Confederate Society
By: Larry LaBorde, writing for Lew Rockwell. Com

What if the US lost its world reserve currency status? What might it look like?

I suppose the first question is; what does it mean that we have the "world’s reserve currency"? At the end of WWII the allies met at Bretton Woods and decided to use the US dollar as the official world currency and that it would be backed by gold. All worldwide trade would be priced in dollars and settled in dollars. Food, energy (oil), etc from around the world would be priced and paid for in USD. New York became the financial center for all world trade.

Fast-forward to President Nixon in 1971 and the USD was cut loose from the gold standard due to OPEC oil imports and a growing imbalance of trade that was causing gold to flow out of the US in large amounts.

Today goods from around the world flow to the US and newly created paper dollars flow out. (Well not really paper dollars, just newly created electronic digits made up on a computer.) In essence we create IOUs that everyone must accept due to the Bretton Woods agreement and they send us their stuff. Once we completely figured this out we decided in the 1990’s that we would "think" and they would "work". The US was going to run as a clean "information society" and all that dirty industry would go somewhere else. Our balance of trade kept getting worse and worse. We imported way more than we exported. We used to report our imbalance of trade numbers a couple of decades ago with great concern. Now no one seems to care at all since it is so far out of balance that it can never be fixed. (Sort of like an annoying knock in the engine that you fix by turning up the radio.) Ocean going freight containers started to pile up over here because we didn’t have enough goods to send them back fully loaded. For a while we sent hay overseas in freight containers because we had to send empties back to get them refilled so they greatly discounted the freight on the backhaul or return trip. Many people have started to find creative uses for these freight containers that are building up over here. They are the empty boxes on Christmas morning. Who sends the empty boxes back to the store for more toys? You just get new boxes.

Under the original Bretton Woods agreement if one country imported more goods than they exported the difference was settled up in gold. After a while the lazy country sent so much gold overseas that its currency dropped in value and they could not import as many goods. The lower priced currency made their exported goods more competitive so they began exporting more and the gold flowed back. When the link to gold was cut this self-regulating mechanism was broken. So now why should the US export anything? Why not import everything and just pay for it all with USD made up from nothing? Works great for the US but everyone else may have a problem with that system.

So why does the rest of the world still accept our USD electronic digits? One reason is the rest of the world can still spend them at the Middle East gasoline station to tank up with oil. In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s a deal was cut with the Saudis that so long as they priced their oil in USD and USD only, we would support their family rule with the full force of the US military. So even though we did not export enough goods to soak up all of our exported USD, the Middle East did. The OPEC countries then purchased our US bonds with their excess USD and earned a pretty good interest on their USDs – until now. Whenever someone in North Africa or the Middle East failed to live up to the agreement they were "replaced" with someone who would.

The whole system is now broken but still working somewhat. The only reason the rest of the world has not thrown it out altogether is there is not anything else to easily take its place. (Your thoroughbred now is old and swaybacked and stumbles along but it is still better than walking.) The world thought the Euro might offer an alternative to the USD when it was first launched. We all see where that is now leading. Doug Casey famously said, "The dollar is an IOU nothing but the euro is a who owes you nothing." It seems that the euro is not going to offer the USD any serious competition. The USD is still the prettiest horse at the glue factory.

So what is next? Well the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) have started their own development bank. This cuts the World Bank out of the picture in much of the world. The G-20 is talking about alternative currencies to challenge the USD and perhaps replace it one day with something a bit more fair to everyone else. China is cutting trade deals directly with Brazil and Australia outside of USDs. India is cutting deals with Iran outside of USDs. This is in direct violation of the Bretton Woods agreement. However, these countries feel they are exchanging value for value in their trade with each other on a more fair and equitable arrangement.

What would make a new reserve currency attractive? If the country that issued it had a trade surplus or at least balanced trade with the rest of the world a lot of the resentment would disappear. If the new currency were backed by gold once again the self-regulating mechanism would be fixed causing no one country to benefit to the detriment of another. If a basket of currencies were used from several strong countries with both of these attributes then even better.

Rumor has it that Russia and China have both been working hard to build up their gold reserves and they are both about 5 times the US gold reserve at its peak. Rumor also has it that the US gold reserve is maybe not as large as reported.

What if instead of Greece (or another PIIGS country) pulling out of the European monetary union and reissuing its own currency that something more interesting happened? What if the strong man with the 3rd largest gold reserves and a strong export economy pulled out and reissued its own currency – backed by gold! What if Germany pulled out leaving the Euro to collapse? Then what if Germany looked east and linked up with Russian and Chinese currencies that were also backed by gold? A new reserve currency made up of a basket of these three currencies (all backed by gold) would be a Eurasian powerhouse.

But where would this leave the USD? So long as the Middle East Gasoline Station was still in business and accepting USD it would survive. But what if the Muslim Brotherhood took over Saudi Arabia? What if the house of Saud fell? What if the Chinese would not loan us any more money to mount Gulf War III to save the house of Saud? There are several "ifs" here but what might happen?

If the rest of the world could not spend their USD reserves at the Middle East Gas Station and we are not able to ramp up our exports and sell them something they might want, then what exactly would they do with those USD? Why would anyone else in the world want them? And since 1971 we have been sending them all over the world and they have been piling up in every corner, there are a lot of them out there that suddenly find themselves unloved.

I believe that all at once there would be a race to spend them all at the only place where they must be accepted – to the only place where they are legal tender for all debts both public and private – right here within the US. They would buy everything that was not nailed down. Cranes, bulldozers, tractors, trucks, ships and entire factories all to be crated up and carted off. The mad rush of so many dollars would cause these items to be bid up to very high prices in USD. This of course would devalue the USD even further. All of a sudden all those old ocean containers that have been piling up over here would be filled to capacity hauling assets off as fast as possible. All of those IOUs would come home to roost at the same time. Of course we could default or slap on export taxes of 1,000% or some sort of currency controls for repatriated USD. They could even call all of those USD overseas illicit drug money and seize all of it! But that might lead to a war or several wars. Wars have been fought over issues far less trifling than that. No one likes to get stiffed on an IOU. Especially the largest pile of IOUs in the history of the world.

Assuming that we did the right thing and honored our debts. What would the US look like after the smoke cleared? What few factories remained would be largely owned by foreign interests. With much of the means of production carted off we would have a hard time exporting more than we consumed. Anything imported would be terribly expensive priced in USD. A trip to Wal-Mart would be like going to Neiman Marcus. Since we no longer grow enough food to feed ourselves our imported food would be very expensive. If the welfare state continued the dollar would devalue even more and finally collapse. Everyone would have to accept a much lower standard of living as we worked in factories owned by foreigners. As our dollar finally devalued to a fraction of its former glory the US would become a cheap labor country. Factories would move back to the US for the same reason many moved to Mexico in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Slowly we would rebuild and in a few generations we could be a first world country again.

So what can you do now? Where can you run? When the War Between the States began and the first Battle of Bull Run was fought, Southern General P.T.G. Beauregard set up his headquarters in the home of Mr. Wilmer McLean. Mr. McLean was too old to fight in the Southern army and sought to move his family to safety. He glanced at the map and picked a nice safe place 120 miles further south - in Appomattox. You see the war started in his front yard and ended in his parlor as General Lee surrendered the Army of Virginia to General Grant several years later. The first and last great battles of that war both found Mr. McLean. Sometimes you can run from danger but in the wrong direction.

Take some time and carefully think things through for yourself. Make sure you are not jumping out of the fire and into the frying pan. A storm could be coming our way. Build a good storm shelter just in case. Years too early are better than seconds too late.

By Joan Hough: contributing member of the Confederate Society.


       Something, of great significance that most Confederate descendants do not know is that the U.S. government, in its war of Northern Aggression against the South, employed the use of a type of brain-wash now called propaganda.  Created by highly talented folks, the propaganda was aimed to develop in ordinary northerners the Radical-Marxist-Republicans own extreme vindictiveness toward the South.  “Because the stakes were so high for these Republicans in control of the U.S. government, they continued to preach the absolute destruction of the South, relying upon a secret weapon to attune Northern public opinion eventually to their own fine pitch of unrelieved hatred.  That weapon was wartime propaganda.”[i] For a Southerner to read any of it today takes a very strong stomach.

         Frank Conner, in his The South Under Siege- 1830 to 2000 does mention a tiny portion of the north’s propaganda involving the claim that Confederate soldiers, after chopping them off, kicked around like footballs, the heads of Yankee soldiers.[ii]

 It is easy to imagine the effect of such words on naïve Yankee mothers.

       Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and the Assistant Secretary of War Charles Dana certainly rolled out plenty of virulent propaganda describing Confederate atrocities that never existed, and the Loyal League and the Loyal Publication League with chapters all over the north, at the encouragement of the northern capitalists who understood exactly what the Marxist Radicals wanted to accomplish, aided the cause by promulgating their own versions of inventively lurid, horrifying atrocities their imaginations created and saw committed by Confederates; they even disseminated cartoons depicting hideously depraved acts of decadent Confederates.

       Southerners were portrayed with a lack of character making them an inferior people.  The ownership of slaves brutalized and degraded all white Southerners; the slaveholder was a brooding, obnoxious degenerate, who harbored in his soul a barbaric hatred of his slaves and of all right-thinking Northerners.[iii]  He was committed to sexually abusing his captive female slaves.

       Nowhere was it ever mentioned that Yankee Radical Republican Ulysses Grant owned slaves or that in the New England States most households had once held slaves until Washington D.C. had been paid for their release, or that most of the rich families in the New England states had made their fortunes in the slave trade, or that all the ships bringing slaves to America were northern ones flying the U.S. flag, or that the Confederate Constitution forbad the importation of even one new slave while the U.S. Constitution never did, nor that all nations in the world, eventually, freed their slaves without shedding one ounce of blood.

        Many Americans on both sides of the Mason Dixon line declared that the Constitution could have been amended to free the slaves so they were “bought free” by government, as they had been in the north and there would have been no danger to the Union. But this would not have given the Republicans the all-powerful central government so craved by the 1848 Marxist Republicans.

       “Senator Charles Sumner had declared at the out-set of the war that the people of the North were in conflict with a people lower in the scale of civilization than themselves.  And Horace Greeley had said in the New York Tribune that the Confederates would not fight fair because they were “a people to whose natural ugliness of disposition is added the ferocity of exasperated wild beasts.” [iv]

       After reading that Karl Marx, as a foreign correspondent ten years for a New York Tribune wrote 362 articles which were circulated to over 200,000 readers,[v] it should become quite clear why every one of the “ten commandments in the Communist “bible” are now ingrained in American laws. (The Commie “bible” is The Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Friedrich Engels, who also wrote for the New York Tribune.) Two of Communist commandments are amendments to the U.S. Constitution, establishing Income tax and a Central Bank. The goals of Communism are also supported by at least one other amendment, which removes the U.S. Senators from the control of their individual states—and, totally blows away the states’ rights guarantee of the original Constitution. (An all powerful central government is absolutely required for the flourishing of Communism.)

        Marx’s job with the Tribune was the only real, regular--steady job the man ever had.[vi] He was a friend of Charles Dana who was the Tribune’s Managing Editor. Dana arranged for Marx and Engels to be hired by big time Socialist Horace Greeley. Greeley used many of the Marx’s articles for editorials without crediting Marx as the author.[vii] Some readers might question if some of the anti-South verbiage accredited to Greeley is not his, but that of a proud Communist who even today is acclaimed as a world-renowned philosopher and economist.

