willing, act of their own when the need arises. God never intended for us to be "left behind" nor did He intend for us to be slaves to a school system that will not help our kids to become something great when the potential is there.

AMERICA'S PROBLEM WITH APOSTASY--Part 4

by Al Benson Jr.

In 1860 your average Southerner did not have, by far, the same world view as his Northern counterpart. He was, thanks to sound preaching in Southern pulpits, extremely doubtful of the "goodness" of human nature. He believed in the sovereignty of God and the sinfulness and depravity of man. He knew enough of man's fallen nature to realize that secular political solutions would not solve the problems of that day, or of any other day. Southern Christians sat up and took notice when Northern Unitarian clergyman Theodore Parker echoed the sentiments of many of his Northern brethren that each man was his own Christ and that true faith was independent of Biblical revelation. As if that wasn't bad enough, Southern Christians reeled in shock when Unitarian minister Ralph Waldo Emerson stated that when abolitionist/terrorist John Brown was hanged he would "Make the gallows as the Cross." The rank apostasy in these statements and sentiments from the North made most astute Southerners aware that what they were up against was more than a political adversary. They were, ultimately, up against a force that sought to gut their Christian faith as it had gutted the Christian faith in the North decades earlier.

Francis Butler Simkins in "A History Of The South" noted many of the problems between churches that surfaced after the War of Northern Aggression was over and that shameful pogram called "Reconstruction" had begun. The various Southern denominations ended up having many of the same problems that were evident in the political realm.

Simkins wrote that: "To Southerners the attitude of Northern churchmen toward the problems of Reconstruction seemed to promote the bitterest feelings. Northern churchmen reasoned that since slavery and Southern nationalism had brought about the organization of separate churches, the destruction of these causes by the war would effect immediate ecclesiastical reunion. Most Northern churchmen insisted that the expected reconciliation must take place under terms stipulated by the 'loyal' or Northern churches; that the Negro must come under 'loyal' church direction; that ex-Confederate 'sinners' must confess the enomity of their crimes before they could again be received in Christian fellowship. In other words, they demanded that the same destruction, reordering, and rebuilding that Lee's surrender had necessitated in the field of government must take place in the sphere of religion."

Such attitudes among Northern churchmen display the effect that apostasy had had in the Northern churches for decades. There was this Yankee determination to dominate, to force everyone to yield to their position as the only right position--a sort of "be reasonable--do it MY way" attitude. We might note the paralell of this mindset among the New England Unitarians, who were going to make sure all the children in their states were mandated to be educated their way.

The attitude of Northern churchmen that they were coming South to eradicate the barbarism and theological darkness of that region did not sit too well with Southern folks. Simkins noted that: "An Alabamian expressed the opinion of most white Southerners when he said 'Perhaps the greatest liars and most malignant slanderers that the North has spewed out upon the South since the close of the war, are the reverend blackguards that have been sent among us as ministers of religion."

Simkins observed that a tendency toward reunion among the Presbyterians was countered by "Northern insolence." Thereafter, the Southern Presbyterians got together to form a stronger Southern church. And Southern Methodists also rejected Northern overtures at unity because they felt that the Northern Methodists had gotten to be 'incurably radical' and were involving themselves too much in politics. Let's face it--the Southerners were right. Due to the influences of apostasy in the North, many churchmen had become increasingly radical. Even those who did not openly partake of the heady "new" doctrines of the Unitarians were somewhat influenced by them in their attitudes.

And now the Unitarian-influenced Northern clergymen came south as Simkins noted: "Teacher-missionaries came South imbued with the idea that education would dispel the 'ignorance and barbarism' that allegedly enveloped the region, elevate the Negro to the white man's level, and perhaps apply the historic mission of the American common schools of ironing out class distinctions...President Thomas Hill of Harvard spoke of the 'new work of spreading knowledge and intellectual culture over the regions that sat in darkness'." Simkins, along with many others, tells us that the government school system--a real fruit of Northern apostasy--was brought south as part of the Yankee's "Reconstruction" program, and that it stayed on.

We can also see, in the attitudes of some of the Yankee schoolteachers in the South, the seeds of the social gospel. Simkins has noted that one teacher said "We are convinced that plenty to eat would harmonize and Christianize them faster than hymns and sermons; and that needle and thread and soap and decent clothing were the best educators and would civilize them sooner than book learning."

Certainly no sane person should have any problem with ministering to the physical needs of others, but doing this alone, with no adequate Christian instruction somewhere along the line will never "Christianize" most people, black or white.

