Confederate Society
Editor's note: This well written essay could also be called, "Lincoln so loved the United States he sent 600,000 Southern sons and daughters to their deaths to ensure the u in united stayed capitalized". 
united States = 50 sovereigns
United States = 1 sovereign. 
The question is which do we prefer?  

BY: Joan Hough

 Sorry to burst any historical balloons, but Lincoln did NOT love the United States, he hated it--hated the Constitution and hated the South.  Lest it be forgotten, our South was as much the United States as was Lincoln's north.  It was maybe “more.”  Our South was not simply “part” of the United States—part of the “country,” it WAS the country—the states of the South WERE the United States.  And there is a reason this can be said.

 The entire foundation of the United States was the Constitution. Nobody loved the Constitution and the Republic it guaranteed more than did Southerners. Nobody dedicated more blood, more sweat, and more tears in birthing the Constitution and the nation—than did Southerners whose lodestar was the sovereignty of each individual state. 

Southerners chose the word “state” as the label for each individual Southern NATION.  Northerners certainly accepted this title.   Remember the word “state” in the 1700s meant “nation.”  In fact, it still has that same meaning despite efforts on the part of the New World Order gang to erase the true meaning of the word “state” along with the true meanings of other significant words and phrases, and even some insignificant words in the U.S. Constitution.

The Marxist Republicans, later joined by folks in the Democratic Party, have slyly gone about replacing real definitions and meanings of words and sentences in the U.S. Constitution with ones that further their goals.  One example of Marxist cleverness is seen in their re-naming of their invasion of the South as a CIVIL WAR, which it was not.

  How can someone be said to love the United States whose actions prove he hates its foundation? What motivates anyone to deny that Lincoln hated the Constitution?  Does a man who loves the Constitution repeatedly and deliberately break its laws and involve himself in the shredding of it? Lincoln, of course, was a bit cleverer—more devious-- than a recent U.S. president who stated that the Constitution is “just a gd piece of paper.”  Lincoln talked a good Constitutional talk, while not taking a single step in a Constitutional walk.

 Southern men certainly did as much fighting the British as did the northerners!  Southerners in the late 1700s were more dedicated to America than were the New Englanders.  “The British had started the Southern Campaign believing Southerners were more loyal to King George than their Northern brethren. ”[i] They soon discovered how wrong they were.  There was a lack of patriot armies in the South, but there was no lack of patriots—men like the Swamp Fox with whom a number of my direct and collateral ancestors fought the British Red Coats and the Loyalists.

 Southerners fought their war against the British for a long time before the big battles occurred in the north.  Southerners were successful despite not lining up on battlefields in those long lines and rushing forward to shoot similarly lined-up British and Loyalists. The South was filled with militiamen -- expert shooters, great snipers who fought to victory in “Indian/guerrilla style.”  No British or Loyalist expedition was truly safe outside the major cities’ in the South. There were constant skirmishes.  My own ancestors participated in them.

In the North there were more large-scale battles, but there was also more overt support for the British.   Surely even northerner history professors must finally acknowledge this truth once they learn: “while Washington’s troops were freezing in their tents at Valley Forge, the Tory merchants of Philadelphia kept the British warm and well fed.”   While Washington’s men were starving in New Jersey, farmers for miles around refused to sell food to the American army but sold, instead to the British in New Jersey and New York City. [ii] What a black mark on Yankee patriotism that is!      

Anyone who doubts that the South was more patriotic than the north, if they take an effort to determine the truth, will find there was more support of the secession from the British Kingdom in the South than in the north.  Certainly Southerners were, as a whole, more determined to win.  Even in the War of 1812 when the New Englanders were ready to hurry back to the arms of a King, it was Southerners who persisted and forced the Brits to sign that treaty of peace. 

 Our Southerners have always fought in all United States Wars— and, in fact, have outnumbered the northerners and the westerners in the Marine Corps for many years.

There would not have been a United States had not the South been insistent.  The shopkeepers of the north were eager to quit the fight and kneel down to the King; Southerners prevented that. “While Boston enjoys its claim as the cradle of the Revolution, it seems there were tens of thousands of Northerners willing to stay wrapped in the arms of Mother England.  Southerners were the true revolutionaries, common folk and independent-minded planters tired of an imperial government” were the ones “who wore down the British army.”[iii]

  Lincoln loved himself and, his queer bedfellows and, no doubt, his children, but most of all LINCOLN LOVED MONEY AND POWER.

