Confederate Society
Sent to the Confederate Society by a fellow Patriot.

"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. 
While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another, 
they both march in the same direction."
-- Paul Proctor 



“Beyond the edge of the world there’s a space where emptiness and substance neatly overlap, where past and future form a continuous, endless loop. And, hovering about, there are signs no one has ever read, chords no one has ever heard.” ~Haruki Murakami

The great circle of political madness has resumed; a president, in his last term of office is being attacked by political opponents and members of the media. While these attacks are by no means unwarranted, they are preplanned and will see increasing intensity until Election Day 2016.

The content of these attacks is not aimed at influencing the hard core supporters of the opposing political party, instead they are aimed at the people who actually determine most legal elections, at least those not controlled by electronic voting machines: the great undecided.

Political party hacks and rabid supporters are faithful to a fault. The Republican Party worshippers would support a reincarnated Adolf Hitler if he gained the party nomination. They would also support the construction of new gas chambers if the hated Muslims were to be the subject of “a final solution,” conveniently forgiving and forgetting members of the Republican party hierarchy who have facilitated and supported militant Muslims over the past 4 decades.

This includes providing the Muslim Brotherhood with 500 million in seed money in the late 1970's (Robert Gates); providing them with over 1500 tactical and Stinger missiles and monetary support in the 80's (Ronald Reagan) and of course visiting with their leaders in Syria in 2013 offering aid, comfort, taxpayer dollars and military arms. (John McCain)

The Democrat faithful are no different; all that is required for their support is a candidate staunchly supportive of the tenets of Marxism, confiscation of other people’s money and/or a fondness for all forms of aberrant behavior.

The most recent attack on the president, highlighted by a web news source, called for a form of execution. Luckily for the Republican candidate calling for this form of punishment, he is Black which will prevent him from being the advocate of a hate crime or labeled a “racist.”

This all takes us back to 2007 when another Mainstream Media source, acting through talking head Keith Olbermann began the political tirades and attacks on George W. Bush. While these attacks were referred to as Republican-bashing, the great majority of accusations by Olbermann directed at Bush were in fact true. But, not to worry, both political parties spend billions each election cycle defending their respective candidates from the truth. It is, after all, a national pastime.

But, back to the true purpose of these public attacks: in 2007, the attacks on Bush, while truthful, were seen as bashing by party faithful. This firms up the party support on both sides but more importantly it is directed toward the great mass of undecided voters. The great undecided, while not subject to blind faith in either party, actually analyze the facts stated in the attacks. They realize these facts are true and are therefore drawn to support the candidate the power cabal has selected, in this case it happened to be a basically unknown entity from Illinois named Barack Obama. It was no coincidence his campaign theme was “change.” The great undecided were therefore led to believe if they wanted a “change” from the crimes of the sitting Republican, they must vote for the advocate of change: the upstart, previously unknown, Black Democrat. 

Of course, as such learned people as Judge Andrew Napolitano and the late Georgetown Law Professor, Carroll Quigley have pointed out, the only thing that changes when a new administration takes power is the face of the leader of government. The tyranny, debt immoral wars and freedom destroying oppression marches on, many times increasing in intensity, employing all three branches of government and hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats.  

So, as you begin to see the attacks on the current occupant of the White House increase and become more and more virulent, it is imperative you understand the purpose of these attacks is to draw the masses to the support of the next power cabal puppet, now waiting patiently in the wings. He or she will offer a “change” in policy and direction from the current administration, but it is merely a subterfuge played out previously on countless political stages.

In 1992 a relative unheard of politician came out of the state of Arkansas to assume his perceived rightful place on the political throne; in 2000 the media endorsed as the “front-runner” long before the first primary, the sitting Governor of Texas. Of course to insure rancor and bitterness between the two supposedly opposing parties, the power cabal had their servants wearing black robes order a stop to the counting of legal votes in Florida to insure victory of the "chosen one." Once that unparalleled and constitution destroying event had occurred with countless Americans cheering from the sidelines, the power cabal could/would continue taking us into multiple wars for peace and freedom destroying legislation.

In 2008, the power cabal placed on display their latest creation, straight from the bowels of Chicagoland politics, a Black candidate sporting a Muslim name and questionable heritage. A true indication of their power and control, the power cabal foisted on the American people a politician with a Muslim name and possible background 8 short years after America was allegedly attacked by Muslims.

As one watches the unfolding of the latest master plan by the cabal which controls our government, media and the majority of our politicians, I’m sure we will see events and political strategies that found their success in 1992, 2000, 2008 and who knows how many times before that?

As Dandy Don Meredith was fond of saying, "keep running that play until they catch on and defend against it."

The quotes below certainly pertain to this subject and deserve restating:

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.” ~Carroll Quigley

“What if what we call public opinion was just a manufactured narrative which made it easier to convince people that if their views were different there was something wrong with that or there was something wrong with them”?

“What if the whole purpose of the Democrat and Republican parties was not to expand voter’s choices but to limit them”?

“What if the widely perceived differences between the two parties were just an illusion.”?

“What if the heart of the government’s policies remains the same no matter who is in the White House”? ~
Judge Andrew Napolitano

National and most state elections in this country are highly emotional, very expensive extravaganzas where lies are the accepted medium of exchange and the truth is the most feared mortal enemy. All of this is orchestrated by the bought and paid for media. Participation by the public is an illusion, while the power cabal rakes in the money and determines the outcome and of course their agenda marches on. Play at your own peril. 

Hang on folks, the political shenanigans are about to begin in earnest---BUT---regardless of who next assumes the throne, the directions and goals of the power cabal will continue to be supported. In polite circles it is known as a “New World Order.”

PictureConfederate casualties in the battle to save Atlanta.


The State of the Confederacy

This week we witnessed another charade in a continuous deception as President Obama addressed the United States and world that all is well in America. 

Unfortunately as many have come to learn, America is not well off, and in fact, is dying off as a world power and reserve currency, eventually shrinking from the facade of a country existing of fifty States. Those fifty States contain many Confederate States who claim a right to Sovereignty. Those States, our States, will eventually learn to re-grasp the mantle of our fathers who told us to just carry the torch of Liberty, Sovereignty and dignity. 