The whole attitude of Northern preachers that they were going to minister in a land "that sat in darkness" was indicative of a mentality that had been tainted with apostasy. While the fathers of many of these same men were being influenced by the strange doctrines of Unitarianism and Transcendentalism, the South had undergone a religious revival that had cemented that region of the country firmly in place as the center of orthodox and Reformed Christianity in North Americal.

"Reconstruction" finally ended in 1877, but within a few short years of that time the South ended up encountering major problems with new doctrines that it has yet, to this day, to fully begin to deal with.

But that is another story.

AMERICA'S PROBLEMS WITH APOSTASY--Part 3

by Al Benson Jr.

The late Professor C. Gregg Singer, professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary has noted in his book "A Theological Interpretation of American History" that "...to reduce secession and the war to economic factors and to overlook the intellectual and theological forces at work, is to seriously misread the records of the era from 1850 to 1860. The admission that economic factors were at work does not involve the denial that, other, and equally important forces were having a tremendous influence in the sequence of events which would ultimately lead to secession and to war. 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 growing increasingly conservative in its outlook."

Frank Conner, in his excellent book "The South Under Seige--1830-2000" has drawn much the same conclusion. He has told us that "The key to understanding the current predicament in the South lies in grasping the very nature of the 19th century abolition movement--as it was shaped by the American Transcendentalists. They manipulated that movement for the purposes of waging an ideological war against the Christian South. The war of liberal North against conservative South began in the 1830s; and it continues unabated to this day." Mr. Conner's statement is most definitely worth further reflection. The cultural (and thereby religious) war against the South is not I REPEAT, NOT OVER.

Mr. Conner, in dealing with many of the Northern clergymen observed that: "The ex-Congregationalist ministers and their followers who constituted Transcendentalism were contentions descendants of the contentious Puritans. They had ranged far and wide in search of a doctrine that would satisfy them, and ultimately they adopted radical social reform--enforced by an all-powerful government--as the best of all possible goals." Frank Conner is here describing Northern (mostly New England) apostasy. These men, having consciously deserted the Scriptural truths held by their fathers, had constituted themselves as apostates and in the place of truth they had substituted another doctrine, "another gospel" if you will--unchecked government power to force all men to do what was "right and good" for them. And naturally, the apostates were going to be the ones who got to decide what was right and good for all the rest.

The late M. E. Bradford, Professor of English at the University of Dallas, wrote an informative article for the 1991 fourth quarter issue of "Southern Partisan" magazine dealing with the theological issues in regard to secession by the Southern states. He quoted Virginia theologian William Hall, who had said, in regard to his associates in the Confederate army: "We are permitted to vindicate the supremacy of Jehovah's word and the purity of His government." Bradford told us that Hall deplored "...the dispositon of Northern clergy to divinize human nature and to glorify human reason."

AMERICA'S PROBLEM WITH APOSTASY--Part 2

by Al Benson Jr.


You can not say what the Unitarians were doing was totally unknown to people. By 1805 the Unitarians had taken over Harvard College in what has been called "the most important intellectual event in American history--at least from the standpoint of education." Samuel Blumenfeld in his book "Is Public Education Necessary?" has observed that: "Harvard became the Unitarian Vatican, so to speak, dispensing a religious and secular liberalism that was to have profound and enduring effects on the evolution of American cultural, moral, and social values. It was, in effect, the beginning of the long journey to the secular humanist world view that now dominates American culture...It made Harvard not only the seat of liberalism but also, by nesessity, the seat of anti-Calvinism."

In my own booklet "The Original Gurus Of The Public School Movement" published in 1999, I noted that: "Many writers in both this century and the last have sought to protray early New England Calvinism as something about two steps removed from an ond Frankenstein movie. They seem to go out of their way to picture Calvinism, or Reformed Christianity, and its adherents as mean-spirited, vicious, lacking in compassion, and the list goes on. Undoubtedly there may have been Calvinists like this, just as there have been such people in all doctrinal persuastions under Heaven. Was there never a vicious or mean-spirited Unitarian or Arminian? Are all liberal theologians fuzzy and warm-hearted? Hardly! Every religious group has members that are less than happy or easy to get along with. There seems to have been, for the past 150 years or so, an over-riding effort to dwell on the 'sins' of Calvinism, while conveniently overlooking those same shortcomings in other groups." Such an attitude is one of the fruits of apostasy.

Turner, in "Without God, Without Creed" noted that some of the problems were within the churches themselves. He stated that: "The church played a major role in softening up belief. Theologians had been too unwilling to allow God to be incomprehensible, too insistent on bringing Him within the compass of mundane human knowledge, too anxious to link belief with science, too insensitive to noncognitive ways of approaching reality--too forgetful, in short, of much of their own traditions as they tried to make God up-to-date...One might say that most theologians had lost faith long before any Victorian agnostics."