       Propaganda issued both by the U.S. government and by Marxist-Radical groups laid the foundation and furnished the pattern for all of the anti-Confederate ravings receiving wide circulation today.  With this in mind, what follows here is an attempt to counter some of the highly propagandized Marxist lies and the resulting misconceptions of modern Americans concerning the South’s true history.  Please know no fabulously rich foundations have underwritten this article to further the goals of the New World Order—or to help establish the verity of their already bought historians, educators, and publicists.




       Most mixed race children existing in America today resulted from decadent White Southern Planters’ seeds, or so is the educated conclusion of Professor Anya Jabour, which she reports in her book Topsy Turvy.

       Jabour in her supposedly “well balanced” and “wonderful social history,” reveals her anti-South, cultural bigotry and proves herself a captive of the Lincoln-Republican Radicals‘ myths by declaring: “most mixed-race children in the slaveholding South were the result of slaveholding men’s sexual relationships with slave women.”[viii]

       Oh really?  Most? It is an ignoble reality that Yankee soldiers, during their supposed great war to free slaves, planted vast amounts of their white seeds in black women and girls. But don’t expect Jabour to mention this in her text, which is supposed to be THE definitive history text on Confederate women, children and the “Uncivil War.” It seems not all lauded historians have learned of the Orders of the Rebellion collection of communications and orders[ix]issued mostly by the Union forces—but including some captured from the Confederates.

       With writings such as Jabour’s, there should be no wonder as to why Americans believe lies about the Confederacy and why black people, students, and University academicians are so easily convinced they should hate the Confederate flag.

       What so many Americans have not been allowed to learn is that when the Union’s men returned north, they left behind them so much white DNA that mulatto children resulted in great numbers. (Check the increase in the next after the War census and remember that the Planters were almost all on the Battlefields[x] while Sherman and his “boys” were free to do whatever they had the urge to do on the Southern home front.)

       Preying on the helpless was such fun! “Rather than bloodshed, and pain and terror, each day brought fascinating new scenes to Sherman’s eager young troops, and most of them wished that the lark would have no end.”[xi] In various Sherman’s camps throughout his marching days there were some mighty happy times.

       David Conyngham, of that army noted, “at night the camps roared with laughter and the songs of revivals and music halls. Negroes danced and sang, juggled, played banjos and fiddles and homemade drums, rattled bones and entertained troops in African tongues.  Soldiers and black girls made love all about the camps. The most attractive young women rode by day in baggage wagons, where they led ‘luxurious lives’ dressed in finery stolen from plantation homes and fed at the servants’ mess.”

       Conyngham went on to remark that it would have been vexatious to the Grand Turk or Brigham Young if they could only see how many of the dark houris[xii] were escorted about by the military.

        If Mr. Lincoln’s men failed to find willing black women, they forced their sexual will on unwilling black ones—as did Beast Butler’s Corporal William M. Chinock when he raped African American Mary Ellen De Riley. Chinock’s punishment meted out by Butler was a reduction in rank and a forty dollar fine[xiii] easily paid from all the money stolen in Louisiana by Butler and his soldiers.  (One could expect a rapist to take advantage of the “freedom to steal” attitude of his commanding officer.)

       Numbers of U.S. officers have denied that rapes occurred during the so-called “Civil” War, however, “Federal court-martial records document more than 350 trials for rape alone, not including those rape cases that may have been buried under assault or other

charges.” [xiv] It is most probable that the given number merely represents but a small portion of that rape on Southern women iceberg amount rising above the Yankee’s Sea of Liars’ Tranquility.  Looking just a wee bit below the water’s surface one soon remembers that truth can be expected to be hidden by politically correct historians if it makes the victors look bad.

       We may never know the true extent of raping by the “noble” soldiers in the United States. army.  Thomas J. DiLorenzo explains, “Although it is oddly missing from most histories of Sherman’s march, many eyewitness accounts of rape by Union soldiers have been recorded.  In the University of South Carolina library in Columbia, South Carolina here are hundreds of personal accounts in letters and diaries of South Carolinians who wrote of their own rape experiences with Mr. Lincoln’s and Mr. Sherman’s soldiers.[xv]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Many accounts emphasize that black women  suffered the most and that many black men, in response, became just as bitterly opposed to the Federal army as any secessionist was.”[xvi] [The accounts in the South Carolina library were probably written by white female Southerners as personal revelations of their own rapes.  Black women in that period were not prone to do much, if any, writing.]


       ”One of the worst atrocities of rape and rapture affecting young black Southern females was committed in May 1862 by a brigade in the Army of the Ohio, under the command of Colonel John B. Turchin.  Because black girls suffered rapes in the Athens, Alabama area, Colonel Turchin was tried by the army and convicted of being guilty of encouraging criminal behavior in those soldiers under his command. His court martial punishment was loss of his Colonel’s eagles and banishment from the U.S. army. . . But enter Mrs. Turchin and Abe Lincoln on the scene.  In lieu of punishment, Turchin “was promoted to Brigadier General and placed at the head of a new command.” [xvii]

     The Chicago Tribune applauded this action, as did a future Republican, U.S. president, Brig. Gen. James A. Garfield, an officer involved in Turchin’s trial [Garfield changed his tune from negative to positive,                                                                          after the President entered the picture]. [xviii] (Garfield later became a U.S. Republican President.)

       The home of Charlotte Hine in Athens, Alabama was robbed of food and valuables and then a blue-clad gang invaded the slaves’ quarters and raped a young girl.[xix]

       On the plantation of John Malone, Union troops hit the slaves’ quarters and raped.  When one black woman went to the soldiers’ commanding officer to file complaints and charge the U.S. soldiers with the committing the crime of rape, the commanding officer said, “I would not arrest one of my men on Negro testimony.” [xx]

In Columbia, a black woman servant of minister Peter Shand was raped by seven soldiers of the U.S. Army.  They then forced her face down in muddy water in a ditch and drowned the poor helpless woman.[xxi]


       “Rape and Rapture” involving Southern women of any color became normal expectations of Mr. Sherman’s invaders. [xxii] Sherman, as expected, regularly denied any acts of rape were committed by his army of “boys”--even by any of those boys imported from the jails of Germany.

        “Sherman’s biographer Lee Kennett denies the presence of criminals in his hero Sherman’s army, although Kenneth does admit, “some officers believed that such things were done by a small, incorrigibly criminal element in the ranks, a notion that has long been popular among the military.”  Several regimental and brigade commanders laid all the troubles in their units to these ‘rotten apples.’   

        Kenneth, certainly never present on the scene, comes to the soldiers’ defense and scoffs at the Commanders’ conclusions by writing “Deservedly or not, whole units got the reputation of ruffians and pillagers. In Sherman’s army, for example, ‘the New York regiments were said to be filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World.” Kenneth then declares this not true, that the army was actually filled with religious, mid-western young men –--“DECENT” AND “GOD FEARING”[xxiii]--too fine to perform any really bad acts– and that Southerners were just as bad in their activities as were these fine young men.[xxiv]

       From Kennett, himself we learn, however, that over half a million foreigners were brought in to fight for the U.S.  Kenneth must think that not a one of those imported                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             foreigners was in Sherman’s fine army of good, “God-fearing” boys. [xxv]

       If Sherman’s boys were “God-fearing” in that day and time—then, since the mid-west was not filled with large numbers of Jewish-Americans and no significant number of Chinese and no Muslims, one must assume the” God-fearing Americans” had to be “Christians.”  Oddly that word is not employed by Kenneth.

       Southerners, themselves, on the scene were known to declare that most of Sherman’s soldiers showed no signs of any religion.

       Statements countering the conclusions drawn by Kennett, are those of a Dr.Clyde N. Wilson, who is a Retired Professor Emeritus of History at the University of South Carolina.  His work is highly respected by Southern Truth Seekers.  Wilson wrote: “It is true that Sherman’s force contained many good Midwestern Americans who were doing what they believed was right. It also had larger contingents of mercenaries, criminals, and foreigners than any American army before or since.  Why would such good Americans want to destroy the statue of Washington at the South Carolina capitol and burn up William Gilmore Simm’s library with its hundreds of irreplaceable manuscripts of Washington, Nathaniel Greene, Francis Marion, and other Revolutionary heroes?”

       “Or destroy churches and schools and convents?  Put pistols to the heads of women and black servants to frighten them into disclosing the whereabouts of the valuables?  Open fresh graves (of which there were a great many in the South as possible hiding places for silver and jewelry.  Or like the foreign-born, syphilitic Union general Kilpatrick, force women to dance to gay tunes with his men while their homes and their town were being forever wiped on the map by fire. Or tear up little girls’ dolls and nail the family pet to a door?  One Georgia lady was visited by several wives of Union officers who choosily selected and divided up her possessions.  When she protested she was called a spy and sent without ceremony to a brutal prison in Tennessee.[xxvi] 

       It is mind boggling-- the vigor of Kennett’s attempts to cleanse the filth-covered reputation of his hero Sherman’s army. Kennett actually denies that Sherman’s troops burned vast numbers of rural homes or homes in towns. Kennett contends that only a minority of the houses in the country or in town burned because of being fired by the Northerners — and those houses “were usually vacant ones ”  so if fires spread from them to others nearby —this was not intended. (Oh, how often did occur such “accidents” accidentally--when flammable liquids were accidently applied, and accidently, embers were dropped and torches, accidently touched wood or curtains or bedcovers or books!)

        Kennett stands corrected by the entire population of women, children, old folks, handicapped and sick folks who were all forced out of their homes in Columbia, South Carolina, Jackson, Meridian and on little farms all along Sherman’s route from Vicksburg to the Atlantic.

       Kennett thinks nothing is wrong about Sherman’s declaration that if Southerners burn bridges, he had the right to burn all the houses near them.[xxvii]  This deliberate kind of house conflagration does not really count as house burning, evidently.

         After studying Kennett’s chapter entitled “The Vandals,” a reader is led to conclude that only the most wicked of Southerners had their homes burned –  i.e. Southerners of accomplishment and prestige and that such destruction of the property of those villainous committers of treason was more than justified.

       In the Kennett index, the word “rape” leads the reader to two pages of denials of rape and declarations about how safe Southern women felt that their jewelry would not be touched, etc., etc.  He expressed his doubt about the veracity of any one reporting cases of rape, and his scorn for any “outrages” reported by Southern women—inferring that all such “outrages” were exaggerated bits of nothing.[xxviii]   Undoubtedly this is because Kennett is convinced, and so declares, that the fine young Midwestern men in Sherman’s army were simply too religious to commit such a crime.[xxix]

 Kennett seems totally unaware as to the very large number of non-Midwesterners in Sherman’s great, fun-filled bunch of soldiers—and that many of them were straight out of Germany and many straight out of German jails.  [Kennett is a great one to quote if one wishes to continue spreading the Myths of Sherman’s greatness and Lincoln’s benevolent compassion.]

       There is plenty of proof that outrages, despite Kennett ’s assertions, did exist.  In fact in a single incident more than a dozen-- all at one time, all in one place, helpless, young, black female slaves gave rapture to a band of “noble “ Union soldiers who fought to “free the slaves” in South Carolina.  Those nubile young black women, actually eighteen of them, were discovered in one hideously ugly pile of bayonetted bodies.  It might be suspected that their poor bodies were without clothing.  

       Strange, is it not, that this tragedy is not one ever mentioned by certain organizations noted for inculcating hatred in blacks for Southern whites. But these same organized groups of people also blithely move through life avoiding any mention of the truth that the U.S. flag was more the flag of slavery than the Confederate battle flag ever was.