As we look at the country we live in today we see a multitude of problems and issues that will take incredible pain and suffering to correct. A central government controlled by Marxist tendencies, in varying degrees since 1860, has allowed those people to let a small band of elite Oligarchs control the planet’s monetary policy, via world and central banks-that are naturally owned by those same private bankers . Those banksters (that were backed by taxpayers in event of failure) were easily in control of complete authority over monetary policy of which government succumbed to when they allowed its creation in 1913. The reason this has happened is that the people who lend money to government decided war was a necessary means to conduct their nefarious purposes included eradicating peoples. It happens in countries all over the world today where you see civil strife and unrest and this is why the Southern Confederacy received a scorched earth policy from the United States and why the United States also eradicated the Native Tribes too numerous to mention in this address!

To spare our friends the reminders of past injustice, we wish to proceed to discuss the current state of America and its transformation from what once was a true Republic into a progressive Socialist nation and clearly heading in the direction of a battle between Marxism (Communism) and National Socialists (NAZIS).

The writing is on the hall our dear brothers and sisters.

When Germany invaded Soviet Russia that was a War between the National Socialists and the Communists (2 forms of socialism) and our country is not too far off! (We also have 2 forms of socialism called Democrat and Republican) We have the McCain neocons and the progressive social Marxists in Washington and little else in between! 

There is no room for Confederacy because they cannot identify with it being so absorbed in the false history, the hurtful recollections and the needs of the people to move on and prosper. Those people tell us Confederates to "get over it" and "what difference can you make".  It was never the intention of the Confederacy to be more than a style of government wherein the people selected their fate and determination. That has been washed asunder in a wave of deliberate and malicious attacks on a defeated and demoralized people. 

Now in cases of defense and mutual defense with the United States, we believe that we share a common interest; in fact we have many of them whereas we can cooperate in shipping lanes, agriculture and seaports etc. 

Now without delving into the injustices brought about by Lincoln’s illegal invasion of the Southern Confederacy of States, we must look into what his victory has won.

He gave a nation unto perpetual debt, codified in the 14 amendment but which also gave fairness under that law. The fairness part was proper, but it masked a more nefarious purpose than we understand today, steamrolling into nearly 20 TRILLION in DEBT. (As a side bar, we have calculated that 22.34T is the tipping point when the entire US economy collapses and if the world has not divested from the dollar they will go down too.) That amendment took away all rights of Confederates and enable Federal government to forever have unquestioned jurisdiction over States and that no one who questions the Federal government would have rights. They called it rebellion but we did not rebel against their government, we separated from it! 

The 17th amendment allowed for the complete stripping of sovereignty from States by forcing those State legislatures to surrender the right to elect our Federal Representatives (Senators). By passing the 14 and 17th amendment, the States had surrendered all their tenth amendment rights. 

So many good people tell us “whatever” or “get over it”, and that is fine until they begin to realize how these things had and continue to have an effect on their personal lives! The lives of people in the Southern Confederacy are made up of many people, some of who would not understand our message and purpose. That is entirely understandable given the confusion of the past. By rekindling our Confederacy is in no means an endorsement of depriving any person of their civil rights. Most of the crimes and injustices of our past happened under the US flag, not the Confederate one! Surely, some of the haters will delve into the archives and find a story of abuse and blame an entire society upon those transgressions. Seldom will they look at the honor, the Christian lifestyle, the love of homestead and the pride in State that our men fought for. 

The message is very simple indeed. It requires understanding some of the past and how those dots connect to the present. Once that equation is fulfilled, it is not difficult to project the path or curve and see the outcome.

The outcome for America is bleak.

It has been for a long time and we have tried to warn of this outcome more so than other Confederate groups. 

Reconstruction of America is a non-stop process. It is time for it to regain some senses. 

Following are a brief lesson on the three major periods after we lost the war in 1865.

1. The Southern reconstruction after the war was suspended. The South was shattered and battered many died. 

2. The banking cartel inauguration of 1913. They called it the creature of Jekyll Island.

3. The Cultural Revolution that started in the 1960’s.

They have had the effect of imploding the people- one mind at a time. The process is taking place in the Grammy’s, the search for an American Idol- or any number of shows that feed our children pure garbage and we sit back and take it! Maybe we are starting to think for once and realize maybe truth was buried in the old books. It can be found in our heritage. It can be found at Missionary Ridge, at the Rose Farm, at the devil's den where your fathers died and bled the ground red trying to prevent the perverse destruction of their homeland. All we ever asked was to be left alone. 

Many Confederates died in the war, after the war- and on for one hundred and fifty years after the war. In fact they still die, every day. When we find one, meet one, visit with one, or mourn the passing of a dear friend, it helps mold us and harden us against the hate and racism that mainstream America seems to hold us in contempt of. We are a rare breed!

The Charge from General S.D. Lee is most debated among groups and forums. That charge is a measure of a Confederate man. The Confederates of old were willing to make a sacrifice, in some cases the ultimate sacrifice -but we are not held to that standard in this age. (Not yet). It means a love of Confederacy, an understanding how to promote the cause and the honor, and how to live your life without shame to admit to Confederacy! 

Now while we are not powerful or able to control our own destiny in a resolution for a Confederacy of States, we can ask the almighty one for his eternal blessing! 

Lord, may your divine mercy and spirit rain down upon our people like the dew fall and may you allow for your almighty blessing and the prayer of our friends into your holy dominion.

May the Lord God bless you all and God bless our Confederacy!

Deo Vindice!

Kevin Carroll
The Confederate Society of America

By: Thomas DiLorenzo:

As Clyde Wilson once pointed out, the symbol of America started out as “George Washington on his white horse” but is now “a corporate lawyer/lobbyist in an armchair.”  The latter refers to the Lincoln Memorial, which is not so much the symbol of “America” but of the governmental regime in Washington, D.C.  That is why Lincoln must be idolized, worshipped, and compared to Jesus Christ (“He died on Good Friday and died for America’s sins just as Christ died for the world’s sins” his idolaters and cultists have been saying for generations), and referred to as “Father Abraham.”