LINCOLN LOVED HIS Marxist flavored CONCEPT OF THE UNION---WHICH HE VERY WELL KNEW WAS NOT THE ONE THE WRITERS AND SIGNERS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DESIGNED IN THEIR CREATION OF THE NATION. He hated the Constitution and hated that part of the UNITED STATES that supported it—the South and Southerners. But oh, how well he and his Marxist supporters sold the world a pack of lies concerning the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution!

Lincoln was enthralled with and corrupted by power.  He sold his soul to the Communists in order to eat high on the hog of the power that only the Radicals/Marxist Republicans could get and give to him.

The truth teller is disheartened that so many northerners have developed the idea that Lincoln LOVED our Republic —that Lincoln loved our original Republican form of government created July 9, 1778 by men who loathed the very thought of a democracy.  That Republic was the REAL United States--- not the Republican Party’s 1865 re-creation Lincoln and his Radical MARXISTS put in its place.  That work of Lincoln’s was the Marxist dream of DEMOCRACY fulfilled. 

 The 1848er's  Marxists gave the U.S.  their plan for COMMUNIST INCOME TAX. They gave the U.S. the Commie’s plan for a CENTRAL BANK SYSTEM, and the Communist plan for Public Education, a total brainwashing system which has been employed since Reconstruction on captive audiences consisting of every generation of American students.  This educational program was seen by the Marxist Republicans and by the Marxist Democrats as an absolute necessity for the continuation of the “Democracy” created in the U.S. by the Communists.  This plan is still in process and is accomplished via tax-paid-for central government controlled schools of all levels from preschool through university levels.  The Communists engineered the removal of every aspect of the rights of the individual states guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.  Removal of the U.S. senators from the control of their home states was just one part of the grand Commie scheme.

 If Lincoln's actions were representative of LOVE—what the heck would have been the crimes committed by the northerners had his actions been associated with HATE or Greed?

There was one plan of Lincoln’s however, that may have, actually, been well intended.  He seemed to anticipate the hate that his party was sowing into the black population and that this hatred would, in years to come, be constantly magnified by the Party in power.  He worked diligently—he donated some of his much loved money to repatriate blacks or to settle them somewhere outside of the United States.  Maybe he was thinking of the safety of his descendants to be or perhaps he had a premonition of what would happen in Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, or numbers of other places where blacks in large numbers attacked whites.

 Lincoln feared the savagery of the African culture and that the instantaneous release of a people only recently removed from there would cause enormous problems for America.  No doubt Lincoln was aware that slavery had been the practice in every nation in the world, yet not a one had to resort to wholesale mass murders of any people in order to eliminate slavery. No wars were fought to free slaves. He knew that his USA government had no need to kill about a million Americans in order to free a few thousand slaves.

One can only wonder why certain American foundations make it imperative that professional historians persist in reporting that it was and that those who say otherwise are “rewriting” history.

Lincoln's great "love" for the United States, gave our South the modern world’s first genocide and a real American Holocaust.  His great love gave Confederate boys, helpless in northern prisons, torture and pain unto death--their bodies never given a Christian burial---if even buried.  Thanks to Mr. Lincoln, his Radical Marxist Republicans and a very few crazed abolitionists, many Southern boys were cut into thousands of little pieces by the north's medical students.  (Nobody knows where went all the Southern bodies that simply disappeared in Chicago---some may still be rising up in pieces in Chicago's driveways.)

 Were it not for fellow Confederates imprisoned with lost sons of Southern families, many families would never have learned of the fate of fathers, sons, cousins, brothers held in prison at Camp Douglas—because that United States’ prison simply omitted keeping or it destroyed months of its records. In fact today there are few, if any, Chicago citizens aware there ever was a Union prison in Chicago-so completely has been erased all evidence of its horrible existence.   Few Americans, for that matter, even know that once upon a time Chicagoans paid their coins and climbed up into warm watch towers to observe the torturing of Southern boys forced to lie motionless, semi-nude in snow and ice or forced to scream in agony as they “rode the mule” built by their brave Yankee guardians.[iv] Noble Yankee citizens observed the dwindling away of the helpless

Confederate privates as the U.S. Congress’ mandated starvation took its toll.

[i]  Clint Johnson. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South, And Why It Will Rise Again, Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2006. p. 97.

[ii] Ibid, p, 98.

[iii] Ibid, p. 99.

[iv] Kelly Pucci. Camp Douglas: Chicago’s Civil War Prison, San Francisco, California: Arcadia Publishing, 2007, pp. 57-58. 
Lincoln’s United States Republicans in their controlled U.S. Senate passed a Resolution and sent out a mandate to all of the U.S. military prisons authorizing TORTURE of helpless Confederates.  Lincoln, who “so loved the United States Constitution, ” must have thought torture of those Southern men (he still termed “U.S. citizens”) was quite constitutional.