        Unfortunately Southern planters, haven’t gone to fight on the battlefields were nowhere on the home scene –and that is precisely why those girls were raped and murdered by white US soldiers wielding U.S. government-issued bayonets.[xxx]  

        Sherman’s “boys” no doubt made lots of girls howl!  The “eighteen who experienced gang rape and rapture ending in murder” debacle is just one example of the many gang rapes made by Lincoln’s regiments on scores of slave women.[xxxi]  If there is no formal record of this particular happening, or not much record, it is because the eighteen, butchered women were unable to file any complaints with the U.S. Army. Of other such happenings, a lack of records occurred because so many of the ones left living were too broken emotionally, too humiliated, or too wise to the ways of the U.S. military to cross swords, so to speak, with the  white Union officers.

       It, of course, is unknown as to whether the rapture was made possible for the brave northerners before or after the deaths of the eighteen young women.

       Evidently in the spirit of emancipation, and with great kindness, the noble, humanitarian Union soldiers freed those young women from the evil sexual advances of Southern plantation owners.  Those good Yankees arranged for the freed girls to proceed straight to Heaven.  It would be grossly unfair to accuse those particular white Yankees of siring any mixed-race children—at least not with the any of those bayonetted eighteen black girls as mothers.  The probability of mulatto babies was evaded, then and there—but had any resulted, politically correct historians would have blamed their presence on Southern planters—maybe even Southern planters named Jeff Davis or Robert E Lee, or Jeb Stuart or P.G.T. Beauregard or Wade Hampton. Neither Sherman, nor Lincoln, or Grant or any Marxist in the Republican party was fit to tie the shoelaces of any for any planter who was a real Southerner and not some “northerner come South to buy a plantation and melt slaves in oil.” 

        The mass murder of the eighteen helpless black women was recorded in the diary of Mary Chesnut. The bodies were found on the Sumter District plantation of her niece and nephew, Minnie and James Frierson.[xxxii]  

       In the home of Charlotte Hine, on the outskirts of Athens, Alabama, the slaves’ quarters were invaded by a blue-clad gang who gang-raped a black girl.

 “At the plantation of John Malone, outside of town, troops went to the slaves’ quarters and there, too, committed rape.”

        Several soldiers came to the house of Mrs. Charlotte line and committed rape on the person of a colored girl and then entered the house and plundered it of all the sugar…”

       One black woman dared charge a soldier with the crime of rape, his commanding officer tried to hush it up, commenting, ‘I would not arrest one of my men on Negro testimony.’” [xxxiii]

       Of course rapes were committed and regularly by U.S. soldiers under the command of Generals other than Sherman.

        There are over 300 statements acknowledging incidents of rape made by Mr. Lincoln’s own officers, found in the U.S. Army’s official military Orders of the Rebellion (O.R.) records now available in Cornell University’s digital library online.[xxxiv]

       It is unfortunate for truth’s sake that so many modern historians have failed to avail themselves of the O.R. records.  What records of atrocities, when atrocities are actually reported, can be more reliable that the U.S. government’s own military’s source of information?  Is it true, as some serious scholars are now claiming -- that the telling of truths concerning the “Civil” War and other involvements of the U.S. government is prohibited by the various foundations concentrating on the history-education of American voters to be.

       American private foundations are said to have paid and to be continuing to pay large sums of money in the form of scholarships, grants, or honors.  This money goes to historians, would be historians, educators and other opinion shapers.  The foundations virtually train the grant recipients, the students and the honorees, so that rather than hamper the movement of the U.S. into global government, they will act as best man or maid of honor at the United States’ marriage with Russia in the glorious days ahead for the U.S. when it is absorbed into the glorious union of THE NEW WORLD ORDER.  And, perhaps, as important, they will bitterly attack all persons expressing ideas counter to those of the foundations.                                                                                                                          

       There are some important reasons why the foundations do not wish the truth about the “Civil” War to be told.  Probably the most outstanding one involves the ideology of and composition of the forces that planned the invasion of the South.  This force labeled Southerners as traitors because of the South’s legal secession. The War of Northern Aggression created by this force was a successful continuation of their Revolution that failed miserably in Europe.

  This force grew wealthy by looting Southerners of their rich land, and the gold in Southern banks, and of every precious gem or precious piece of art and everything of value held in Southern homes. This enemy of the South altered the entire make-up of the U.S. government by shutting the mouths of the wise men of the South.

        This force’s control of the U.S. government has never faltered.  What is today is what was planned when the glory that was the Confederate States of America was dimmed by the concerted efforts of aggressors who imposed on the South the horror of cultural genocide and a Yankee-made Holocaust that makes the European one look like Bob and Nancy’s 1930s experience in First Grade.

       Colonel John B. Turchin’s court martial report contains the notes that a part of his brigade debauched the females in the Negro huts for weeks. [xxxv]

       “Debauching of the negroes” was reported by the north’s officers as occurring in numerous places the northerners invaded –such as In northern Missouri. Official US military information was sent the Secretary of War concerning military forces “committing rapes on negroes in Northern Missouri as well as in Athens, Alabama where “an indecent outrage” was committed on a servant girl and part of a brigade “quarter[ed] in the negro huts FOR WEEKS, debauching the females.[xxxvi]

       “Negro women are debauched” was, also, an item in the official report of Third Ohio Cavalry activities in Woodville, Alabama.[xxxvii] 

       Black girls and women in Memphis, Tennessee were not neglected by Yankee troops.  The military report originating in Memphis read:  “The [white] cavalry broke en masse in the camps of the colored women and are committing all sorts of outrage.”[xxxviii]

       General Rufus A. Saxton informed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton on December 30, 1864: Saxton described the attitude of the Yankee soldiers:  “I found the prejudice of color and race here in full force, and the general feeling of the army of occupation was unfriendly to the blacks. It was manifested in various forms of personal insult and abuse, in depredations on their plantations, stealing and destroying their crops and domestic animals, and robbing them of their money. . . . The women were held as the legitimate prey of lus. .” [xxxix]   [Emphasis added.]

       In Bayou Grande Cailou, Louisiana the Sixteenth Indiana Mounted Infantry made its presence known to the civilian population there. Later Mr. Pelton reported to their commanding officer that a soldier had shot a little mulatto girl and killed her and had also fired at a Negro man.  The commanding officer went to see if this had actually occurred.  He found a mulatto girl, twelve or thirteen years of age, lying dead in a field.  A Negro man on the place told the officer that a drunken soldier had killed her and he had seen the killing with his own eyes.

       “On November 20, Gen. Robert A. Cameron reported, “I heard by rumor . . . one of [Capt. Columbus Moore’s] men had attempted to rape a mulatto girl and had shot and killed her for resisting.” [xl]

       Who could stop the rapes while Southern men were away fighting battles against Union men?       There were no men with guns to protect Southern females of any color.

        Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan, Butler and other Union Generals deliberately made their war on the unprotected women—even the pregnant ones and even the ones with babies at their breasts. The Yankees warred on infants, children, old folks, sick folks and handicapped ones. Why would they care about the safety of women who happened to be black?

       Sherman admitted his war was against all white Southerners:  ”We are not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hated hand of war, as well as their organized armies.”

           For the “persistent secessionist” Sherman stated, "To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or SHE is disposed of the better. [xli]

On June 21, 1864, the general wrote, “There is a class of people {Southerners] men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order.”

          With extermination, not of soldiers alone, but of women and children as Sherman’s announced plan,[xlii] so what United States official, drunk with power and blood lust, really cared about a bit of black or white rape here and there? The Union’s Bible quoting President or his US Congress, wherein Republican Marxists held the power, uttered not a word of restraint.

 There is yet to be discovered any anti-rape utterances made by General William Tecumseh Sherman and his good drinking buddy, General Grant and an entire bevy of the identified as Mr. Lincoln’s openly Communist-Marxist high ranking army officers [xliii] and others in his administration.

        Lincoln’s infamous Spy Chief Allan Pinkerton, the most famous of the Communist “Charterists,” a radical group of Socialists pursued by British agents.[xliv]  Mr.Pinkerton, one of the sponsors of John Brown and his murderous group was someone not likely to file a single complaint against the Republicans’ rapist murderers.)

     The atrocities committed against black  Southern women by the men under the control of General Tecumseh Sherman was such that if White Southern women would not have been surprised to  learn that like  Donatien Alphonse Francois, the Marquis de Sade, Sherman made lamp shades  from the skins of Southern babies. Sherman certainly, undeniably enjoyed killing Southern babies as much as his “boys seem to enjoy bashing the brains out of tiny pet dogs before the watching eyes of the children who owned the little pups.[xlv]  

       The official records of the United States military reveal that In Woodville, Alabama the Third Ohio Cavalry [full of fine young German recruits] in August of 1862 indulged in the debauching of Negro women.[xlvi]

Rape and Rapture involving Southern women became normal expectations of the invaders. Evidence of this is found in the University of South Carolina library, which contains hundreds of personal accounts of rape at the hands of Sherman’s army.[xlvii]

Black women were raped in the presence of white women and children.[xlviii] No one knows how many babies resulted, but as Mr. Sherman’s white rapist-soldiers were reported to be young men, one might suspect them able to father children.

       White Union soldiers were not loath to engage in gang rape of black slave women.[xlix] Black women in Georgia were taken by Union soldiers and “violated without mercy.” [l]

        “Poor Negroes were terribly victimized by their brutal assailants, many of them...left in a condition little short of death. Regiments, in successive relays subjected scores of these poor women to the torture of their embraces.”[li]

        Jabour in her Topsy Turvy insists that the members of Mr. Lincoln’s army fought Southerners in order to free the black slaves—does she mean free only male slaves? If so, even the actions of the Yankees against black male slaves in numerous places in the South would put the lie to that.  Unfortunately time does not permit an in-depth consideration of that aspect of the “Not a Civil War.”

       William Gilmore Simms, one of America’s foremost men of letters and a renowned historian wrote: “We have been told of successful outrages of this unmentionable character being practiced upon women dwelling in the suburbs. Many are understood to have taken place in remote country settlements, and two cases are described where young negresses were brutally forced by the wretches and afterwards murdered—one of them being thrust, when half dead, head down, into a mud puddle, and there held until she was suffocated.”

 “The poor Negroes were terribly victimized by their brutal assailants, many of them, besides the instance mentioned, being left in a condition little short of death. Regiments, in successive relays, subjected scores of these poor women to the torture of their embraces, and—but we dare not farther pursue the subject­­ —There are some horrors which the historian dare not pursue –which the painter dare not delineate.  They both drop the curtain over crimes which humanity bleeds to contemplate.” ­” [lii]

       In the Athens, Alabama, home of Milly Ann Clayton, soldiers attempted to rape a servant girl but were halted in the process.      At the home of Charlotte Hine, “a blue-clad gang invaded the slaves’ quarters and raped a black girl.” [liii]

       Troops committed rape in the slaves’ quarters at John Malone’s plantation. When one black woman tried to charge a white northern soldier with the crime, his commanding officer (under Colonel’s Turchin’s command) said, “I would not arrest one of my men on negro testimony.” [liv]

       Did the fact that Sherman had several regiments filled with new to America young Germans, many straight out of European jails, [lv] have anything to do with their acts of rape, robbery, theft, torture, assault, insult, and wanton property destruction? Did Sherman wink, as has been reported, when he told them to cease plundering and burning? Why was he able to control them in places in North Carolina, but claimed to be unable to do so elsewhere? Why did he deny any occurrences of rape?

       Perhaps murder, rather than rape of female civilians was more greatly desired by the great General Sherman. When told that the great number of corpses lying in the streets of Atlanta were those of women and young children, Sherman declared such “a beautiful sight.” Sherman’s words were reported by O.E. Poe, one of Sherman’s own United States officers.[lvi]

       Sherman’s contention that Southern women and children should be killed has been documented and written about so many times it should be unnecessary to be repeated again in this document.  To give credit where credit is due, however, it must be reported there is no record of General Sherman declaring that his men should seek rapture through rape of either black or of white women.