Lincoln did not create “a new birth of freedom” but a new birth of mercantilism, crony capitalism, and centralized government monopoly of the sort the American colonists had fought a revolution against.  A real statesman would have followed the British example (and the French, Danes, Dutch, Spanish, and Swedish), and the example of all the Northern states in the U.S., and found a way to end slavery peacefully through some kind of compensated emancipation (See Jim Powell, Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery). Instead, the ending of slavery eventually became associated with a war that, according to the most recent research, resulted in as many as 850,000 deaths (the old death count was 620,000). 

He could have achieved this had he spent as much time on it as he spent on figuring out how to deport every last black person, including the soon-to-be-freed slaves.  Lincoln was hard at work diligently counting up transport ships and communicating with foreign governments about purchasing land from them for all the deported black people up to three days before his death, as documented in the widely-acclaimed book,Colonization After Emancipation, by Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page.  This research blows out of the water the tall tale told by the Lincoln cult that Lincoln mysteriously gave up on his life-long advocacy of “colonizing” all of the black people outside of the United States sometime around 1863.

What is really being celebrated on Lincoln’s birthday is the centralized, bureaucratic regime that he, more than any other single person, is most responsible for bringing about.  Black people did not begin to experience any semblance of equality until a century after the “Civil War,” whereas the first observance of Lincoln’s birthday was in 1874.  It is unlikely that that observance was intended as a celebration of black equality.

As the twentieth-century literary critic Edmund Wilson once wrote, it was Lincoln, Lenin and Bismarck who did more than any other individuals in their respective countries to introduce highly centralized governmental bureaucracies.  Lincoln did this in America by destroying the system of states’ rights and federalism that was created by the founding fathers by destroying the rights of secession and nullification.  He destroyed the original American union and replaced it with a Soviet-style coerced union held together by mass murdering literally hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens for simply asserting the truth of the founders that the original union was voluntary, as described in Article 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

Statists of all description have swooned over Lincoln’s example of destroying constitutional liberty in the Northern states with his illegal suspension of Habeas Corpus, the mass arrest of tens of thousands of political dissenters, the shutting down of hundreds of opposition newspapers and the imprisonment of their editors and owners (without due process), the deportation of an outspoken congressional critic (Clement L. Vallandigham of Dayton, Ohio), his rigging of elections, and his dictatorial behavior in general.

To this day, supporters of the destruction of civil liberties routinely cite the “sainted” Lincoln’s example as “justification” for such things as NSA spying on the entire American population in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as National Review editor Rich Lowry has done.  Neocon pundit Michelle Malkin cited Lincoln’s gulags when she made her book-length case for rounding up American Muslims and imprisoning them in concentration camps (“In Defense of Internment” is the title of her book).  Even the former dictator of Pakistan (Musharraf) quoted Lincoln’s behavior as “justification” for imposing martial law in hiscountry several years ago.

Ever since the time of Hamilton, Lincoln’s political inspiration, the real purpose of creating a highly centralized, bureaucratic regime, was to impose on all Americans a version of the corrupt British system of “mercantilism” that the American colonists fought a war of secession over. Hamilton called it “The American System.”  Henry Clay, who Lincoln once said was the source of all of his political ideas and “the beau ideal of a statesman,” picked up the mercantilist mantle after the death of Hamilton and of Hamilton’s party, the Federalists.  Lincoln then became the standard bearer for this corrupt system of government of the plutocrats, for the plutocrats, by the plutocrats. 

In his History of the American Whig Party historian Michael Holt wrote that no one in the party was a stronger supporter of central banking and the resurrection of America’s first central bank, the Bank of the United States, than Lincoln was.  (Lincoln was a Whig for twenty years but a Republican for about twelve years).  The Lincoln regime finally nationalized the money supply with its National Currency Acts, Legal Tender Acts, creation of the greenback dollar, and a special tax on competing currencies.

Lincoln was a lifelong protectionist who boasted of having made more speeches in favor of high protectionist tariffs than on any other subject.  During his regime the average tariff rate rose from 15% to almost 50% and remained in that range until the federal income tax was adopted in 1913.  Protectionist tariffs have been recognized for centuries as an instrument of political plunder, which is why South Carolinians labeled an earlier, 1828 tariff increase “The Tariff of Abominations” and nearly seceded then because of it. Government of the plutocracy, for the plutocracy, by the plutocracy.

Also beginning with Hamilton, the advocates of mercantilism schemed to use tax dollars to subsidize private corporations for road-, canal-, and railroad-building.  As of 1861 they had failed miserably, with president after president (including Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler, and others) vetoing or opposing all such legislation on constitutional grounds.  But Lincoln abandoned all “constitutional scruples” when it came to corporate welfare, as one historian put it, and immediately upon assuming office called a special session of Congress to begin subsidizing transcontinental railroad corporations (in June of 1861).

The Pacific Railway Act made millionaires out of myriad Republican Party politicians and supporters by purchasing building materials from them or giving them lavish subsidies for railroad building.  Lincoln himself became enriched when he chose Council Bluffs, Iowa, where he had invested in real estate five years earlier, the eastern terminus of the government-subsidized transcontinental railroad.  Then a few years later the biggest political scandal in American history up to that point erupted with the Credit Mobilier scandal, the result of rampant theft of government funds by various politically-connected businessmen, members of Congress, and even the vice president of the United States.  This of course is exactly the kind of thing the Jeffersonian opponents of such subsidies had always predicted would happen.  Government of plutocracy, for plutocracy, by plutocracy.

Lincoln also introduced the first federal conscription law, the first federal income tax, and the mass shooting of army deserters as an enforcement mechanism of conscription.  Agricultural subsidies, railroad subsidies, land subsidies to mining and forestry corporations under the “Homestead Act” were all referred to by a North Carolina Newspaper in 1865 as “Lincoln’s New Deal.”  And you probably thought that phrase came from FDR’s “brains trust.”  This extreme economic interventionism is also what is meant to be celebrated on Lincoln’s birthday.