        Lincoln, “the great Saint-Christian” now declared to have been devoted to Christ—made absolutely no effort to negate his Congress’ ordered tortures of thousands upon thousands of helpless, imprisoned, American Confederate boys—and rejoiced in the wholesale deliberate killing of civilians (women, toddlers, bigger kids, old folks, crippled folks, and sick folks.  The war on civilians was definitely approved by Mr. Lincoln who micromanaged his army’s attacks on them.

In the last few years a few pro-Confederate authors have contended that it was either a waste of time or a poor strategy to attack Mr. Lincoln.  Some deluded Americans now contend that Lincoln loved his country—loved the U.S. government and that his love for the nation made him a far better President than is the present one. These conclusions somehow seem bizarre to and befuddle the minds of less omniscient folks such as I.  We cannot cease thinking that if Lincoln’s treatment of Southern women and their babies and little kids was based on love for the nation, God only knows what would have been the fate of Southerners had Lincoln felt hate for the Constitution and the nation Southerners did so much to create.

The dazzling success of the Marxist-Republicans efforts to write lies as American history surrounds all of us.  For example:

The Daughters of the American Revolution includes some mighty bright young women.  Thousands of them, no doubt, are Confederate descendants.  These young Southerners annually and joyfully celebrate Mr. Lincoln's birthday.  They participate gladly in what amounts to a group genuflection each time the name of that booted out of the pulpit for Socialism/Communism, that x-Baptist preacher, Francis Bellamy’s name is mentioned.  They recite his Pledge of Allegiance with the greatest of reverence-- are completely oblivious to the truth—that with the word “indivisible,” Bellamy accuses their ancestors of treason.  Lincoln declared that “the Union created the states,” and anyone attempting to take a state out of the Union committed treason—the nation was “indivisible” so no state could leave it unless the rest of the states agreed to that leaving. Think about that!  Any American who bothers to study the birth of our United States knows better than that!  If you do not—you should take the time to read the work of some “real, honest” historians.

 One of the elected officers in a very large Confederate organization declared that Communists had no influence whatsoever on the “Civil” War and in no way had any role in the birth of the Republican Party---that Carl Marx was not even born by the time that war started in 1861.  Obviously that officer lacks any knowledge of the couple of hundred of propaganda-articles Marx wrote for America’s newspaper with the largest circulation, The New York Tribune, before and throughout the War of Northern Aggression and is unaware that THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO authored at the behest of the European Illuminati was written in 1848 by Marx and his good buddy Engels. Knowledge of that nice complimentary letter Marx wrote to Lincoln—congratulating him on his election, undoubtedly is not widespread.  Knowledge of Engels part in the creation of the Republican Party seems to have been considered a national secret.

Those who know not the truth should not be judged harshly for their ignorance, however, because the Republican government—the victors -- have made sure that the truth about their mighty efforts to manipulate the northerners to invade the sovereign South and knock off as many land owners as possible was truth buried right along with the Southern victims of genocide and Holocaust. Read the Communist Manifesto and it is evident just how much hate the Commies had for the South.   Of course they hated the South; the South was full of landowners.  Even the tiniest of farms were on lands owned by Southerners. (Southern farmers acquired much land as bounty land because of their service in the various American wars before 1861.)  

Lincoln was evil.  He was anti- Christianity, an atheist who wanted to destroy Christianity.  He was a hypocrite who bemused most northern Christian ministers so they accepted his lies.   His personal problems often overwhelmed him. He was a mentally ill hate monger— a neurotic mess.  He was a liar, unparalleled in history.  His Marxists grew to despise him when he planned to cheat them out of control of the South. After his execution they decided he had real value. He, then, became their most useful tool, a popular martyr.  In his  absence, Reconstruction brought them enormous wealth and increased their power.

How could any mentally normal person laugh when told of all the bodies of dead women and children littering the streets in one of Mr. Sherman's burned Southern towns? Lincoln laughed.   How do we know Lincoln laughed?  One of his own soldiers told us so.

Poor Lincoln---instead of admiring him, Northerners should feel sorry for him—he was so mentally crippled.  He had delusions of grandeur—must have had because he actually thought he could prevail against the COMMUNISTS who created the Republican Party—he could take away from them the Reconstruction of their dreams and replace it with one he controlled.  All the riches of the South and lifetime power would wind up in his hands-- not theirs. His plan was to give Southern states full constitutional rights and welcome them back into the Union,[i] no doubt  to serve his own political purposes.  He considered himself smarter and more powerful than they. When they turned against him, he left the Republican Party and started himself a separate Party.  Later the Party and he reconciled, but he had torn his drawers with the controlling element—the Radicals (Marxists). 