        Sherman did finally admit, however, “No doubt many acts of pillage, robbery, and violence were committed by these [his] bummers, for I have since heard of jewelry taken from women, and the plunder of articles that never reached the commissary; but these acts were exceptional and incidental.  I never heard of any cases of rape…” [lvii]

       In northern Missouri, “United States military forces “committing rapes on the negroes” was reported by letter on August 13, 1861 to Secretary of War Simon Cameron.[lviii]

       Union Brigadier General William Dwight, Jr. confessed the crimes of his men in the state of Louisiana. He reported, “Negro women were ravished in the presence of white women and children. [lix]

       In Nashville, Tennessee, sexual abuse of black women by Yankee soldiers was “common.” [lx]

In Clinton, Georgia, once Sherman’s boys departed, the Macon telegraph reported, “Atrocities most heinous were committed, female servants [were] taken and violated without mercy.[lxi]

       During the Federal occupation of Columbia, South Carolina saw scenes enacted before the eyes of Sophie Sosnowski, headmistress of a girls school that appalled her.  She recalled, “The scenes enacted at that dwelling in connection with the Negro servants are not fit for female pen to dwell upon….At last the [black men] themselves became thoroughly disgusted and …vowed vengeance for the base treatment their women had been subjected to.” [lxii]

          Rapes did occur and they were numerous despite the assertions of Sherman as stated by Michael Fellman:  “Sherman and all of the soldiers who discussed this issue agreed that almost no white women were raped. “[lxiii] [Oddly, Fellman failed to add “or black women.”]

        Fellman reports: “ Colonel Oscar Jackson, for one, in the midst of entering into his diary his encyclopedia of the fire and pillage wrought by his men, while acknowledging that his soldiers exploited prostitutes, insisted that ‘the persons of women, it is my belief, have very seldom been violated, and I have been in a position to know.”

        Fellman declares “Sherman himself, indulgent in concern to most forms of destruction, believed that his men had observed these limits toward women.  Jackson also added in his diary, I here record my opinion that few of our soldiers had connection with blacks, very few. . .”

       Fellman then states that “This statement [of Jackson’s] seems to be less concerned with rape than with voluntary sexual self-soiling by white soldiers with black women, which he would have abhorred more on racist principles rather than on grounds of humanity.”[lxiv]   

       Soldiers commanded by U.S. Generals besides Sherman performed rapes.  For example in New Orleans Cpl. William M. Chinock  a U.S. soldier raped Mary Ellen De Rilley,  an African American woman thought to have been a  person in a  black family which had been freed many long years before the war.  Chinock raped the wrong girl when he raped this Louisiana De Rilley.  She persisted until she saw him charged, tried, and found guilty of committing the crime.  The great white father, General Beast Butler, evidently did not feel that the happening was worth more than a reduction in rank for the attacker and a fine of forty bucks which, most likely, was easily paid by the culprit from some of the enormous amounts of money U.S. soldiers and their General had stolen from Louisianans. [lxv]

       Due to the release to the public of the official records of the US Army in the War of the Rebellion, the denials by government officials and army generals that rapes did not occur are now seen as the absolute falsehoods they are.  

       Of course, it cannot be denied that, in addition to rape, there were innumerable cases of cooperative sexual activities of Southern slave women and Yankee white soldiers who, quite obviously, were not interested in avoiding Yankee Colonel’s Jackson’s idea of “self-soiling.”  No doubt there were impregnations accompanying the interracial togetherness.

       Whether black women were willing or unwilling, the natural results of sexual rapture is such that it can honestly be said that without morning-after pills, diaphragms, birth control pills, or condoms, Yankee soldier rapists, undoubtedly, sired large numbers of mixed race babies.

       The denials that rapes occurred and in large numbers made by high ranking officers, including Generals such as Sherman should not cause any person with even “walking around sense” to believe that those men told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.   Their lies were founded on two legs—one, to cover themselves and their men and two, as an extent of their belief that they were above all laws of God and man.  If they believed in God, then they had a conscience-problem which they chose to deny.  They believed that lying, like killing, was justifiable when dealing with the enemy and the enemy’s women and children. This is very similar to the code of an old world religion now here in America—that lying is honorable so long as it supports that so-called religion.

  Sherman certainly justified his horrendous behavior and that of his “boys.”  By declaring those who commit treason deserve such.

       Southerners said then and now say:  “But there will come the day when the truth will destroy the lies--then it will be absolutely clear that it was Sherman and Lincoln and their colleagues who committed the treason.  Only the South supported the U.S. Constitution.  Deo Vindice!”

       As for the rapes done but denied by the Yankees, it has been admitted by some of the wisest of men, that too often mankind is plagued with a case of “penis erectus non compos mentis.”

       To the reader who contends that what happened so long ago has little significance in today’s world, an article published May 16, 2013 in the Houston Chronicle may bring home the truth that times change but people never do—meaning that there are ever evil actions committed by some human beings, even by armies of them. 

       The Chronicle presented an associated press article in which it is reported that there were in the year 2012 there were 26,000 reported sexual assault cases in the U.S. military.  Following on the heels of the insistence by some women that women be sent to fight the enemies –in the trenches, so to speak, side by side, shoulder to shoulder with the men of the military, the problem of ”female battlefield egalitarianism” appears more than simply problematic. Some of the abuse cases even involved high-ranking military officers—ironically, one assigned to serve as a special protector of the rights of military females.

        An informal survey of Military wives and widows appears to reveal a prevalence of women who reject the idea of “battling skirts” fighting side by side with the husbands of other women.  They also are in favor of the rejection by their daughters of future military careers entailing a great many physical hardships and dangers including the possibility of rapes by the enemy without and the one within.

Recommended reading: 

[i]  Frank Conner, The South Under Siege 1830-200:  A History of the Relations Between the North and the South, (Newman, Georgia: Collards Publishing Company, 2002), pp.  173-175.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid, p. 172.

[iv]  Ibid.

[v]    James Ledbetter, editor, Karl marx:  Dispatches for the New York Tribune: Selected Journalism of Karl Marx (New York: Penmguin Books USA, 2007), p. xviii.

[vi]   James Ledbetter, editor, Karl Marx: Dispatches for the New York Tribune: Selected Journalism of Karl Marx (New York: Penquin Books USA , 2007 ) 

  p. xviii.

[vii]  Ibid. P. xx.

[viii]    Anya Jabour, Topsy-Turvy, How the Civil War Turned the World Upside Down for Southern Children (Chicago: Ivan R.,  December 2010), p. 15.


[ix]  U.S. War Department, comp., War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official records of the Union and Confederate Armies, . (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 188-=1901).

[x] Burke Davis, Sherman’s March  (Vintage Books, Edition May 1988,  New York:Random House, Inc, 1980).

[xi]   Ibid.  p. 44.

[xii]  Ibid. , p. 46.

[xiii]   Walter Brian Cisco, War Crimes Against Southern Civilians: Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company.  2007), pp. 67-68.


[xiv]  Mary Deborah Petite,” The Women Will Howl” (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.  2008), p. 65.


[xv] Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The  Real Lincoln (New Yor,k: Three Rivers Press, 2003), p. 188.

[xvi]  Ibid.

[xvii]  Cisco, pp. 60-62.

[xviii]   Cisco, p. 62: Roy Morris, Jr.,  “The Sack of Athens”: Civil War Times Illustrated 24, No. 1099 February 1986: p. 30.

[xix]       Cisco, pp. 60-61.

[xx]         Ibid, p. 61.

[xxi]           Ibid. 181.

[xxii]   Thomas  J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln  ( New York, New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003), p. 188.

[xxiii]    Lee Kennett, Marching through Georgia: The Story of Soldiers and Civilians during Sherman’s Campaign (New York: Harper, Collins, 1995), p. 278.

[xxiv]   Lee Kennett, pp.. 277-278.

[xxv]   Ibid. p. 44.

[xxvi]   Clyde N. Wilson, Defending Dixie: Essays in Southern History and Culture

( Columbia, SC: FAE, The Foundation for American Education, 2006), p. 80.


[xxvii]   Ibid. ,   pp.  274-275.

[xxviii]    Ibid.  pp  306-307.

[xxix]      IBID.  pp.  277-278

[xxx]   Cisco, p. 183.

[xxxi]    Ibid.  p. 181.

[xxxii]    Ibid.  , p. 183.

[xxxiii]    Cisco, pp. 60-61 and O.R. ser.1 vol. 16, pt. 2, 273-75: Stephen Chicoine, John Basil Turchin and the Fight to Free the Slaves (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2003), pp. 91-92, 99-100).


[xxxv]    James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy, The South Was Right  (Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing. 1998), p. 139 , O.R. vol. XiVI, pt. II, pp. 274-275.

[xxxvi]  Kennedy and Kennedy, p. 139: O.R. vol. SVI, pt11, pp 274-275.

[xxxvii]  Ibid. ,  O.R., vol. XVI, pt.  II, p. 319.

[xxxviii]  Kennedy and Kennedy, p. 140 : O.R., vol. XXXII, pt. III, p. 286.

[xxxix]  Ibid. , O.R., Ser. III, vol. IV, p. 1029.

[xl]    Kennedy and Kennedy, p. 140: O.R., vol. XLI, pt,I,, p. 928.

[xli]    (OR 64.1:799 and 32.2:281).

[xlii]  DiLorenzo, Ibid., p. 182.  John Bennett Walter in Merchant of Terror: General  Sherman and Total Wars, ( New York: Bobbs-Merrill., 1973.) p.  61.

[xliii]    Al Benson, Jr. and Walter Donald Kennedy, Lincoln’s Marxists

 (Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Co.  2011,) pp. 167-216.

[xliv] Benson and Kewnnedy, Ibid., pp. 163-165.

[xlv]  Cisco, p. 158.

[xlvi]   Kennedy and Kennedy, p. 139: O.R. vol. XCI, pt. II. p. 319.

[xlvii]   Thomas J. DiLorenzo, p. 188.

[xlviii]   Cisco, p. 91.

[xlix]   Ibid. , pp. 60-61.

[l]    Ibid. , p. 140.

[li]  David Aiken, ed., William Gilmore Simms, A City Laid Waste: The Capture, Sack, and Destruction of the City of Columbia (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2005),  p.90.

[lii]    Ibid.

[liii]   Cisco,  p. 60.

[liv]  Ibid., p. 61.

[lv]  DiLorenzo, p. 188.

[lvi]  Ibid.. ,  p. 186.

[lvii]   Burk Davis, Sherman’s March: The First Full-Length Narrative of General William T. Sherman’s Devastating March through Georgia and the Carolinas (New York: First Vintage Books Edition, May 1988), p. 43.

[lviii]   Kennedy and Kennedy, p. 139.

[lix]  O.R. ser. 1, vol. 15, 373.

[lx]   Cisco, p. 175.

[lxi] Cisco, p. 140.

[lxii]   Cisco,  p. 181, Sophie Sosnowski, “It Was a Terrible Night,” in Jones, Sherman, 174-75

[lxiii]   Michael Fellman, Citizen Sherman: A Life of William Tecumseh Sherman (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1995), p. 226.

[lxiv]  Ibid.

[lxv]    Cisco, pp 67-68.