Having been a Whig for much longer than he was a Republican, Lincoln the wealthy railroad industry lawyer/lobbyist was well known as the chief political water carrier of the Northern business aristocracy.  He lived in the biggest house with numerous servants in a part of Springfield, Illinois that is today known as “Old Aristocracy Row.”  Government of the plutocracy, for the plutocracy, by the plutocracy is always what Lincoln worked for in politics despite his occasional rhetoric to the contrary.

Lincoln did seek the votes of lower- and middle-class whites by opposing the extension of slavery into the new territories by declaring that “we” want the territories to be the exclusive province of “free white labor” (his exact words).  He supported the Illinois constitution’s prohibition of the migration into the state of any black people for the same reason: to pander to white voters by promising to eliminate all competition for the jobs by black people, free or slave.  He was even a manager of the Illinois Colonization Society, which sought to use state tax dollars to deport the small number of free blacks who resided in the state. 

Black people, however were never to share in the economic growth that Lincoln mistakenly said would come from the adoption of his mercantilist economic policies.  He never wavered from his belief, enunciated in his 1852 eulogy to his idol Henry Clay, that sending all black people back to their “long-lost fatherland” of Africa would be a “glorious consummation.”  “[I]t is morally right, and . . . favorable to our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime,” Lincoln declared (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, p. 409).  He always spoke of black people as though they were space aliens (i.e., “The Africans”) and if he mentioned equality, there was always the qualifier that such a thing would only be possible or desirable “in their native clime” of Africa or somewhere else, never in the United States.  “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races,” he said (Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 405), and, “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races” (Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 521).  “I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . .  I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people,” Lincoln declared during one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates (Collected Works, Vol. III, pp. 145-146).

None of this is ever taught in the public school textbooks, for obvious reasons.  And Americans used to criticize the Soviet communists for rewriting their history in order to glorify the Soviet state.  During the past fifteen years or so that I have been researching and writing about this subject I have learned that the average American knows nothing at all about Lincoln or his War to Prevent Southern Independence apart from a few slogans that we were all taught in elementary school and which are endlessly repeated by the kept puppies of the state-worshipping media and the organs of the popular culture.  Many Americans become very unhappy when confronted with indisputable historical facts that conflict with the Official State History.  They are perfectly conditioned to living their lives as happy fools.  These are the people who will with pride celebrate Lincoln’s birthday.  They are becoming more and more annoyed, however, by fellow citizens who have instead been outraged over being made fools of by their own government “public” school establishment.  Some of these people may even be burning Lincoln in effigy on his “birthday.”

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is a professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; ;Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe, How Capitalism Saved America, Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today. His latest book is Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government.

Copyright © 2014 by


 I have often stated that there are 2-kinds of ‘People’ above the Mason-Dixon- Good Northerner’s and Yankees.

There is a STARK difference between the two but many, unfortunately, think of them as being the Same when they are NOT! I have also stated, in my opinion, that if the former Union troops were to know what has come forth as a result of Lincoln’s ‘Un-Civil War’, the majority would drop the Blue and darn the Gray.

  The North was lied to and by the time many knew what Lincoln was up to, if in fact he hadn’t jailed them already as he suspended the Constitution of the Union he was supposedly claiming to ‘save’, it was too late.

In 1863 and after he issued his bogus Emancipation Proclamation, several Pennsylvania Regiments laid down their arms to fight NO more because of his ‘Proclamation’!

 I have reported on this before and is further indicative of the Lies and Chicanery that was afoot back THEN!

 Remember, Communications was NOT like today and allowed for ‘Those People’ to alter and confuse the ‘climate’ to their Political Advantage. Hell, just look at what they have done RECENTLY through their Spin Masters- BENGHAZI IS THE MOST GLARING EXAMPLE so think of what they were able to do back then!

The malaise WE are ALL witnessing TODAY, et al, is the combined Social Upheaval resulting from that time combined with the additional and altered Amendments of the Constitution ‘Those People’ have added since!

In so doing, they have covered their backsides for their Illegal Invasion of that time while Instituting and further NATIONALIZING this Government into the Socialist Proxy it has become.

Through Augmented Language of EVERY AMEDMENT ‘added’ after 1865, they have cleverly diffused the Meaning, Purpose & Language of the Original Constitution, as I refer to it, those first 10 Amendments.

Once again I will state that it was NEVER a Regional Issue as Those People have made it out to be.

Lincoln and his entire Red Republican ilk that Al Benson of this Confederate Society, in his book entitled “Lincoln’s Marxists”, clearly notes.

 Those Marxists were members of Lincoln’s Cabinet. They were ALL part of or associated with those whose failed attempts for a Socialist upheaval in Europe during the 1840’s, came here to the U.S. and went into the North.

 They are the YANKEES & THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MADNESS OF TODAY because the current government is NOW that extension of what they created beginning in 1865 after our Military defeat.

Folks can ill afford ANY LONGER to be looking at themselves as Republicans or a Democrats or a Northerner or Southerner, BUT MUST  look at themselves as Confederates!     Those who subscribe to the Jeffersonian Principles of Government, are CONFEDERATES ONE & ALL.

To continue the delusion of differentiating between one or the other continues to allow Those People the province to further their control via their Divide & Conquer tactic that has and remains in play ever since the conclusion of that War and before.


 Strange how so many are now fleeing the North and running South into our former Confederacy today.

Their former Cities have become extensions resulting from the same Political Madness & Foolishness ‘copied’ from the National Government and the many ‘Barters’ they have received hence in the form of ‘Subsidies’ that the National Government can NO longer afford to give them.

Thus, the former Middle-Class in most major Northern Cities is now a dying breed because they are PAYING THE FREIGHT FOR EVERY DEMOGRAPHIC DEADBEAT created by this National Government and that is simply the HARD REALITY OF CURRENT CONDITIONS.

 I can only hope & pray that Good Northerner’s awaken in time because we are ALL going to need one another SOON!

Deo Vindice!

Craig Maus, President, Confederate Society of America (CSA)

by Clyde Wilson:
Since the 2000 presidential election, much attention has been paid to a map showing the sharp geographical division between the two candidates' support. Gore prevailed in the power- and plunder-seeking Deep North (Northeast, Upper Midwest, Pacific Coast) and Bush in the regions inhabited by productive and decent Americans. There is nothing new about this. Historically speaking, it is just one more manifestation of the Yankee problem.