The world knows how Lincoln’s dream ended—but only recently has the word leaked out that non-Confederates engineered the execution of Lincoln.  Confederates carried it out---but the real conspirators were Republican Party born. A gullible Southerner was used to free the “Radical Republicans” of a no longer desired leader.   A planned kidnapping morphed into murder.  Men more clever than any actor masterminded the execution of the United States President.   Despite what the politically correct, well-rewarded historians and politicians have poured into receptive American brains, those planners were not Southerners.

How could anyone really think Southerners could arrange for Lincoln to be poorly guarded by a guard who just, accidentally, happened to leave his post to get a few beers while Mr. Lincoln viewed a play?  And that guard was, accidentally, overlooked--never interviewed by anyone investigating the murder of the nation’s most powerful political figure.  How can anyone think that Marxist-Radical Republican Edwin Stanton (the Secretary of War who wanted to be President) accidentally happened to refuse Lincoln the loyal guard, Lincoln himself requested.  Stanton told Lincoln the guy was busy when he wasn't. 

 How can anyone think a guy named Booth just accidentally happened to find an unguarded door and meandered through it, gun in hand? How can anyone think the telegraph wires all around D.C. –wires under the direct control of the Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton-- would accidentally all stop working at one time, so that troops could not be ordered to block the roads to an escaping Booth?  How can anyone think the next Republican President Ulysses S. Grant, a Radical Republican West Point graduate, would accidentally, happen to turn down an invitation to accompany his Commander in Chief, President Lincoln, to the theatre the very night of the execution?[ii] 

Southerners are, we must admit, very bright—but there are, after all, some things they cannot do.  Do you insist on thinking that they were able to arrange all of these so-called accidental happenings?

Aw, come on! 

  Now, on the other hand, Communists seem quite adept at arranging convenient accidents and removals from office of friends and foes.   They seem to specialize in just that kind of thing.  Poor Trotsky--  Poor Lenin--  Poor Lincoln! And, some say, General George Patton, who might have become a U.S. President, was by “accident,” accidentally removed from the Communist dangers involved in such a possibility.    Certainly those who crossed swords with the Party met horrible ends, but the real planners of their deaths flourished.  Some say the same about the men behind the men who bumped off John F. Kennedy and brother Bobby. And what about that anti-Communist Nixon?  He certainly wasn’t killed, but, certainly, he was bumped off.  And then there were those strange deaths of a slew of folks either connected in some fashion, or involved with a U.S. President.

Power corrupts— those with it and those seeking it.

There is a very old, Confederate prayer that ends: “God save the South. ”  It seems that it is time for that very prayer to be heard again.  Maybe this time God’s answer will be, “Yes, I will and I’ll let some of y’all help me.” 

If the South were saved, it just might have the ability to save the United States—maybe.  Surely the South has the ability to save, at least, itself—after all, this nation IS NOT INDIVISIBLE.  Lincoln and Francis Bellamy’s declarations to the contrary, one state or many states can secede whenever they choose to do so. 

 Lincoln’s Invasion of our South and the United States’ role in Southern genocide and the Southern Holocaust cannot alter truth: might does not make right.

[i] John Chandler Griffin. Abraham Lincoln’s Execution, Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Co., 2006. 

[ii] Ibid.


Editors note: After last years Federal elections, we posted a column called  "Elections of Deception" which explained the rigged apparatus at the present time, showing a blue-red county map of America which was almost entirely red (Confederate) and with strong blue urban pockets (socialist). The map is compelling as it shows we are no longer a country which is governed by the consent of the people. The masses (a pure democracy) are now  in effect -but Ben Franklin once told a woman outside a Philadelphia beer hall when  asked what had been given to us said "A Republic woman, if you can keep it!" We couldn't keep it as constructed by the founders. The reconstruction amendments stripped away most of what sovereignty the States had. The creation of the FED EX of banking in 1913 was round 2, and the last straw was cloaked in righteousness in the 1960's when nearly EVERY Federal bureaucracy was created under the smoke screen of civil rights. The totality was an erosion of the founders intent to stay away from a Great Britannia style model of governance to a State sovereign model and now we see America has come full circle to find itself in the style of governance it fought revolutions to stay away from. (the plural in revolution is not by accident.) 
Deo Vindice! Kevin Carroll/PS: are you a deer in the headlights? 