By Al Benson Jr.
Recently a friend in Athens, Louisiana lent me a book with the same title as this article. It was written by three writers who worked for a newspaper, the Hartford Courant, in Hartford, Connecticut. I mention that lest anyone accuse me of quoting some “bigoted” Southern source.
From what I can tell the three authors of this book are all quite a bit more liberal than I am and so I am sure there is much we would not agree on. But whatever else they might be, the three authors were honest enough to admit that slavery in this country was never only a “Southern” problem as we have, for so long, been led to believe.
I grew up in New England, went to school in New England, and I have to admit, I never read any of the material they present in any of the so-called “history” books I came across, either in school or anywhere else. We were always taught that all the slaves lived “down South” and that the virtuous New Englanders, among others, had fought to end that evil institution down here.
These folks did a lot of research to put their material together, so the research material is available. It just gets ignored. It’s the identical situation Donnie Kennedy and I found when we wrote Lincoln’s Marxists. The vast majority of the material about socialist and Communist penetration of both the Union armies and the early Republican Party by those people is just never mentioned. It doesn’t fit the current agenda and so it just gets omitted. It’s the same situation with Complicity. The truth about slavery in the North just doesn’t fit the agenda and so it mostly gets left out.
But there is lots of commentary about Northern slavery out there and the three authors of Complicity came up with lots of it. In the introduction it is noted: “Before the Civil War the North grew rich beyond measure by agreeing to live, however uneasily at times, with slavery. Perhaps as a consequence of striking that bargain, Northerners have pushed much of their early history into the deepest shadows of repression.—In the eighteenth century, even after America won its freedom from Great Britain, even after the writing of the Declaration of Independence, tens of thousands of black people were living as slaves in the North. Earlier in that century, enslaved blacks made up nearly one-fifth of the population of New York City.”
And then there was this, which although I lived and worked in Rhode Island, I never heard: “In the century before Congress finally banned the importation of slaves, Rhode Island was America’s leader in the transatlantic trade, launching nearly 1000 voyages to Africa and carrying at least 100,000 captives back across the Atlantic. The captains and crews of these ships were often the veteran seamen of America: New Englanders.” More information that somehow doesn’t make the cut when it comes to our “history” books! The authors note that, in 1760, there were around 41,000 blacks enslaved in the Northern states, which included New England and all the other states down to Delaware.
The authors also observed: “Slaves in the North, like those in the South, served at the whim of their owners and could be sold or traded. They were housed in unheated attics and basements, in outbuildings and barns. They often slept on the floor, wrapped in coarse blankets. They lived under a harsh system of ‘black codes’ that controlled their movements, prohibited their education, and limited their social contacts.” It actually sounds like, in many instances, slaves in the South were better off than those in the North. And “black codes” in the North? All we are ever told about is black codes in the South. They are never mentioned in relation to the North. You can tell that the winners write the history books and don’t hesitate to make themselves look good. The authors made an interesting comment about a man named John Adams, described as “…one of the Founding Fathers who refused to own black people…he paid handsomely for his principles because captive labor (in New England) was widespread, very skilled, and cheap.”
On page 80, in relation to New York City, the authors tell us that “Slavery was the bedrock of the city’s developing economy” in the early 1700s. Census figures showed a population, at one point, of about 4,000 whites and 600 blacks and most of the blacks were slaves.
On pages 97-99 the authors deal in some detail with Newport, Rhode Island and inform us that it was dominant in the state’s first and longest period in the slave trade. The Newport slaves traders were mostly involved with the “upper” end of the trade. They owned or bankrolled the slave ships. And they observed that, in the days before the War for Independence the city of Newport was responsible for 70% of all American slave ships. Rev. Samuel Hopkins was one of the few theologians that even dared to preach against the slave trade. Hopkins indicted his own state when he said “The inhabitants of Rhode Island, especially those of Newport, have had by far the greater share of this traffic, of all these United States.”
Hopefully this brief article will give readers some idea of the large part the Northeaster part of the country played in the slave trade, and this went on, to some degree, literally up to the eve of the War of Northern Aggression.
I have seen articles over the years that totally blamed the South for the slave trade and some have even commented that Southerners invented this pernicious trade just so they could keep blacks under their heel. The book these three writers from Connecticut who are, as I said, much more liberal than I, have produced gives the lie to that baseless accusation. When it came to slavery the North was every bit as guilty as was the South, in some cases even moreso. But then the professional “South-haters” who practice cultural genocide on Southerners and their culture do not want to hear this and so they will probably do their best to ignore this factual book just as they have studiously avoided admitting to much of what Donnie Kennedy and I have written about in Lincoln’s Marxists. Complicity is available at I would encourage folks who are serious about the truth to pick it up and read it. You won’t agree with everything in it. I didn’t. But it is still worth the read.

From our friends at the Charleston Voice.

1898 Wilmington Race Riot The Origins of "Jim Crow" Laws“One of the strangest things about the career of Jim Crow was that the system was born in the North and reached an advanced age before moving South in force.” ~~ C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow

The "Jim Crow" system is erroneously blamed on the Southern States, as well as erroneously claimed to have begun in 1898. This excerpt is from "The Real Lincoln, A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Forum Books, 2002, pp. 25-28:

(In the early to mid-1800's) "The overwhelming majority of white Northerners cared little about the welfare of the slaves, and treated blacks who lived among them with contempt, ridicule, discrimination and sometimes violence. As Eugene Berwanger wrote in North of Slavery, as of 1860,

"In virtually every phase of existence (in the North), Negroes found themselves systematically seperated from whites. They were either excluded from railway cars, omnibuses, stagecoaches and steamboats, or assigned to special "Jim Crow" sections; they sat, when permitted, in secluded and remote corners of theatres and lecture halls; they could not enter most hotels, restaurants and resorts, except as servants; they prayed in "Negro pews" in the white churches, and if partaking of the sacrement of the Lord's Supper, they waited until the whites had been served the bread and wine. Morover, they were educated in segregated schools, punished in segregated prisons, nursed in segregated hospitals, and buried in segregated cemeteries....

In Democracy in America, Toqueville wrote that "the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the States that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those States where servitude has never been known." Toqueville found that in the North, if laws did not discriminate against blacks in virtually every area of their existence, "popular prejudices" did.

...Discriminatory laws were comon in virtually every Northern State as of 1860. In 1847 Ohioans prohibited the settlement of the 518 emancipated slaves of the Virginia statesman John Randolph. An Ohio congressman threatened that if any blacks tried to cross the border into Ohio, "the banks fo the Ohio River...would be lined with men with muskets on their shoulders to keep off the emancipated slaves."

The only Northern States where blacks were permitted to vote were Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine; and even there they were intimidated out of showing up at the polls. Only 6% of all the "free" blacks in the North lived in these States, however; 94% of all Northern blacks did not enjoy the right to vote as of 1860.

New Jersey and Connecticut actually amended their constitutions in the 1840's to prohibit black suffrage; no such distinctions were made in their original constitutions.

Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull explained that "there is a great aversion in the West---I know it to be so in my State---against having free Negroes come among us. Our people want nothing to do with the Negro."

"Negro Domination" In New York: 

The effect of the black "swing vote" was felt early in the nineteenth century in New York, and the Democrat Party (no relation to the 1898 North Carolina Conservatives) there took effective steps to ensure their victory in later elections. While the 1898 conflict's aftermath saw an adjustment in voting qualifications in North Carolina, we can see it was not the first such reaction to black voting habits in this country.

"In 1800 the vote of a single black-dominated ward had won control of New York City for the Federalists, and again in 1813 the votes of three hundred free blacks in New York City swept the Federalists into power, and gave them control of the State legislature. The Democrats took their revenge in 1821, when the new State constitution effectively disenfranchised almost every black voter in New York by requiring that they prove that they owned at least two hundred fifty dollars' worth of property, a restriction not imposed on whites. In 1821 the triumphant Democrats changed the New York State constitution to enfranchise all white males, while erecting barriers to black male voters, so that by 1825 fewer than three hundred blacks out of a total State population of almost thirty thousand, and only sixteen of New York City's more than twelve thousand blacks could actually vote."

(Bound For Canaan, Fergus M. Bordewich, HarperCollins, 2005, page 149.)

Reviewing The Origins:

(The term “Jim Crow” applied to Negroes is lost in obscurity. Thomas D. Rice wrote a song and dance called “Jim Crow” in 1832, and the term became an adjective by 1838. The first example of “Jim Crow law” listed by the Dictionary of American English is dated 1904.)
“Although the Northern and Midwestern States had sent their sons to shed blood to preserve the union and to end slavery, many of them had their own State laws that prohibited blacks from voting or severely qualified their right to do so.

These were not old laws that Northern legislatures had forgotten to repeal; on the same day that (Robert E.) Lee was sworn in as president of Washington College (in September, 1865), Connecticut voters cast their ballots to reject a measure that would have given the vote to the two thousand blacks living within their State. A month later, Michigan did the same thing.”

Nearly two years after (the) beginning of the Reconstruction Committee’s hearings, when Thaddeus Stevens was having his way and seven hundred thousand blacks were registered to vote throughout the South, twelve Northern and Midwestern States would still sharply limit or prohibit voting among their small black populations. 

The (congressional) subcommittee appointed to inquire into the loyalty and suitability for readmission into the union of Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, was headed by Republican Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan.  Although many of his fellow Radicals believed in black suffrage as a matter of principle, Howard, whose own State had just rejected a vote for the blacks, felt that the black vote in the South was desirable chiefly for the strength it would add to the Republican Party.” 

(Lee, The Last Years, Charles B. Flood, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981, pp. 117-118)

An Abolitionist’s Observations in 1878:
Be sure to read this considering that the date was 1878, and General Wade Hampton had become governor of South Carolina after federal troops were finally removed at the beginning of the Hayes Administration in Washington.

"Suspicions of the South’s intentions toward the freedmen after the withdrawal of federal troops were naturally rife in the North. In 1878, Colonel Thomas Wentworth Higginson went South to investigate for himself. The report of his findings, published in the Atlantic Monthly, is of particular interest in view of the Colonel’s background…(as) one of the most militant abolitionists.

In Virginia, South Carolina and Florida, the States he visited in 1878, he found “a condition of outward peace” and wondered immediately if there did not lurk beneath it “some covert plan for crushing and re-enslaving the colored race.” If so, he decided, it would “show itself in some personal ill usage of the blacks, in the withdrawal of privileges, in legislation endangering their rights.” But, he reported, “I can assert that carrying with me the eyes of a tolerably suspicious abolitionist, I saw none of these indications.” He had expected to be affronted by contemptuous or abusive treatment of Negroes. “During this trip,” however, he wrote, “I had absolutely no occasion for any such attitude.” Nor was this due to “any cringing demeanor on the part of the blacks, for they show much more manhood than they once did.”

He compared the tolerance and acceptance of the Negro in the South on trains and streetcars, at the polls, in the courts and legislatures, in the police force and militia, with attitudes in his native New England and decided that the South came off rather better in the comparison.

“How can we ask more of the States formerly in rebellion,” he demanded, “than that they should be abreast of New England in granting rights and privileges to the colored race?” Six years later (1884), in a review of the situation in the South, Higginson found no reason to change his estimate of 1878." 

(The Strange Career of Jim Crow, C. Vann Woodward, Oxford University Press, 1966, pp. 35-36)

Before discussing the advent of “Jim Crow” laws, which many erroneously ascribe to the American South, it is necessary to review the experience of black persons in the Northern States in antebellum times. As the Northern colonies pioneered the slave trade in North America, a perceptive observer has noted that the North in 1860 should be referred to as the slave-trading States; and the South the slave-holding States. The following is drawn from, a website worth visiting for more information on slavery north of Mason and Dixon’s line....

Prelude to Persecution 

By Patrick Wyett

Two thousand years ago Jesus was asked a question, which is very relevant to our world today: What will be the signs of your Second Coming and the end of the world?  What followed is known as the Olivet Discourse as chronicled in Mathew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. At that time and across the centuries it has been a stunning account of what is yet to come. Dear friends, those days and times foretold, are upon us now.

“And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you” (Matthew 24:4). 