As indicated by these books (listed at the end), scholars are at last starting to pay some attention to one of the most important and most neglected subjects in United States history — the Yankee problem.

By Yankee I do not mean everybody from north of the Potomac and Ohio. Lots of them have always been good folks. The firemen who died in the World Trade Center on September 11 were Americans. The politicians and TV personalities who stood around telling us what we are to think about it are Yankees. I am using the term historically to designate that peculiar ethnic group descended from New Englanders, who can be easily recognized by their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around. Puritans long ago abandoned anything that might be good in their religion but have never given up the notion that they are the chosen saints whose mission is to make America, and the world, into the perfection of their own image.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, raised a Northern Methodist in Chicago, is a museum-quality specimen of the Yankee — self-righteous, ruthless, and self-aggrandizing. Northern Methodism and Chicago were both, in their formative periods, hotbeds of abolitionist, high tariff Black Republicanism. The Yankee temperament, it should be noted, makes a neat fit with the Stalinism that was brought into the Deep North by later immigrants.

The ethnic division between Yankees and other Americans goes back to earliest colonial times. Up until the War for Southern Independence, Southerners were considered to be the American mainstream and Yankees were considered to be the "peculiar" people. Because of a long campaign of cultural imperialism and the successful military imperialism engineered by the Yankees, the South, since the war, has been considered the problem, the deviation from the true American norm. Historians have made an industry of explaining why the South is different (and evil, for that which defies the "American" as now established, is by definition evil). Is the South different because of slavery? white supremacy? the climate? pellagra? illiteracy? poverty? guilt? defeat? Celtic wildness rather than Anglo-Saxon sobriety?

Unnoticed in all this literature was a hidden assumption: the North is normal, the standard of all things American and good. Anything that does not conform is a problem to be explained and a condition to be annihilated. What about that hidden assumption? Should not historians be interested in understanding how the North got to be the way it is? Indeed, is there any question in American history more important?

According to standard accounts of American history (i.e., Northern mythology), New Englanders fought the Revolution and founded glorious American freedom as had been planned by the "Puritan Fathers." Southerners, who had always been of questionable character, because of their fanatic devotion to slavery, wickedly rebelled against government of, by, and for the people, were put down by the armies of the Lord, and should be ever grateful for not having been exterminated. (This is clearly the view of the anonymous Union Leaguer from Portland, Maine, who recently sent me a chamber pot labeled "Robert E. Lee's soup tureen.") And out of their benevolence and devotion to the ideal of freedom, the North struck the chains from the suffering black people. (They should be forever grateful, also. Take a look at the Boston statue with happy blacks adoring the feet of Col. Robert Gould Shaw.)

Aside from the fact that every generalization in this standard history is false, an obvious defect in it is that, for anyone familiar with American history before the War, it is clear that "Southern" was American and Yankees were the problem. America was Washington and Jefferson, the Louisiana Purchase and the Battle of New Orleans, John Randolph and Henry Clay, Daniel Morgan, Daniel Boone, and Francis Marion. Southerners had made the Constitution, saved it under Jefferson from the Yankees, fought the wars, acquired the territory, and settled the West, including the Northwest. To most Americans, in Pennsylvania and Indiana as well as Virginia and Georgia, this was a basic view up until about 1850. New England had been a threat, a nuisance, and a negative force in the progress of America. Northerners, including some patriotic New Englanders, believed this as much as Southerners.

When Washington Irving, whose family were among the early Anglo-Dutch settlers of New York, wrote the story about the "Headless Horseman," he was ridiculing Yankees. The prig Ichabod Crane had come over from Connecticut and made himself a nuisance. So a young man (New York young men were then normal young men rather than Yankees) played a trick on him and sent him fleeing back to Yankeeland where he belonged. James Fenimore Cooper, of another early New York family, felt the same way about New Englanders who appear unfavorably in his writings. Yet another New York writer, James Kirke Paulding (among many others) wrote a book defending the South and attacking abolitionists. It is not unreasonable to conclude that in Moby Dick, the New York Democrat Herman Melville modeled the fanatical Captain Ahab on the Yankee abolitionist. In fact, the term "Yankee" appears to originate in some mingling of Dutch and Indian words, to designate New Englanders. Obviously, both the Dutch New Yorkers and the Native Americans recognized them as "different."

Young Abe Lincoln amused his neighbors in southern Indiana and Illinois, nearly all of whom, like his own family, had come from the South, with "Yankee jokes," stories making fun of dishonest peddlers from New England. They were the most popular stories in his repertoire, except for the dirty ones.

Right into the war, Northerners opposed to the conquest of the South blamed the conflict on fanatical New Englanders out for power and plunder, not on the good Americans in the South who had been provoked beyond bearing.

Many people, and not only in the South, thought that Southerners, according to their nature, had been loyal to the Union, had served it, fought and sacrificed for it as long as they could. New Englanders, according to their nature, had always been grasping for themselves while proclaiming their righteousness and superiority.

The Yankees succeeded so well, by the long cultural war described in these volumes, and by the North's military victory, that there was no longer a Yankee problem. Now the Yankee was America and the South was the problem. America, the Yankee version, was all that was normal and right and good. Southerners understood who had won the war (not Northerners, though they had shed a lot of blood, but the accursed Yankees.) With some justification they began to regard all Northerners as Yankees, even the hordes of foreigners who had been hired to wear the blue.

Here is something closer to a real history of the United States: American freedom was not a legacy of the "Puritan Fathers," but of Virginians who proclaimed and spread constitutional rights. New England gets some credit for beginning the War of Independence. After the first few years, however, Yankees played little part. The war was fought and won in the South. Besides, New Englanders had good reasons for independence — they did not fit into the British Empire economically, since one of their main industries was smuggling, and the influential Puritan clergy hated the Church of England. Southerners, in fighting for independence, were actually going against their economic interests for the sake of principle.