In other words, much of the theological leadership, most especially in the North, had come to embrace the heady doctrines of what is called "the wisdom of the world." They were going to "explain" God, first to themselves, and then to the rest of the population, completely in terms of human understanding. And what could not be totally understood and rationalized by them became, to them, superstition, mysticism, the stuff of legends, not to be trusted, because if their "great minds" could not comprehend it and accept it, then it must not have been real.

The Apostle Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (1:20) asked "Where is the wise? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world." Paul went on to state that the world, by wisdom, did not know God and that therefore it pleased God by "the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe," But, the Northern theological elite, whose grandparents had once believed in the "foolishness of preaching" for salvation no longer believed. They had Holy Scripture for their guide and then apostatized and sought a more "relevant" faith. Pastor Steve Wilkins of Monroe, Louisiana has said that "The apostate is the chief of fools because he ceases to fear the Lord. God said this is what happened to Israel (Jeremiah 2:19).

To be continued.

AMERICA'S PROBLEM WITH APOSTASY Part One

by Al Benson Jr.


Apostasy is a falling away, a willful departure from the truth, a revolt against the truth. It is not a new problem in God's Israel, the church. It has been around since the beginning. The Old Testament is full of accounts of Israel turning away from the one true God and chasing after the "gods" of the nations around them, no doubt in a desire to be like those nations. Being "different" is such a drag don't you know.

In Acts 20 Paul talks to the elders in the church at Ephesus and tells them (vs. 29, 30): "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." It would seem from the context that Paul is talking about people who had believed the truth, embraced it, and then consciously walked away from it, embracing some "new gospel" and not only that, the sought to drag other believers along with them that they also might attach themselves to the "new" teaching.

Although this revolt from God's truth has been prevalent through the ages, we have had major problems with it in this country and it has been the cause of many of our country's problems over the years, including the War of Northern Aggression.

Home-grown apostasy probably started in this country in the 1700s in New England. Some preachers there preached against Unitarianism in the late 1700s. Jedidiah Morse, in Charlestown, Massachusetts preached against "the infidel Deist and the rationalizing Unitarian." Others, including Timothy Dwight of Yale did the same thing. But even some of those that resisted apostasy in New England had, to some degree, swallowed some of it themselves without realizing it. James Turner in his book "Without God, Without Creed" has noted that "Even while damning Deists, church leaders swallowed the Deist conception of a natural-law God. Even while lauding the converted heart, they abosorbed the maxim that belief in God rests on intellectual assent to a demonstrable proposition. Even while preaching the blood of the Lamb, they devoured the Enlightenment's moralism and its God bound by human morality...The Enlightenment's animating principle in religion was to tie belief in God securely to the kind of clear, rational, tangible realities evident in the world as observed. What could not be so rooted (grace, spiritual communion, mysterious doctrines) either faded away or drifted into supernatural disassociation from ordinary reality." In other words, men had reached a point in their supposed intellectual growth where they were not willing to let God be God if they could not understand exactly how He did everything, as if, in some way, He owed them an explanation.

By the 1830s apostasy had grown rampant in New England. Turner noted that "Lyman Beecher's admonition that the republic's survival depended on 'well instructed' citizens echoed in Horace Mann, Henry Barnard, and scores of other school reformers, especially after the great influx of Irish immigrants began in the 1840s...Public schools consequently received wide support from Protestant ministers--and bitter resistance from Catholic clergy, resentful of Protestant flavoring of school curricula. Both sides knew what the schools were about."

Although Turner's book contains much excellent and useful information overall, I do disagree with him on this point. He feels the public, or government schools favored the Protestants. I will admit they gave that appearance. In a mostly Protestant society at that time they had to, otherwise the vast majority of Protestants would not have been taken in by them. Upon reflection, though, we are forced to conclude that neither Catholics nor Protestants really knew what the government schools were all about.

Horace Mann, the Unitarian, realized what they were all about though. Clergymen like Lyman Beecher should have understood where Mann and many of the other public school "reformers" were coming from. The late Rev. R. J. Rushdoony has written in "The Nature of the American System" that "The 'public school' movement, or statist education, did not exist until the 1830s. Statist education began as a subversive movement and its bitter, savage struggle has not yet been written. The essentials of the drive which produced statist education are clearly seen in Horace Mann...'the Father of the Common Schools.' First and foremost, Mann was a Unitarian. New England Unitarianism was in the forefront of the battle for statist education. For Mann, Unitarianism was true Christianity, and with humorless zeal he fought for his holy faith." Unless Horace Mann kept his Unitarian "light" hidden under a bushel, Calvinist ministers like Lyman Beecher should have known what he was and should never have supported any educational system founded or promoted by him and his Unitarian cohorts. Yet they did, which shows that, to some degree, whether they realized it or not, they had been bitten by the apostasy bug.