But we have been and are being deceived. The deception’s been incremental taking place over many years. We've been desensitized to the ways of God and distracted by the offerings of the world.  Never forget that the mass media is a 24-hour a day, non-stop propaganda machine spewing the lies of Satan’s plans.  The ongoing process of secularizing our once Christian nation has become so accepted that many churches and entire denominations have bought into it. 

Noted Army Chaplain, Colonel Jim Ammerman, once told me that many people go to church on Sunday to hear a lost man preach.  Instead of the watchman’s cry, congregations are offered a soothing lullaby.  It’s interesting how the eyes can adjust to increasing darkness so that darkness becomes normal, even comfortable. Pardon me, but I’m about to turn on the light of truth.  For some, this could hurt your eyes.  That’s okay. Your eyes will adjust to the light─provided that you open them.

“And when ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars, be ye not troubled; for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.  For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be earthquakes in diverse places, and there shall be famines and troubles; these are the beginnings of sorrows” (Mark 13:7-8). 

The aforementioned propaganda aside, the content of these two verses dominate the actual news headlines today.  So what’s next in the prophetic timeline? 


“Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you; and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.  And then ye shall be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another” (Matthew 24:9-10). 

Jesus’ disciples suffered these things, as have Christians throughout history. Jesus tells us that we will too. In the Middle East, Africa and Asia, persecution happens to Christians every day.  As you read this, it’s happening somewhere right now. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Looking the other way doesn't keep it from coming; you simply don’t see it coming. But it can’t happen here… We’re America, we’re special! 

“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people” (Proverbs 14:34). 

Our nation’s sins are legion and grievous before God. Such is judged─not blessed and protected. Most Jews in Germany, even most ethnic Germans didn't see the horror that was coming to their nation. They didn't recognize the steps that the Nazis were taking or where those steps were leading. How the persecution of Christians in our nation is advancing is akin to assembling a puzzle.

Each piece, by itself, may appear indistinguishable and random.  Yet, put those pieces together and the image is revealed.   Here in the US there are two parts of the persecution puzzle: Population preparation and implementation. Let’s look first at population preparation.

Education: In 1962, the Supreme Court declared prayer to be illegal in the public education system by virtue of the non-existent but nevertheless manufactured idea of a “Separation of Church and State.”   Education has since degenerated into a godless indoctrination system where Christianity is openly mocked and denigrated while every form of evil is force-fed to young minds.  No mention of Jesus at High School graduations, no prayers to God at athletic events. Even pointing a finger to the sky after winning a relay race can get the team disqualified from further competition, as happened recently in Texas. 

Many colleges and universities have become Marxist led, Muslim friendly “useful idiot” factories.  By the way, Joseph Stalin coined that charming phrase.  The anti-Christian programming is reinforced by the entertainment industry through movies, TV, music and even comic books.  Did you know that the Bible is full of “hate speech” and that any Christian who believes in what it says is a narrow-minded bigot?  Were you aware that to oppose any of Mr. Obama’s destructive policies means that you’re a racist?  No?  Well obviously you need education.

Law Enforcement: In 2008, then candidate Barack Obama, referred to the need to have a civilian national security force, just as well-funded and equipped as the US military.  Hitler needed an internal security force too, as did Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, the Kims in North Korea, Castro, Hussein, and the Ayatollahs in Iran, to name but a few. By happy coincidence! We also have one. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was founded under George Bush to protect us from terrorists by taking away OUR rights and curtailing OUR freedoms. Wait! That doesn't make any sense. 

Anyway, the DHS has really hit its stride under Obama.  If you’re a Christian who believes in the Bible, a returning war veteran, are pro-life, pro-gun, believe in the Constitution or give too much money to your church, you are a potential domestic terrorist, according to the DHS.  Correspondingly, and we’re told (for our own good). Government agencies read our e-mails, monitor our Internet activity and listen to our phone calls without warrant. 

There are “trainings” across the nation like the two-hour seminar that took place recently in Colorado. State Trooper Joe Kluczynski, warned law enforcement attendees about the “anti-government extremists” who would have to “be monitored and controlled by law enforcement.”  His definition of these extremists included those who: “Believe that America was founded on godly principles, Christians who take the Bible literally, and fundamentalists.” 

Sound familiar? 

State Trooper Joe even asked those present, if they were “willing to confiscate illegal weapons” if ordered to do so. This sort of psychological conditioning is the norm, not the exception. Trooper Joe is leaving the Colorado Highway Patrol for a job with: you guessed it, the DHS.

Military: The Pentagon has announced that Christians cannot openly share their faith, under threat of court martial.  This is consistent with the ideas of new Pentagon adviser Mikey Weinstein, who’s stated that Christians are “human monsters” and that talking about your faith is “spiritual rape” and that practicing your faith is an act of “treason and sedition” that must be “punished.” The sick joke here is that Weinstein is to advise the Pentagon on religious tolerance. 

This on the heels of LTC Jack Rich sending his e-mail to subordinates stating that traditional Christian faith is: “Inconsistent with Army values.” Can it be made any plainer to us?  Of course, such madness does not extend to Islam. In fact, it’s just the opposite.  After letters of complaint from Islamic groups and subsequent administration appointments of senior Muslim advisers throughout our government, all references that are deemed offensive to Islam have been removed from military, FBI, and State Department anti-terrorism training.  That’s right; the enemy who wages Jihad against us isn't the enemy. Christians are.

An Air Force officer was told to remove a Bible from his desk because someone may conclude that he was condoning a particular religion.  Isn't that the point of religious freedom?  Yet the Air Force seems to be condoning a particular religion as they’re now advertising in Muslim publications for chaplains. Any opposition to Islam is labeled “Islamophobic” and subject to disciplinary action, as happened to LTC Matthew Dooley for daring to teach a course titled, “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.” 

Prior to the current regime, LTC Dooley and his class were highly praised. And now? Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, stated that the course was “against our values.” LTC Dooley has been stripped of his teaching duties. It turns out that the truth about Islam offends Muslims when it’s taught to non-Muslims (can’t let the infidels know what’s coming for them). Other high-ranking officers have been relieved of command and even retired due to their non-conformance to this unconscionable evil. 

Can you imagine, during WWII, hiring Nazis to advise us how to deal with Nazis and purging our military of those who opposed Nazism?  That insane scenario is today’s reality with our pro-Muslim, anti-Christian president. An update to the: Uncle Sam Wants You poster might read: “If you’re atheist, Muslim or homosexual, Uncle Sam Wants You:  If you’re a Christian, shut up or get lost. We’ll hunt you down later, maybe sooner than later.” 

This seems an appropriate place to insert: “I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.”

These are but a few of the examples of the dehumanization of Christians and the demonizing of the Christian faith.  Look around you.  Read a headline or news story.  This is the mental set-up to accept and even demand the persecution of Christians in the US; a necessary prelude to what Jesus said is coming. 

What about implementation?

Our protectors in the DHS have purchased 2 billion rounds of mainly hollow point ammunition, they claim, for target practice. The question is who are the targets?  Perhaps the answer lies in the DHS purchase of two million dollars worth of “No More Hesitation” targets.  They’re the next best substitute for the real thing. These cardboard targets depict a pregnant woman, a mother in a school ground, an older man, an older woman, a teenage girl, a young girl and a young boy. Sound like anybody you know? 

Add to this the purchase of 2700 armored MRAPs, portable bullet-proof toll booths with gates, and the widely-reported FEMA facilities that are set-up around the country, many with railroad access. But wait, that’s not all!  There are large numbers of foreign troops in our country who would have no problem following any order given them. Whatever those orders might be, the mission becomes easier with the use of drones patrolling our skies. Armed or unarmed at this point is immaterial to the discussion.  When the time comes, they’ll be armed.  Billions of dollars have been spent training and equipping state and local law enforcement, militarizing them under federal direction.  

Either a massive invasion is imminently anticipated or the enemy is already here. Let’s narrow the choices. Why is there such an unrelenting effort to disarm you?  Hmm.

I've heard the stammer: “But, but, we have the Constitution to protect us.” 


What’s left of it is facade only─a false hope to dull the awareness of an oblivious population.  It means nothing to the powers-that-be, but if your faith in it keeps you pacified in the interim, great.  Makes their takeover easier. 

Through various bipartisan passed laws and issuance of executive orders, the political elite illegally granted themselves unlimited power and authority. Is it unconstitutional? Yes, for a long time now.  Have they done it anyway?  Yes, and we’ve accepted it.  An emergency can be declared for any reason, at which point, even the illusion of freedom will be gone. For example, all food, water, transportation, fuel, industry, storage facilities, utilities, communication, medicine and private property can be commandeered. Included in this grab are you and your family. It’s rule by decree.

Some laws and Executive Orders are secret, meaning you can be detained, tortured or executed under those provisions and never know why. No right to trial, no rights at all.  Has the image of the puzzle emerged for you?  Take heart, my brothers and sisters.  Just as your Christian faith has no place in the emerging Antichrist system, your Christian soul, redeemed by the blood of Jesus, has no place in hell. Stand Firm. This God-given gift of life is not your destination: It’s only the journey. Live it as such. All human existence intersects in either heaven or at the White Throne of Judgment. 

“For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?  Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26) 

Hold this perspective in your mind.  Everything can be taken from you, including your life, but only you decide the destiny of your soul.

“And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake” (Luke 21:17). 

That’s a declaration, not a maybe. 

“But there shall not a hair on your head perish. In your patience [faith] possess ye your souls” (Luke 21:18-19). 

Make a daily commitment to read your Bible and pray. Increase in faith, and by virtue, courage.  All other preparations are secondary to this.  Be the spiritual warrior that God has ordained you to be at this time and place of prophetic fulfillment.

“These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace.  In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)