Once Southerners had gone into the Union (which a number of wise statesmen like Patrick Henry and George Mason warned them against), the Yankees began to show how they regarded the new federal government: as an instrument to be used for their own purposes. Southerners long continued to view the Union as a vehicle for mutual cooperation, as they often naively still do.

In the first Congress, Yankees demanded that the federal government continue the British subsidies to their fishing fleets. While Virginia and the other Southern states gave up their vast western lands for future new states, New Englanders demanded a special preserve for themselves (the "Western Reserve" in Ohio).

Under John Adams, the New England quest for power grew into a frenzy. They passed the Sedition Law to punish anti-government words (as long as they controlled the government) in clear violation of the Constitution. During the election of 1800 the preachers in New England told their congregations that Thomas Jefferson was a French Jacobin who would set up the guillotine in their town squares and declare women common property. (What else could be expected from a dissolute slaveholder?) In fact, Jefferson's well-known distaste for mixing of church and state rested largely on his dislike of the power of the New England self-appointed saints.

When Jeffersonians took power, the New Englanders fought them with all their diminishing strength. Their poet William Cullen Bryant regarded the Louisiana Purchase as nothing but a large swamp for Jefferson to pursue his atheistic penchant for science.

The War of 1812, the Second War of Independence, was decisive for the seemingly permanent discrediting of New England. The Yankee ruling class opposed the war even though it was begun by Southerners on behalf of oppressed American seamen, most of whom were New Englanders. Yankees did not care about their oppressed poorer citizens because they were making big bucks smuggling into wartime Europe. One New England congressman attacked young patriot John C. Calhoun as a backwoodsman who had never seen a sail and who was unqualified to deal with foreign policy.

During the war Yankees traded with the enemy and talked openly of secession. (Southerners never spoke of secession in time of war.) Massachusetts refused to have its militia called into constitutional federal service even after invasion, and then, notoriously for years after, demanded that the federal government pay its militia expenses.

Historians have endlessly repeated that the "Era of Good Feelings" under President Monroe refers to the absence of party strife. Actually, the term was first used to describe the state of affairs in which New England traitorousness had declined to the point that a Virginia president could visit Boston without being mobbed.

Yankee political arrogance was soulmate to Yankee cultural arrogance. Throughout the antebellum period, New England literature was characterized and promoted as the American literature, and non-Yankee writers, in most cases much more talented and original, were ignored or slandered. Edgar Allan Poe had great fun ridiculing the literary pretensions of New Englanders, but they largely succeeded in dominating the idea of American literature into the 20th century. Generations of Americans have been cured of reading forever by being forced to digest dreary third-string New England poets as "American literature."

In 1789, a Connecticut Puritan preacher named Jedidiah Morse published the first book of American Geography. The trouble was, it was not an American geography but a Yankee geography. Most of the book was taken up with describing the virtues of New England. Once you got west of the Hudson River, as Morse saw it and conveyed to the world's reading public, the U.S. was a benighted land inhabited by lazy, dirty Scotch-Irish and Germans in the Middle States and lazy, morally depraved Southerners, corrupted and enervated by slavery. New Englanders were pure Anglo-Saxons with all virtues. The rest of the Americans were questionable people of lower or mongrel ancestry. The theme of New Englanders as pure Anglo-Saxons continued right down through the 20th century. The alleged saints of American equality operated on a theory of their racial superiority. While Catholics and Jews were, in the South, accepted and loyal Southerners, Yankees burned down convents and banished Jews from the Union Army lines.

A few years after Morse, Noah Webster, also from Connecticut, published his American Dictionary and American spelling book. The trouble was, it was not an American dictionary but a New England dictionary. As Webster declared in his preface, New Englanders spoke and spelled the purest and best form of English of any people in the world. Southerners and others ignored Webster and spelled and pronounced real English until after the War of Southern Independence.

As the books show, Yankees after the War of 1812 were acutely aware of their minority status. And here is the important point: they launched a deliberate campaign to take over control of the idea of "America."

The campaign was multi-faceted. Politically, they gained profits from the protective tariff and federal expenditures, both of which drained money from the South for the benefit of the North, and New England especially. Seeking economic advantage from legislation is nothing new in human history. But the New England greed was marked by its peculiar assumptions of moral superiority. New Englanders, who were selling their products in a market from which competition had been excluded by the tariff, proclaimed that the low price of cotton was due to the fact that Southerners lacked the drive and enterprise of virtuous Yankees! (When the South was actually the productive part of the U.S. economy.)

This transfer of wealth built the strength of the North. It was even more profitable than the slave trade (which New England shippers carried on from Africa to Brazil and Cuba right up to the War Between the States) and the Chinese opium trade (which they were also to break into).

Another phase of the Yankee campaign for what they considered their rightful dominance was the capture of the history of the American Revolution. At a time when decent Americans celebrated the Revolution as the common glory of all, New Englanders were publishing a literature claiming the whole credit for themselves. A scribbler from Maine named Lorenzo Sabine, for one example among many, published a book in which he claimed that the Revolution in the South had been won by New England soldiers because Southerners were traitorous and enervated by slavery. As William Gilmore Simms pointed out, it was all lies. When Daniel Webster was received hospitably in Charleston, he made a speech in which he commemorated the graves of the many heroic Revolutionary soldiers from New England which were to be found in the South. The trouble was, those graves did not exist. Many Southern volunteers had fought in the North, but no soldier from north of Pennsylvania (except a few generals) had ever fought in the South!

George Washington was a bit of a problem here, so the honor-driven, foxhunting Virginia gentleman was transformed by phony folklore into a prim New Englander in character, a false image that has misled and repulsed countless Americans since.

It should be clear, this was not merely misplaced pride. It was a deliberate, systematic effort by the Massachusetts elite to take control of American symbols and disparage all competing claims. Do not be put off by Professor Sheidley's use of "Conservative Leaders" in his title. He means merely the Yankee ruling elite who were never conservatives then or now. Conservatives do not work for "the transformation of America."