To be continued.

CULTURAL MARXISTS--The Real Hate Peddlers

by Al Benson Jr.


The Holy Scriptures state in Psalm 5:4-5: "For thou are not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness; neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight; thou hatest all workers of iniquity." You could, in many instances, apply this truth to those in our day that seem to take perverse pleasure in trashing the South and Southern culture in general, and Christians in particular. I will cite one example.

About eight years ago now, Pastors Steve Wilkins and Doug Wilson co-authored a booklet of around thirty pages entitled "Southern Slavery As It Was." The booklet was not at attempt to "defend" slavery, but rather s short exposition of what is really quite a complicated issue, much the same as is Donnie Kennedy's more recent book "Myths of American Slavery." The slavery issue is not nearly as black and white as many of our current "uptown Marxist" historians would have people to believe. It was never a case of all the whites in the South owning all the blacks in the South as slaves, which is basically the lie they are spreading nowadays. Unfortunately, with some people, the mud of lies such as this sticks to the wall. They remind me of the lady I talked to several years ago that just "knew" all the horrible stories about Southern slavery had to be true--after all, she had seen it on television in "Roots." A prime example of what Pastor Wilkins has often said: "Many people have learned everything they think they know from television."

At any rate, the booklet "Southern Slavery As It Was" didn't create too much of s stir until just recently. Pastor Wilkins was in Idaho for a historical conference (which didn't have anything to do with slavery) when all of a sudden the cultural Marxists there suddenly "discovered" the booklet on slavery--eight years after it had been published! By using selective quotes taken out of context from the booklet they sought to make it appear that Pastors Wilkins and Wilson were trying, somehow, to uphold the institution of slavery. They made a big fuss in Idaho at that time (several months ago now) and have managed to whip up enough of a frenzy to keep the fussing going in that area.

Now, it seems that someone is trying to promote the same thing in Monroe, Louisiana. Liars do like to spread their lies as far and wide as they can. Awhile back a flyer began making its appearance in the Monroe area, accusing Pastor Wilkins and Pastor Wilson of defending slavery. The flyer gives no detail about how these two men continue to "defend" slavery, but it has their pictures (poorly reproduced) on it, and also, reproduced above their pictures, in part, is an add for a slave auction held back on January 18, 1859, the implication being that these two pastors are trying to perpetuate, somehow, what went on back then.

Whoever distributed these flyers in Monroe seemed to know just where to go with them. They were distributed in the black neighborhood on the south side of town and at some apartment complexes where a good number of black folks live, and, of course, at the local university. So it was hardly a matter of a city-wide distribution. The distributors of the flyer were targeting areas they thought they could possible create some local unrest in.

This sounds like the sort of activities that disciples of the Southern Poverty Law Center might engage in.

I've read the booklet authored by Pastors Wilkins and Wilson. I used to sell it at Southern Heritge conferences and "Civil War" shows that I went to. As I stated previously, it explained rather than defended slavery. Pastor Wilkins is an able historian and he approaches history from a Christian perspective, which I suspect is what really bothers the cultural Marxists. They don't want that view of history and that world view presented to too many people. So they have to resort to lies, half-truths, and innuendo to attempt to turn as many people as possible away from listening to anyone that promotes a Christian perspective on history, and especially on American history.

Cultural Marxists, of whatever stripe, don't want people to know the truth. Too much truth interferes with their agenda, and it also might put somewhat of a crimp in their fund-raising efforts as they seek to scare people around the country with "straw men" they have created so they can plead for more money to "combat" these horrible monsters. It's an old ploy. Find someone you disagree with, tell people how much of a "threat" he is to society and their well-being, and then ask them for large donations so you can fight against the perceived threat. How much of the money collected actually goes to "fight" against that perceived threat and how much goes into your own pockets would be an interesting question to have answered. It should be evident to anyone that thinks rationally, that many of these "organizations" that are supposedly formed to fight "hate groups" are, themselves, nothing more than hate groups with their own Left-wing political (and financial) agendas.

HOME SCHOOLING GROWS--Federal Bureaucrats Worry

by Al Benson Jr.


It was interesting to read a recent AP news release that dealt with home schooling. I suppose, though, that it is getting to that time of year when all the prospective brainwashees are expected t re-enroll at their local government brain laundries for more courses in Mind-bending 101. And maybe if they are fortunate enough not to get stuck with that one, they can take a course in sand shuffling or pebble-pushing.