By Al Benson Jr.
If you listen to the current and recent stories about slavery and the slave trade you will be led to think of it as an entirely Southern institution. You will think it was created by Southerners for the benefit of Southerners and that no one else had anything to do with it. This is how you are supposed to think. This is how your public school “education” has programmed you to think. Truth has little or nothing to do with it. You are “educated” to believe “Marxist” truth whether you realize it or not. However, those who have educated your teachers realize it even if the teachers don’t.
Most of the time, though, Marxist truth (whatever supports the current agenda) will be a far cry from reality. This is one more reason to remove your kids from public school.
One small example here, from Donnie Kennedy’s book Myths of American Slavery: “On April 21, 1861, the American slaver Nightengale, affectionately known as the ‘Prince of Slavers” was built in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, fitted out for the slave trade in Salem, Massachusetts, and its captain was from New York. When captured by the USS Saratoga, the Nightengale was flying the United States flag, and had more than nine hundred slaves on board. One of the last American vessels to be captured in the slave trade was the Erie, Nathaniel Gordon of Portland, Maine, commander. It should be noted that these vessels were not bringing slaves into the South.” How come, you might ask? Well, for a couple good reasons—one was that the Constitution of the Confederate States did not allow the importation of African slaves. Another reason was that the Union blockage had pretty much curtailed any importation of slaves into the South. Don’t expect to find this kind of information in your history books. They are usually so full of the “Uncle Toms’ Cabin” sort of fables they frequently have no room for the truth.
You are never told that, in much of the North, slavery was abolished to protect the white population from having to compete with slave labor. Lincoln, contrary to the popular myths about his fondness for black people and how he “grew” into this cherished position, felt that blacks were inferior and he was strongly in favor of moving them out of the country once they became free. He never changed that opinion. Donnie Kennedy’s book states, on page 165,: “Add to these the state of Illinois, which, in 1862 (while its sons were pillaging the South) by an overwhelming vote of the people, passed an amendment to the state constitution declaring that ‘no negro or mulatto shall immigrate or settle in this state.” If you ever noticed, the “underground railway” to free slaves ran all the way from different places in the South up into Canada. It didn’t end in New York or Michigan or wherever, and part of the reason for this was that most Northern folks did not want the blacks living too close to them.
Recently an article by Donald W. Livingston appeared on which dealt, to some degree, with the slavery issue. The name of the article was Lincoln’s Inversion of the American Union. Dr. Livingston made several interesting points. He noted: “Only around fiteeen percent of southerners even owned slaves, and the great majority of those had holdings of one to six. Jefferson Davis was an enlightened slave holder who said that once the Confederacy gained its independence, it would mean the end of slavery. The Confederate Cabinet agreed to abolish slavery within five years after the cessation of hostilities in exchange for recognition by Britain and France. Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery, but simply and solely because they were being invaded. And the North certainly did not invade to abolish slavery. Nor should this be surprising considering the Negrophobia that prevailed everywhere in the North. It was assumed by the vast majority of Americans, North and South, that America was a white European polity, and that the Indian and African populations were not—and were never to be—full participants in that polity.“ Dr. Livingston cited a passage from the Oregon state constitution to prove this. Again, where have you read this in your “history” books? Dr. Livingston noted that free blacks in Northern states were “severely regulated.” All you ever see in the “history” books are comments about how Jim Crow laws were enacted in the South. You are never told they had the same thing in the North. That part is just omitted.
And why did the northern states emancipate the blacks who had been slaves there? Dr. Livingston observed: “Emancipation laws in the antebellum North were designed to rid the North of its African population. They typically declared that the children of slaves born after a certain date would, upon reaching a certain age, be emancipated. This meant the adult slaves were not freed and that families could be sold South before the children reached the age of emancipation. Emancipation led to a reduction of the African population in the North, not to an increase, as it did in the South.” And that was the sole reason, in most cases, for African emancipation up North. Sell the slaves South and then complain about Southern slaver holders and the “sin”of slavery. If it was a sin for Southerners to own them wasn’t it also a sin for Northerners to own them? Hush! You ain’t supposed to ask that question! Livingston pointed out that: “Even abolitionists were careful to point out that it was not the slave they loved but the slaveholder they hated, and that emancipation did not at all mean social and political equality with whites.” This is the part you are never told about.
So basically the abolitionists hated the South and Southerners and they used the slaves as a wedge to pry the South apart from its foundations. If you look at the theological underpinnings of many of the abolitionists the reason for this is apparent. Their agenda called for much more than freeing slaves. That was the foot in the Southern door and that’s all it was.
I have never forgotten the story my father told me years ago. When he was a boy he knew an ex-slave. They used to fish in the same river and got talking. The old slave talked about what life had been like before he was free. He told my Dad that the family that owned them always treated them well and they had grown to love them. After the 13th Amendment was passed freeing them, many of the slaves did not want to leave what, to them, was home. One day the Yankee soldiers came and to them they were free and so they should pack up whatever they could carry on their backs and go. One of the slaves, with a little presence of mind asked the soldier “If we free then why can’t we stay if we want to?” My Dad never forgot the soldier’s reply. He told the slave “You’re free to go but not to stay.” How typical of Yankee/Marxist “freedom.” You’re free to do what we tell you to do but not what you might want to do. How different is our “freedom” today? “Reconstruction” still marches on! But, with our public school “educations” we still don’t get the message. 

by Al Benson Jr.

The internationalist and dictatorial mindset of the Sherman brothers was clearly evident in the statement made by John Sherman, brother of William Tecumseh, when he said "Nationalize as much as possible (and thereby) make men love their country before their states." This quote was in the book Donnie Kennedy and I wrote Lincoln's Marxists, on page 127. You have only to compare this quote with the rantings of former presidential candidate John McCain when he ranted about "country first." It sounds so patriotic until you stop and think about it. Seems that if I recall correctly, that was the same tack that Hitler took.

However, any similarities between General Sherman and Hitler are more than coincidental. They were both endowed with the same mindset.

One thing most noteworthy of Sherman's barbarian hordes was their attitude toward clergymen and toward Christians in general. In Sherman's March Burke Davis noted: "The Reverend Mr. Connor, a Methodist minister whose parsonage was burned, emerged with a sick child wrapped in a blanket. A (Yankee) soldier seized the blanket. 'No!' Connor said, 'he's sick.' The soldier tore off the blanket and threw it into the fire. 'Damn you' he said. 'If you say one more word I'll throw the child after it'." Now there's Yankee charity and mercy at its finest!

Sherman's bummers treated the Catholics no better than the Protestants. The account is given in Davis' book about a Catholic convent destroyed when Atlanta was burning. According to Davis: "Father O'Connell led a final benediction. The schoolgirls were kneeling, reciting the rosary, when the chapel door was broken in by 'the most unearthly the crash of doom. Drunken soldiers piled over each other, rushing for the sacred gold vessels of the alter,...Father O'Connell led them to a nearby church, from which they saw the burning convent roof collapse into a fiery grid of timbers. The sturdy building endured until long after nearby structures had burned to the ground, but at three in the morning its cross plunged earthward in a cascade of flames and embers. Laughing soldiers taunted the nuns and blew cigar smoke in their faces. 'Oh holy! Yes, holy! We're just as holy as you are!...Now, what do you think of God? Ain't Sherman greater'?"

It seems that Sherman's men had a real antipathy toward Christianity and Christians. Davis observed in his book that: "Sergeant Fleharty watched as the village church was attacked: 'First the pulpit and seats were torn out, then the siding and the blinds were ripped off. Many axes were at work. The corner posts were cut, the building tottered, the beautiful spire, up among the green trees, leaned...vibrating to and fro,...By the use of long poles the men increased the vibratory motion of the building, and soon, with a screeching groan the spire sunk down...and as the structure became a pile of rubbish, some of the most wicked of the raiders yelled out: 'There goes your damned old gospel shop'." With some exceptions this seems to have been the mindset of Sherman and those barbarians he commanded.

And in keeping with the Marxist mindset of many in the Union armies Sherman was strongly inclined to a program of "land confiscation." He wanted to dispossess Confederate leadership from their property. Sherman's beloved brother, John, mentioned earlier, had said: "If we can't depend on the loyalty of the white men of the South, I would give the land to the blacks or colonize a new set (of northern whites)." Sherman, himself, since 1862 had threatened to take the land away from Southerners and to redistribute it to Northern white colonists and in 1864 he wrote: " may be both politic and right that we should banish them and appropriate their lands to a more loyal and useful population...If they want eternal war, well and good; we will dispossess them and put our friends in their place..." This was Sherman's mindset, as well as the mindset of his brother in Washington. How different was this from what Karl Marx advocated "Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels." Most historians have yet to deal with the Marxist mindset of many Northern generals and politicians. It's hard for them to grasp that the sainted Mr. Lincoln was a friend to the Marxists and socialists and had no problem whatever with their mindset or with what they did to the South. Christians have no concept of the depredations perpetrated against churches in the South during the war. That's another whole subject in itself--another subject that almost never gets touched upon. They have been bemused into thinking Lincoln was a truly godly man because many pastorts have told them this. No supporting evidence is necessary, in fact, most of the real primary sources you will run across say exactly the opposite--that Lincoln was really anti-Christian in his outlook. But then, in our day, our Christian brethren are hardly noted for their aggressive search for any truth that conflicts with the "cunningly devised fables" they have been fed, so they just go along to get along and never question anything. Their concern for historical truth is like the Platte River "a mile wide and an inch deep."

It is rumored that the people of Georgia didn't forget Sherman's March for over 100 years after it happened. Who can blame them? I have just touched on a very few incidents here. There were many, many more and some so horrendous as to be beyond description. Until we begin to deal with the penetration of Marxists and socialists into Northern political and military life in the 1860s and before, we will never understand the War of Northern Aggression and the part people like Sherman played in it.

By Al Benson Jr.

There were some leaders in the South during the War of Northern Aggression that watched Northern armies get defeated again and again and they wondered why the Northern government just didn’t give up and let them go and end all the carnage on both sides. As sincere as these men were, they did not grasp the Yankee/Marxist mindset, just as many do not in our day.

They did not realize (and still do not) that the prime agenda of the Yankee/Marxist is to remake the world and all its people in his own image. He can never stop until he completes this task. His combat against those who deviate from his holy agenda is ongoing and never-ending. He seeks to get his own way and push his own agenda—no matter what—and no matter how long it takes. This is the Yankee/Marxist’s “holy” calling—all must be remade in his image and for that to happen all memory of Almighty God must be done away with so that all anyone ever remembers is the Yankee/Marxist “deity.”

He’s not there yet and in God’s economy he never will be, but that doesn’t keep him from continually trying.

That was true during the War of Northern Aggression and it is still true today. If he can’t accomplish his ends one way, he will seek to use another, but he will not quit—not ever. We need to grasp this and we mostly don’t.
The current Marxist administration has sought to remove our Second Amendment rights. In a recent senate vote they lost on all three attempts to do away with those rights. Many pro-gun folks think that was the end of it and our Second Amendment rights are now safe because the Senate voted to keep them. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In a recent article on Obama vowed to continue pushing his gun control agenda, no matter how he has to do it The article said: “…he called the recent failures to pass gun control legislation the ‘first round’ and pledged to keep pushing his agenda” So don’t think we are off the hook because he lost the first round.

While Obama has hinted that he’d like to pass gun control legislation, he’s not above trying to issue an executive decree if legislation doesn’t work. So don’t think you are home free. The gun grabbers will be back, one way or another, by hook or by crook. They mean to dismantle the Second Amendment and if we do not stay continually alert they will do it—anyway they have to.

After all, the world has to be remade in the image of the Beast, er, I mean the Yankee/Marxist and his minions in Washington are not about to deviate from that agenda. The Christians and patriots that seek to oppose this need the same tenacity. Will we have it?


“Our Southern HE-Haw for the day is

another Boo-Hoo for civilization;

We must laugh to avoid crying!”


Joan Hough

I should preface all that follows here with something once taught me in a University Speech class: the lowest classes, the lowest, uneducated elements in society, initiate Language changes.  It is the duty and responsibility of educated people to hold on to traditional definitions and pronunciations of words or an entire nation rapidly becomes a multiplicity of towers of Babel filled not with languages from other lands, but of English words with deliberately altered meanings.  Incomprehensible to the public at large, the new language is understood only by persons of a certain element and serves to alienate all others.

Not content with merely changing our culture, our laws, our religion, and our life styles, a few UNIVERSITY somebodies are now attempting to change our English language via “gender consideration” or rather “ female gender pandering.”  Their laughable efforts are a bit reminiscent of those the Ebonics movement attempted to use to teach black children to read in a   approach referred to by some as the “he be good” method.

  So “man/ men/male,” according to North Carolina language experts, have now become demeaning, dirty, ugly words--- despicable female-lowering words; thus, it is announced that folks must not use the term "MASTER bedroom.”  Why?  Because it evokes so-called “Civil War”[1] memories of white, Southern male masters, plantations, black, boiled in oil slaves, and, even as important, gives more power to males—especially to white males.

 Instead of another war on the still in existence, Southern Confederacy (that’s the subject of another treatise) we have a war on American white men now—human beings who should be recognized as the most discriminated against human genre on earth.  In this latest attack against men, somebody following the mandates of the politically correct orthodoxy, is exhibiting HIS abundance of ignorance of the truth that in the South there were some enormous plantations and enormous amounts of black slaves owned by black male MASTERS, by white woMEN and some plantations and slaves were even owned by black woMEN.

 Somebody is unaware that there were even Yankee men who actually were the Masters of plantations in the South—men who had learned their slave-managing skills while living in the north.  (Those Yankee men may well have been the models for Simon Legree in the poem by that name.)