By Kenneth Bachand

A friend of mine recently wrote, "God knows voter fraud, gross negligence, voter requirement in only a handful of states is what got him [Obama] elected the second time.   The first time was gross negligence on the part of the media and the general public's ignorance and complacency in making a choice for what they thought he symbolized over character, background lacking transparency.      All we had to do was listen to what barak and michelle's speeches conveyed before he was elected. …the breakdown in the fiber of our population didn't occur overnight!"

Read all that follows and then think of how in the recent national elections in some precincts there were more votes cast than there were registered voters and how ironic it is that the government in Washington pulls out all the stops to prevent the states from requiring voters to show personal identification.

Bayonets Secure the Ballot Box in the 1860s

Excerpts from Lincoln and the War Governors, William B. Hesseltine, Alfred A. Knopf, 1955

pp. 214–15

In the meantime Maryland's unionists held a convention and nominated Augustus Williamson Bradford for governor. The candidate was an old-line Whig who had retired from active politics when Henry Clay was defeated in 1844, and who had been clerk of the Baltimore County court for many years. He had emerged as a unionist at the peace conference in Willard's Hall,where he made a strong pro-union speech. Personally honest, making up in dignity what he lacked in distinction, Bradford was too moderate for many Maryland radicals. Their support, however, was hardly necessary for his election.

The federal troops decided the Maryland election. Maryland soldiers received a three-day furlough to go home to vote, and when unionists feared that this would not be enough to turn the scale, General Dix ordered the provost marshals to arrest any disunionists or Southern sympathizers. On election day the soldiers guarded the polls, arresting known Democrats and intimidating others. Bradford won by a majority of 31,438 over General Benjamin H. Howard, his Democratic opponent.


pp. 244–45

Lincoln came to realize that only military force would keep them [the boarder states] in line. In Maryland and Kentucky the military authorities ruled the states, and during the summer of 1862 they fastened their grip upon the political machinery. Maryland's Governor and legislature, elected in 1861 by federal bayonets, gave no trouble, and gradually the state's judiciary was stopped from independent pronouncements. In May, one Judge Carmichael, sitting in court at Easton, was literally dragged from the bench by a provost marshal and a body of soldiers. The judge, at a previous session, had instructed a grand jury to inquire into the processes of the recent election. He was confined in federal military prisons for six months and released without any formal charges being preferred against him. A month later Judge James L. Bastol of the Court of Appeals spent several days in jail without explanation from his military jailers. The two arrests, supplemented by frequent excursions of provost marshals against disgruntled citizens, effectively prevented the expression of opposition sentiment in Maryland.


pp. 337–39

In these same local elections, as [New York governor] Seymour's challenge to national concentration declined, Lincoln's leadership received a new and emphatic demonstration in Maryland. Just on election eve Ex-Governor Hicks, now in the United States Senate and co-operating with the radicals, advised General Robert Schenck, in charge of the area, to place restrictions on disloyal voters in the state. At least, Hicks suggested, voters should be forced to take a stringent oath. Hearing that troops were being sent to Maryland to administer test oaths, Governor Bradford protested to Lincoln. But General Schenck, who had defeated Vallandigham in the congressional elections the year before and would soon take his seat in the House of Representatives, was as violent a radical as Burnside. He promptly ordered provost marshals to take troops to the polls, prevent disorder, and administer oaths to suspected Democrats. Bradford protested to Lincoln and issued a proclamation rescinding Schenck's orders. The general forbade the telegraph companies to transmit the Governor's order.

Lincoln replied to Bradford with a reminder that the Governor had himself been elected with federal bayonets the year before. Moreover, said the President, it was not enough that the candidates should be true men. "In this struggle for the nation's life" it was necessary that loyal men should have been elected only by loyal voters. Schenck himself, after consulting Stanton, told Lincoln that without military intervention "we lose this State." The President modified Schenck's orders slightly, but accepted the basic principle.

On election day the troops were at the polls. In Kent County, on the Eastern Shore, they arrested leading Democrats and scurried them across the bay. The commander issued instructions that only the candidates of the Union League convention were recognized by the federal authorities. In other places the soldiers administered oaths, arrested Democrats, and voted themselves.