Another successful effort was a New England claim on the West. When New Englanders referred to "the West" in antebellum times, they meant the parts of Ohio and adjacent states settled by New Englanders. The rest of the great American West did not count. In fact, the great drama of danger and adventure and achievement that was the American West, from the Appalachians to the Pacific, was predominantly the work of Southerners and not of New Englanders at all. In the Midwest, the New Englanders came after Southerners had tamed the wilderness, and they looked down upon the early settlers. But in Western movies we still have the inevitable family from Boston moving west by covered wagon. Such a thing never existed! The people moving west in covered wagons were from the upper South and were despised by Boston.

So our West is reduced, in literature, to The Oregon Trail, a silly book written by a Boston tourist, and the phony cavortings of the Eastern sissy Teddy Roosevelt in the cattle country opened by Southerners. And the great American outdoors is now symbolized by Henry David Thoreau and a little frog pond at Walden, in sight of the Boston smokestacks. The Pennsylvanian Owen Wister knew better when he entitled his Wyoming novel, The Virginian.

To fully understand what the Yankee is today — builder of the all-powerful "multicultural" therapeutic state (with himself giving the orders and collecting the rewards) which is the perfection of history and which is to be exported to all peoples, by guided missiles on women and children if necessary — we need a bit more real history.

That history is philosophical, or rather theological, and demographic. New Englanders lived in a barren land. Some of their surplus sons went to sea. Many others moved west when it was safe to do so. By 1830, half the people in the state of New York were New England-born. By 1850, New Englanders had tipped the political balance in the Midwest, with the help of German revolutionaries and authoritarians who had flooded in after the 1848 revolutions.

The leading editors in New York City, Horace Greeley and William Cullen Bryant, and the big money men, were New England-born. Thaddeus Stevens, the Pennsylvania steel tycoon and Radical Republican, was from Vermont. (Thanks to the tariff, he made $6,000 extra profit on every mile of railroad rails he sold.)

The North had been Yankeeized, for the most part quietly, by control of churches, schools, and other cultural institutions, and by whipping up a frenzy of paranoia about the alleged plot of the South to spread slavery to the North, which was as imaginary as Jefferson's guillotine.

The people that Cooper and Irving had despised as interlopers now controlled New York! The Yankees could now carry a majority in the North and in 1860 elect the first sectional president in U.S. history — a threat to the South to knuckle under or else. In time, even the despised Irish Catholics began to think like Yankees.

We must also take note of the intellectual revolution amongst the Yankees which created the modern version of self-righteous authoritarian "Liberalism" so well exemplified by Mrs. Clinton. In the 1830s, Ralph Waldo Emerson went to Germany to study. There he learned from philosophers that the world was advancing by dialectical process to an ever-higher state. He returned to Boston, and after marrying the dying daughter of a banker, resigned from the clergy, declared the sacraments to be a remnant of barbarism, and proclaimed The American as the "New Man" who was leaving behind the garbage of the past and blazing the way into the future state of perfection for humanity. Emerson has ever since in many quarters been regarded as the American philosopher, the true interpreter of the meaning of America.

From the point of view of Christianity, this "American" doctrine is heresy. From the point of view of history it is nonsense. But it is powerful enough for Ronald Reagan, who should have known better, to proclaim America as the shining City upon a Hill that was to redeem mankind. And powerful enough that the United States has long pursued a bipartisan foreign policy, one of the guiding assumptions of which is that America is the model of perfection to which all the world should want to conform.

There is no reason for readers of Southern Partisan to rush out and buy these books, which are expensive and dense academic treatises. If you are really interested, get your library to acquire them. They are well-documented studies, responsibly restrained in their drawing of larger conclusions. But they indicate what is hopefully a trend of exploration of the neglected field of Yankee history.

The highflying Yankee rhetoric of Emerson and Hillary Rodham Clinton has a nether side, which has its historical origins in the "Burnt Over District." The "Burnt Over District" was well known to antebellum Americans. Emersonian notions bore strange fruit in the central regions of New York State settled by the overflow of poorer Yankees from New England. It was "Burnt Over" because it (along with a similar area in northern Ohio) was swept over time and again by post-millennial revivalism. Here preachers like Charles G. Finney began to confuse Emerson's future state of perfection with Christianity, and God's plan for humanity with American chosenness.

If this were true, then anything that stood in the way of American perfection must be eradicated. The threatening evil at various times was liquor, tobacco, the Catholic Church, the Masonic order, meat-eating, marriage. Within the small area of the Burnt Over District and within the space of a few decades was generated what historians have misnamed the "Jacksonian reform movement:" Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon from the Angel Moroni; William Miller began the Seventh Day Adventists by predicting, inaccurately, the end of the world; the free love colony of John Humphrey Noyes flourished at Oneida; the first feminist convention was held at Seneca Falls; and John Brown, who was born in Connecticut, collected accomplices and financial backers for his mass murder expeditions.

It was in this milieu that abolitionism, as opposed to the antislavery sentiment shared by many Americans, including Southerners, had its origins. Abolitionism, despite what has been said later, was not based on sympathy for the black people nor on an ideal of natural rights. It was based on the hysterical conviction that Southern slaveholders were evil sinners who stood in the way of fulfillment of America's divine mission to establish Heaven on Earth. It was not the Union that our Southern forefathers seceded from, but the deadly combination of Yankee greed and righteousness.

Most abolitionists had little knowledge of or interest in black people or knowledge of life in the South. Slavery promoted sin and thus must end. No thought was given to what would happen to the African-Americans. In fact, many abolitionists expected that evil Southern whites and blacks would disappear and the land be repopulated by virtuous Yankees.

The darker side of the Yankee mind has had its expression in American history as well as the side of high ideals. Timothy McVeigh from New York and the Unabomber from Harvard are, like John Brown, examples of this side of the Yankee problem. (Even though distinguished Yankee intellectuals have declared that their violence was a product of the evil "Southern gun culture.")

General Richard Taylor, in one of the best Confederate memoirs, Destruction and Reconstruction, related what happened as he surrendered the last Confederate troops east of the Mississippi in 1865. A German, wearing the uniform of a Yankee general and speaking in heavily accented English, lectured him that now that the war was over, Southerners would be taught "the true American principles." Taylor replied, sardonically, that he regretted that his grandfather, an officer in the Revolution, and his father, President of the United States, had not passed on to him true American principles. Yankeeism was triumphant.