Somebody is also ignorant of the fact that not too long before the “Uncivil” War there were plantations even in New York City owned by white Yankee MASTERS, and that once, in very nearly every New England household, there were black slaves and nobody and I do mean nobody, mistreated other human beings as skillfully as did some of those New England money-worshipping, factory-operating Yankee masters and mistresses.

   Somebody has never learned the whole truth—that after noble northerners were paid by the government to release their slaves, those ever so benevolent, noble Yankee men and women owners, sneakily, sold many of the supposed to be freed black folks to the South to grow the cotton used in their Yankee garment factories.  

  How many Americans on both sides of the mythical Mason and Dixon line know that the Radical Marxist- Republican #1 MAN in Mr. Lincoln’s grand old army did not free his own slaves until a considerable amount of time after the end of the War of Northern Aggression? That Republican President and Slave Master was Hiram Ulysses Grant, known as Ulysses S. Grant and as a great planner of the U.S. army’s efforts to kill civilians—to, especially, starve and bomb Southern women and their babies.

  Grant was also the very one who chose to sacrifice Yankee sons to starvation in prisons in a South without food where even civilians starved.   Grant sacrificed Yankee boys, rather than accept President Davis’ offer to exchange them.  It seems it was Grant’s idea and Lincoln agreed to refuse to send food, medicine, and Yankee doctors to their own northern boys in Southern prisons.  What a fine compassionate huMAN was that Grant!  Of course the lack of reaction to this in the north may have been the result of the whole deal kept secret or may have had  something to do with the fact that many thousands of the captive Yankees were either new to America immigrants brought here by the Republicans to fight or were “hired” soldiers paid by well-heeled northerners to take the place of their own sons in the north’s draft.  None of the politically correct historians have made mention of this as either a possibility or a probability.

For the historically uneducated among us: After James Buchanan left the Oval office, Lincoln, became the Radical/Marxists’ second attempt at occupying that office.   As soon as they got rid of Lincoln and Lincoln’s personal plans for Reconstruction, and then kicked out Andrew Johnson, their support went to Ulysses S. Grant. (What on earth does the S stand for?    Claiming Grant, as they did William Tecumseh Sherman, as one of  “their” boys, they seated him in the Oval Office.  He presided over a farce of an all powerful central government loaded with crime. A darling of the Marxists, he allowed and assisted the victory celebrating, Radical /Marxist Republicans to plunder and inflict a multitude of Reconstruction horrors on Southerners.

But away from the Uncivil War and back to another war-- the Language War:

 The new, self-declared arbiters of the American language are exhibiting their hatred for American and English history by deliberately setting out to alter an increasing number of our words.  They, to use one of the favorite words of our black citizens, “disrespect” the results of the natural, lengthy, gradual, evolutionary development of our language; they shun the traditions of the English language-- traditions long established by English humanity in both the old and the new worlds. 

  The would-be, instant language changers first started with God.  In their view, God was not the Father, not the Son, not the Holy Ghost.  So God, if the new “Lords of Language” should ever decide HE exists, would be a what?  A she?  An “it,” a Mother Government?  He definitely, for them, cannot be a “He. ” Actually some of the changers are calling God -- “she.”   Others did decide that God had existed, but existed no longer—he was dead, but he was, indeed, a he.

Then the language terrorists started messing around with "Chairman"--turning it into "Chair person."

  My reaction?   Baloney.  God is no female; my South would have won if he were—(because, surely, a female God would think just like me or some other Southern lady of the very type that Sherman declared must be terminated because she thought Sherman should be -and Lincoln—and Stanton—and Fremont and Dana and Wade and everybody in the U.S. Congress and every European jail bird in the U.S. army.

As for “chairman,” I’ve held that exalted title numbers of happy times and I am 100 percent female.  I am a very female -female  who loves little red and white ribbons, and feels not the least bit insulted by being called “Chairman. ” I do admit I like it when “Madame” is inserted before the word. I think that rather sweet.

  I’m so female that even smiling young males still hasten to pick up anything I drop, and open doors for little ole me.  They have even found shoes I managed to lose under a seat in a movie  theater.  I am not insulted by the term "human.”  I think any feMALE offended by the inclusion of man in a word meaning both men and women should be dismissed as, obviously lacking a significant amount of gray matter and being, therefore, a hopelessly addled bit of huMANity.

  In order to be consistent, she would be forced to decline to be called "woMAN" and refuse to consider herself a "feMALE".  Maybe she can conceive an entire new set of words will make her content.  Oops!  I referred to her as "sHE" and as a HEr!  Oh, me! Oh, my!!  

But perhaps I am unfair.  As a Southern female, maybe I have an advantage.  We Southern females even in our 90s can still be “one of the girls” and don't mind glorying in our femininity.  Of course we've been accused of thinking that males, as in "MANkind" are created to make life beautiful for us, to protect us, to hold us tight in the comfort of their arms.   Our only question concerning this is,   "Aren't they?"  But then, it is said that we’re not “typical” American females –that men have spoiled us because, after all, we’re Southern females and Southern men know how to treat ladies and northern men, when dealing with us, tend to become Southerners quite quickly.

 Yes, I speak in praise and affection for Southern men and for all northern men who become Southerners.   Why?   Why do I deem these males so worthy of accolades?  Because  behind  most Southern gentlemen there’s a mama who rocked their cradles -- because manners still live in most of our Southern gentlemen, manners that haven’t been entirely erased by the new, national movements in multiculturalism, same sex marriages, female gender-divinity worship, and female demanded egalitarianism.

 There is no doubt that men have shown an admirable amount of self-restraint concerning the brass young women who twist about declaring their equality in the military, in sports and every aspect of life on earth-- oblivious to the truth that even the strongest of women cannot compete physically with the strongest of men.

   Some women, however, seemed to be ignorant even of the phylogenetic importance of males. If there had not been men brave enough, strong enough, quick enough, agile enough, able enough and willing to kill mastodons and bring home the bacon (so to speak) females would not even exist.  There would be no babies—no people.  Is it not strange how some she-males flame with fury when told this truth?  Guess they do not accept the other side of the phylogenetic coin---that little cave wives, unable to beat up boorish mates learned instead to control them first with female softness and then with female words. This development resulted in the AVERAGE female having more skill with spoken language than does the average male. She has a larger vocabulary.

I have no doubt, whatsoever, that "MANkind" includes all of us Southern feMALES — and even Yankee ones, if the idea that delightful and important, even wonderful differences exist in males and females happens to ring Yankee women’s bells.

Hey!  I even think it is absolutely and laughingly ridiculous to avoid using "his" in sentences in the old grammar fashion meaning male and female as in “To each, his own.” And “Each person has his own favorite color.” I also feel myself included when I hear “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their Confederate ancestors.”

 The University of North Carolina's is avoiding the use of the word "freshman" because of the presence of "man" in it.[i] Do they also find offensive, the word “woMEN?”

Of the women who accept this latest alteration of the “Mother” Language of America, I say, “Poor things!” I say the same of the silly, stupid males who go along with this mess in order to get along.

Things and people are growing crazier and goofier by the minute.  Why, there’s even a movement in Sweden for no more stand up urinals for males, because this makes men more "upright" and dominant than women.[ii]  So in the name of unisex, must little boys be trained to raise up toilet seats and lower them afterwards, or will toilets, to the chagrin of feMALES, have seats entirely removed?

It would serve certain woMEN right if this results. Nothing quite is as exhilarating as a nighttime dip in cold water.

When will this insanity cease?  When will folks with good, walking around sense bring a screeching halt to this latest, puerile attack on our American culture and language?  When will the highly educated NC University professors end the attack on the English language by their colleagues? 

 Reflecting on the horrors now being associated with the words “Master bedroom,” one can only speculate as to what the “language agitators’ sensibilities must be concerning  “MASTURbation.”  Despite the spelling of the word’s first two syllables slight difference, we still can hear “Master.”

 It is a bitter truth that the United Nations, THE Cathedral for many of America’s intellectual elites, is demanding an American sex education program in which even kindergarten kiddies will be taught the delights of MASTURbation. Already at the behest of the United Nations and the proponents of the Hate Bill and the persons who took over the American Psychological Association, little school girls have already been subjected to “kiss another girl” assignments in order to develop tolerance for Lesbianism. (How the Communists among us must love this latest bit of educational reform!)

 The big questions now sky rocketing from ocean to ocean, from coast to coast, from here to outer space is: Will the  Language Mongers go along with it or will they stomp down all inclinations to attack the “master” in -- MASTURbator, MASTURbatory” and MASTURBATION?  How will they adapt these words to give proper deference to feMALES? 

You may have concluded that there is no connection between the attack on our English-American language and the attack in the past on our Confederate States of America, then you haven’t learned the truth about the real cause of the Second Secession and the reason the-Republican controlled U.S. government destroyed Southern Constitutionalists, Southern Christians, Southern people, and Southern Conservatives, who believed in States’ Rights.  You must not understand why the Marxist/Radical Republicans found it so necessary to imprison all those northerners who believed the South was right after Abe suspended the writ of habeas corpus  thereby denying them their constitutional rights.

I’ll give you a clue.  Communists were then and continue now to do everything possible to destroy homeowners, to destroy the tender and loving basis of the family structure between the man and the woman who are to be a father and a mother—who desire to place their hearts in a home for their family.  By elevating females into so-called perfect equality with males, the male loses all of his desires to protect and treasure his woman and their offspring.  Hedonism replaces honor, responsibility, and duty for the man.  This, for some males, might be just the thing---offer him a life of bachelor fun and free sex—but it destroys the very glue of civilization—the family.   Abortion, for a woman unable to depend on the support of her impregnator, becomes her fall back action unless somebody or an all powerful government, able to take away everything, gives her everything she needs in order to take and make little soldiers or workers of her eggs and the transient male’s seeds.  Of course abortion is also encouraged by the government for other purposes.

As revealed in The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, Communists are hell-bent on abolishing the family.  They insist that the family consisting of a male, a female and children is an unnatural unit related only to property, and nasty capitalism.  The family is but a hang-over from the feudal system, so must be eliminated. Families, contend the Communists, exploit the children. “The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting. Children [are] simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour. “

 Communists stress the egalitarianism of every person on the planet.  They prefer, it suits their purpose, to see women in capitalist societies as, the equals of black folks and illegal immigrants and downtrodden—all mistreated by white male capitalists.  Women, according to the Commies, need to be freed from the yokes placed on them by men and by children.


Communists’ opinion of men under capitalism ( ordinary men who own homes and land)  is “”bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletariats (men who own nothing)  at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.”  “Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common . . .  and thus, at the most, what the Communists. .  . Desire to introduce, in substitution for [something] hypocritically concealed [is] an openly legalized community of women.”  (The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels)

So those intellectuals, who subscribe to the Communist credo never cease causing problems between males and females — never cease stirring not only racial and sexual cauldrons, but hurl gender and equality into the boiling pots, also.

 How sad it is that some women never learn that equality with males is not desirable in all things. As an incredibly wise Southern lady once said, “We’re superior, but dumb women are going to fool around and make us equal.  Why, those silly witches are too dense to realize that Southern ladies know just how to conceal iron fists in our velvet gloves—that we glory in the truth that ours is the power not only to produce precious babies, but to make our boy babies into the fine men we want them to be.”


We Southern women know for sure, that God knew just what HE was doing when he made MALES just for us feMALES!  Whether our men are northerners or Southerners, they are OURS—and we do not look kindly on anyone attempting to denigrate what belongs to us.

[1] There was no effort on the part of the Confederates to take over the U.S. government. The 1861-1865  War of northern invasion was NOT a Civil War by the then definition of the term. In order to put a good face on a war of genocide and holocaust, the northern invaders of the South altered the meaning of the term. 


[ii]    Ibid.