The result was not alone a victory in Maryland. It was a synthesis of the political developments of the year. The military power of the federal government, aided and augmented by the organized Union Leagues and Strong Bands, could alone ensure electoral success in the more important Northern states. It did not need a repetition of the Maryland episode in Delaware's special congressional election, a week later, to emphasize the lesson.


p. 379

On that same day the need for Lincoln's aid was illustrated in Pennsylvania. There it was not thought necessary to send the soldiers home. Early in the summer the legislature had provided for voting in the field. Under the law the Democratic minority had no rights, but Curtin, disgusted with the situation generally, determined to appoint some Democratic commissioners to collect the soldiers' votes. As the commissioners passed through Washington, however, the Democrats among them disappeared, under Stanton's orders, into the Old Capitol Prison.


pp. 380–81

Already, before the October elections, Yates, too, had seen the need for having soldiers go home to vote. Stanton told an Illinois visitor that the state's soldiers in hospitals would be given furloughs, and Yates began compiling lists. But the sick were not enough. When a major asked to take a regiment home, ostensibly for recruiting but really to "conquer a peace with their bullets," the Governor applied to the War Department. From Egypt [southern Illinois], Yates had word that the soldiers would be needed, and political workers came with assurances that only the soldiers could carry many localities. Finally the Governor appealed to Lincoln to send troops to vote. It was essential to elect a loyal state Senate, three congressional districts depended on the soldiers, and even the Presidential and the state tickets were unsafe without the uniformed voters. Defeat in Illinois, added the Governor, would be worse than defeat in the field. Under such pleas the soldiers came, and Lincoln carried his home state by 189,496 to McClellan's 158,730.


p. 381

The soldiers' vote was crucial in many other states. New York allowed its soldiers to vote in the field, and each party sent three commissioners to Grant's armies. The Democratic commissioners, however, landed in Washington's Old Capitol Prison, where they remained until January. Moreover, the Democrats charged, many soldiers voted Democratic in their camps only to have their ballots switched in the post offices. The Democrats diligently dug up several sick soldiers who, having voted earlier in the hospitals, got home in time to vote — and found Republican ballots in their envelopes." In addition, on the eve of the election, troops arrived on furlough from the Eastern armies. Even with this aid the vote was close. Seymour polled 54,000 more votes than he had got in 1862. The Republican vote, however, had swollen even more enormously, and Lincoln polled 368,000 to McClellan's 362,000. Without the soldiers New York would have remained in the Democratic column.


pp. 381-382

Maryland's vote was clearly the product of federal bayonets. In October the citizens of Maryland voted on a new constitution, providing for emancipation and bearing a drastic proscription of Democrats. Although General Lew Wallace took control of the polls in Baltimore, the voters rejected the constitution by a majority of 2,000. But the proposed constitution had given votes to soldiers in the field, and 2,294 soldiers voted for it, and only 76 against. It took ten days to count the votes, but on October 29 Governor Bradford proclaimed the constitution in effect. This fortunate result came just in time for the November elections. On election day General Wallace again guarded the ballot boxes, and Baltimore cast nearly 15,000 votes for Lincoln to less than 3,000 for McClellan. The soldiers in the field completed the work, and Maryland gave Lincoln a majority of 7,000 in a total vote of 7o,000.


p. 382

Ohio's soldiers voted in the field, and the votes were sent home to be counted. But it was difficult indeed for soldiers to vote for Ohio's [Democratic] general. There were not enough Democratic ballots to go round in the camps, and the soldiers who wished to vote for McClellan must either clip a sample ballot from a newspaper or laboriously transcribe, often with a borrowed pencil, the names of the Democratic electors. Those who failed to copy the list correctly had their votes declared invalid by the officers who supervised the voting in the field. It did not matter a great deal, however. Many of the packages containing the soldiers' votes were never opened. Ohio was safe for Lincoln, and the election clerks at home merely guessed at the distribution of the army's vote.


p. 388

Before the end, there came one other change in the list of governors. On March 1, 1865, William Cannon, whom federal bayonets had raised to Delaware's governorship, died suddenly. His successor was Gove Salisbury, a physician who had been speaker of the Delaware Senate, and a vigorous personality who might, had it not already been too late, have struck still further blows for states' rights. His accession restored Delaware to the Democratic column.


No such crude tactics are necessary to control the outcome of an election today, for there's a much cleaner and far less obvious way to do it.  The technology of computer science makes it possible to program a computer voting machine to produce the desired result regardless of whatever information is put into it. 

Dear Patriots:

  As WE have been advising for some time- all y’all ever had to do was ‘Connect the Dots’…..

Cross-Referencing the Politics with the ‘Economics’ associated with that Body Politic, factoring in the Corporate & Special Interest Influence also associated with that Body Politic, ‘multiplied & divided’ by the Thousands of Lobbyists & very Special Interests, and the ever-evolving Political Ideology would clearly come into Focus regarding the

‘Sum-Total’ of this Country’s ‘Landscape’.