Since the Confederate surrender, the Yankee has always been a strong and often dominant force in American society, though occasionally tempered by Southerners and other representatives of Western civilization in America. In the 1960s the Yankee had one of his periodic eruptions of mania such as he had in the 1850s. Since then, he has managed to destroy a good part of the liberty and morals of the American peoples. It remains to be seen whether his conquest is permanent or whether in the future we may be, at least to some degree, emancipated from it.

BY: Thomas J. DiLorenzo:

In my Fall 2010 Independent Review article entitled “The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality,” I noted the creepiness of the fact that General William Tecumseh Sherman referred to the U.S. Army’s twenty-five year campaign of genocide against the Plains Indians, which he was in charge of for the duration, as “the final solution to the Indian problem” (Cited in Michael Fellman, Citizen Sherman, p. 260).  It is creepy because it reminds one of Adolf Hitler’s “final solution” rhetoric.  I did not claim in my article that Hitler literally plagiarized General Sherman or was even familiar with Sherman’s “final solution” rhetoric, but scholarship that has been brought to my attention suggests that he may well have been.

The scholarship is cited in a June 18, 2013 article in the Web site by Lia Mandelbaum entitled “Hitler’s Inspiration and Guide: The Native American Holocaust.”  Citing the books Adolf Hitler by John Toland and Hitler’s Rise to Power by David A. Meier, Mandelbaum writes that “it shook me to my core” when she “learned that the genocidal mentality and actions of the U.S. policymakers [from 1862 to 1890] would find similar expression years later when the Nazis, under Hitler, studied the plans of [“The Long Walk of the Navajo”] to design the concentration camps for Jews.”

The “Long Walk of the Navajo,” also known as the Bosque Redondo, was the January 1864 deportation and ethnic cleansing of the Navajo Indians who were forced at gunpoint by the U.S. Army to walk more than 300 miles from their ancestral lands in northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico to a concentration camp known as Bosque Redondo in eastern New Mexico.  This took place in the dead of winter.  Hundreds died along the way of the forced march, including many women, children, and the elderly.  In the succeeding four years the U.S. Army would imprison almost 10,000 Navajo in concentration camps where they lived “under armed guards, in holes in the ground, with extremely scarce rations,” writes Mandelbaum.  At least 3,500 of them died in the camps.

In his book, Adolf Hitler (p. 202), John Toland wrote that “Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history.”  Hitler “admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination – by starvation and even combat – of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.”

Hitler was apparently “very interested in the way the Indian population had rapidly declined due to epidemics and starvation when the United States government forced them to live on the reservations.”  And the Nazis did force hundreds of prisoners in their concentration camps on death marches where many of them starved or froze to death.

Adolf Hitler was infatuated in his youth with tales of the American West.  “His favorite game to play outside was cowboys and Indians,” wrote David A. Meier in Hitler’s Rise to Power.  He read 70 of novels about the American  West by the German author Karl May, who “had never been to America” and “invented a hero named Old Shatterhand, a white man who always won his battles with Native Americans.”  Hitler “continued reading [May’s novels] even as Führer,” wrote Mandelbaum, even referring to the Russians as “Redskins” during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and ordering his military commanders to read May’s books.

The U.S. government’s war of genocide against all the Plains Indians, not just the Navajo, would indeed be a “good” example for any psychotic, murderous tyrant like Adolf Hitler.  It was prosecuted by all of Lincoln’s generals, including Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Custer, and various other “Civil War luminaries” such as John Pope, O.O Howard, Nelson Miles, Alfred Terry, E.O.C. Ord, Edward Canby, Benjamin Garrison, and Winfield Scott Hancock, wrote John Marszalek in Sherman: A Soldier’s Passion for Order (p. 380).  Sherman and Sheridan adopted the motto, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian” as their armies murdered at least 45,000 Indians from 1864 to 1890, including thousands of women and children (See Russell Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival).  The survivors were placed in concentration camps euphemistically called “reservations,” where many of their descendants remain to this day.

Lincoln’s generals were not shy about announcing their intentions to commit genocide.  John Pope announced that “It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux . . . .  They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromises can be made” (David Nichols, Lincoln and the Indians, p. 87).  “All the Indians will have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers,” General Sherman announced, calling his policy “a racial cleansing of the land” (See Michael Fellman, Citizen Sherman, p. 264).  “Sherman gave [General Phil] Sheridan prior authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary when they attacked Indian villages,” wrote Fellman (p. 271).

So it is not a stretch to believe that Adolf Hitler, who fancied himself to be a serious student and admirer of U.S. military history from the Lincoln regime to the end of the nineteenth century, would have been “inspired” by Lincoln’s maniacal, murderous, genocidal generals like Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Custer, as the historians John Toland and David A. Meier maintain.  Indeed, Hitler was a rabid admirer of Lincoln’s compulsion to destroy state sovereignty and of the military tactics (i.e. waging total war on civilians) that he employed to achieve it.  On page 566  of the 1999 Mariner/Houghton Mifflin edition of Mein Kampf Hitler repeated Lincoln’s historically false and absurd argument from his first inaugural address that the states were never sovereign.   “The individual states of the American union . . .  could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own,” wrote Hitler, paraphrasing Lincoln.  He did this to make his own case for the abolition of states’ rights or federalism in Germany and the creation of a centralized, monopolistic state.

The arguments in favor of states’ rights that were being made in Germany, wrote Hitler, were “propagated by the Jews” and should therefore be dismissed.  “The mischief of individual federated states . . . must cease,” the dictator bellowed.  “A rule basic for us National Socialists,” Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, “is derived: A powerful national Reich.”  The only real difference between this statement and Lincoln’s theory of the American union is that Hitler referred to a “national Reich” whereas Lincoln, ever the master of slick political rhetoric, called the same thing “the mystic chords of union.”

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; ;Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest AbeHow Capitalism Saved AmericaHamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today. His latest book is Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government.

Originally publish at A leading site in the deliverance of American truth and history.