It is worth noting that one agency that is part of the Department of Education at the federal level has admitted that home schooling has grown 29 percent since 1999 and that there are now almost up to 1.1 million students being taught at home.

In different surveys, parents listed two main reasons for voting with their feet in regard to seceding from the government school system. According to the AP release: "...31 percent cited concerns about the environment of regular schools, and 30 percent wanted the flexibility to teach religious or moral lessons. Third, at 16 percent, was dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools." What a surprise! Most parents that go to government education bureaucrats to complain about what their kids are being taught are blithely informed that they "are the only parents in the district to complain" about whatever the problem may be. These kinds of figures give the lie to that old saw.

Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the National Center for Home Education, a group that promotes home schooling, has said that: "Home schooling is just getting started. We've gotten through the barriers of questioning the academic ability of home schools, now that we have a sizable number of graduates who are not socially isolated or awkward--they are good, high-quality citizens."

Supposedly, the 1.1 million students in home schools accounts for only 2.2 percent of the school-age population. That is as may be, but knowing how the Feds love to play the numbers game, especially with groups they are not overly enamoured of, who can doubt that the actual number of home schooled students might well be about double what the Feds have told us, or even know about. Due to the unpleasant climate in many states for home schoolers over the years, many who have opted for this good system of education have just done it and said nothing to anyone. In many instances, if you were never a part of the Fed's "education" program, they have no record of you educationally. And that's not all bad!

Our children attended a Christian school in one of our Midwestern states for several years. When we arrived at the point where we could no longer financially continue in that direction we decided to teach them at home. The government school system was NOT an option. Since our kids had never been part of the government's "education" system, I could see no reason for groveling at the feet of some local educrat and seeking his permission to teach our kids at home. So I didn't. We just did it. We joined the Home School Legal Defense Association just to be safe and we went from there. We never made a secret of what we were doing; everyone who knew our kids knew they were being taught at home. In fact, many of the families in our church in that state tried mightily to persuade us to enroll our kids in the local "conservative" government school there, which supposedly had a lot of Christian teachers, and besides, they had a great band program, so our kids wouldn't be culturally deprived. I guess some of them thought my wife and I were from the Stone Age and possessed no ability to pass along to our children the finer things culturally. So our daughter grew up listening to classical music while many of theirs were listening to Rock and Roll. Even our son appreciated classical music to an extent, and even though it wasn't my favorite, I recognized that it was, indeed, good music and encouraged our kids to listen to it. At any rate, to the chagrin of most of the families in our church, we refused to heed their advice. When our pastor there tried to get us to put the kids in government schools (where his were) and we listed all the reasons, beginning with conscience, for our not being able to do this, he said that "With all the reasons you've given me for what you are doing, I guess what I'm saying to you sounds pretty close to blasphemy doesn't it?" I assured him it did. The subject never came up again.

Yet, even though home schooled students are now into their second generation of home schooling, and the home schoolers regularly take national prizes at spelling bees and other student contests, some of the federal bureaucrats still continue to bring up the old, hackneyed arguments of a generation ago to convince parents to keep their kids in the government brain laundries, and besides, it keeps those federal dollars flowing and supports the bloated bureaucracy.

Ted Feinberg, assistant director of the National Association of School Psychologists voiced concerns that parents have no formal training as teachers. That doesn't seem to have stopped them from turning out some of the brightest kids in the country in the last several years. Feinberg worries that students won't get the same materials at home that they would have in government schools. All I can say to that is "Thank God!" That's one of the main reasons for teaching them at home. And then he pulls out the old "socialization" argument that educrats have been peddling like snake oil for the past generation. He is deeply concerned that home schooled students will not have the needed exposure to other students or to "various cultures." In other words, no peer pressure to cave in and follow the crowd, and no multiculturalism! If the kids miss out on these "important" parts of the government school agenda they might not be quite as easy to manipulate in the future. They might ask politically incorrect questions and harbor politically incorrect thoughts--and you just can't have lots of people doing things like that.

Actually, most home schooled students have learned to get along with people of all ages as well as their peers and so they are less influenced by peer pressure because they have been exposed to a much broader viewpoint and, therefore, in many cases, have more discernment.

Now all we need to be able to do is to get more decent history material out there for the home school movement, especially American history. Should that happen we may well begin to rock the establishment's "New World Order" boat.

History is critically important, for if we have a faulty view of the past our vision for the future will be faulty also.

THE POT CALLS THE KETTLE BLACK (Condemn others, elevate yourself)

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???

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.)

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.

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.

"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.