Those who control and Own this Government- Nationally as well as Internationally would become very Clear & the Nexus that allowed for Each of these components to advance, via their myriad of Masterful illusion and delusion, would Expose the Carnage and Rape that America has undergone for multiple decades.

  Equally,  the altered ‘Script’ in which Our Country’s History & Origin was so pillaged & violated would also be made clear as well the manner in which they pulled this off via a Bastardized Government Sponsored School System culminating in this the Grand Deception of 150 years in which the age old Tactic of Divide & Conquer was employed resulting in the American Republic NEVER standing a chance after the Chicanery was put into play after 1865!

  The culminating Homogenization, driven by Marginalizing continuously the Demographics of this Country via this National Government’s Deliberate & Altered Immigration Policy (Revised Immigration Act of 1965) and this National Government’s REFUSAL to insure and guarantee the Integrity of its Sovereign Borders led by Multiple Administrations of a Two-Party Demagoguery whose Constituency I call the RepublicRats has, over these last 150 years, brought this Country to its knees.

 The current generation, for the most part is clueless as is, sadly, the generation before it and ALL OF THE ABOVE HAS COMBINED TO CREATE THE CONDITIONS FOR THE MOST PERFECT POLITICAL STORM!

  Washington is beyond Corrupt and the current ‘Administration’ is immersed in a Synchronistic Ideology whose Confluence exceeds the ability of most to comprehend thanks in large part to the omission of Common Sense & Basic Awareness.

 Thus we are witnessing the ultimate TRANSFORMATION this maniacal Ideologue, Obama & Company, PROMISED- playing ALL ends against the middle while achieving his heinous orthodoxy while the Country is falling apart.

  America produces NOTHING and the GDP is an abomination for what was once the richest Country in the World that has Now become the Largest Debtor Country in the World…. while Washington and their Independent Marxist Federal Reserve System is buying the Treasury’s incredible debt with worthless Greenbacks that have NO collateral and NO backing other than the word of the various Independent Central Bankers who can literally disappear tomorrow without any trace.

 Detroit is the CLASSIC example of this TOTAL FAILURE and for EVERY REASON DESCRIBED ABOVE.

  Now they are DEFAULTING ON THE BOND HOLDERS that were once the epitome of Non-touchable NOTES guaranteed beyond ANY CALAMITY AND ‘COMPROMISE’.

  ( I suppose we should have learned a lesson from what Obama did to the former GM Bond Holders)

  These Bond Holders were Guaranteed payment BEFORE any Municipal Payments could EVER be made such as Salaries to Police and Fireman.

  That was the ‘Glue’ that kept things in perspective BUT now that is Gone as well and creates an Alarming standard for other cities that have emulated the ‘Federal’ (HA!) Body Politic putting EVERYTHING INTO QUESTION & REVEALING THE CONCERNS WE CONFEDERATES HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR OVER 150 YEARS.

 So…. NOW you may be finally getting a ‘GLIMPSE’ into the Real Reasons as to why we Fought?

This is what YOUR Politicians have done to YOU!

  It is a Cataclysmic Failure and their House of Financial Cards is about to come crashing down- Big Time!!!!!!!!

 And when that happens and the natural Chaos that will naturally follow, perhaps then YOU will discover what this National Government has been about but NOT before YOU witness how Washington plans on handling that Chaos via their many ABC Departments that this Administration and previous ones have given an open license to and the intention of those many FEMA Camps currently in existence.

 I cannot believe the Transition within 6 Score of Years that a Country could be so Robbed of Everything with her People allowing it to occur right beneath their very noses in broad daylight without raising a single hand to stop this Political Madness AND continuing to believe that Washington is a Government that ‘believes’ it “Derives Its Authority From The Consent of the GOVERNED.”

  What an absolute Denial and Delinquency from Reality!

 Simply unbelievable that a Government could convince an American Country, despite their continued obfuscation & abrogation from them, that they were working in their best interests.

  Yup, PT Barnum said it best- “A Sucker is Bourne Everyday”……but Getting Over on an Entire Nation in only 150 years to accomplish their Nefarious Ends via their employed Means will go down in World History as one of the Most Clarion Examples of Treachery and Deceit.

  Damn but WE Confederates Told You So !.


Separation is Survival & the Perpetuation of the Old Republic,

Craig Maus,

President, The Confederate Society of America
By Al Benson Jr.

Often I have written articles in which I used the term “Yankee/Marxist” to describe those who made war on the South in 1861 and who have held not only the South, but now the rest of the country, in a repressive version of “reconstruction” that has never really ended and, if anything, has gotten even worse in recent decades.
Those who have not bothered to do the history homework or who have gotten their version of “history” from public school history pabulum will laugh at that statement. That’s okay. Let them laugh. In the end the will end up choking on their laughter.
Professor Thomas DiLorenzo recently wrote an article on in which he talked about a recent book written by historian and novelist Thomas Fleming called A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. This book can be found on and should be checked out.
DiLorenzo made the following statement: “No respectable historian believes the DeepNorth/government school fantasy that enlightened and morally-superior Northerners elected Abe Lincoln so they could go to war and die by the hundreds of thousands solely for the benefit of black strangers in the ‘deep South.” No argument there. Di Lorenzo observed that only 6% of Southern men owned slaves and he noted that this meant, and still means, that the average Confederate soldier “was not fighting to preserve a system that actually harmed him and his family economically; and that the real cause of the war was what Fleming calls a ‘malevolent envy’ of the South by New England Yankees’ who waged a war of economic conquest.” Fleming has observed that (Northern) hatred for Southerners long predated their objections to slavery. Abolitionists were convinced that New England, whose spokesmen had begun the American Revolution, should have been the leaders of the new nation. Instead they had been displaced by Southern ‘slavocrats’ like Thomas Jefferson.” Such a situation would grate on the gentle egos of the New England elite. I know. I grew up in New England and though there were and are some great people there, the prevailing attitude, at least in my adolescent years was “if you want acceptance, you do it MY way.”
DiLorenzo reiterates this: “First, there was the extreme ‘malevolent envy’ of Southerners by the New England ‘Yankee’ political class, who had long believed that they were God’s chosen people and that they should rule America, if not the rest of the world. Second, there were a mere 25 or so very influential New England abolitionists who had abandoned Christianity and even condemned Jesus Christ, while embracing the mentally insane mass murderer John Brown as their ‘savior.’ This is part of the ‘disease in the public mind’ that is the theme of Fleming’s book.”
According to DiLorenzo, John Brown “…had declared himself to be a communist…” in addition to his terrorist attacks in Kansas. I’ve never seen the source Professor DiLorenzo got this from, but knowing he is a writer that does the homework, I don’t doubt it. Also, recently, there was an article in the bulletin of the John Birch Society for June, 2013 called “The Purpose of Terrorism.” In this article, its author Arthur R. Thomson referred to John Brown and stated: “Brown was a failure in business and attached himself to the abolitionist cause after being converted to communism—according to his son—sometime in the early 1840s…Northerners who financed his activities became known as the Secret Six. These people understood that Brown was engaging in treason, and they financed him specifically because they knew this.” Awhile back I wrote a series of articles on this group for my newsletter The Copperhead Chronicle. And the fact that Brown had with him in Kansas, two men who had been socialist “forty-eighters” in Europe is dealt with in the book written by Walter Kennedy and myself, Lincoln’s Marxists.
Mr. Thompson noted how the “news” media fawned over John Brown and he said: “Most of these newspapers were edited and/or owned by people engaged in promoting the communist movement, such as the New York Tribune of Horace Greeley and Charles Dana. While the Trib was openly in support of communism, even hiring Karl Marx and other notorious communist leaders as correspondents, other newspapers tried to cloak their endorsement under the banner of reform.” Again, Walter Kennedy and I covered all this in Lincoln’s Marxists.
Anyway, back to Thomas Fleming’s book, in which he notes that John Brown “truly became a ‘god’ to the New England Yankees. ‘Ralph Waldo Emerson expressed awe and near worship of John Brown’ writes Fleming. He lavished praise on John Brown’s religion of violence.’ “
Fleming stated that Yankees can be easily recognized by their “arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, and lack of congeniality (and) for ordering other people around…They are the chosen saints whose mission is to make America and the world, into the perfection of their own image.” Professor Clyde Wilson has accurately noted that: “Hillary Rodham Clinton is a museum-quality specimen of the Yankee—self-righteous, ruthless, and self-aggrandizing.” Professor Wilson also observed that by 1860 “The North had been Yankeeized, for the most part quietly, by control of churches, schools, and other cultural institutions…” As an aside, should the One World elite in New York decide it, Saint Hitlery may well be the next president of the United States of Amerika, elected or otherwise.
Hopefully, some of this will give you a faint glimmer as to why I refer to these people as “Yankee/Marxists.” I can see no real difference between the two. They both have the same objectives—control of the country and the world and the desire to run everyone’s life for them. They have the mindset that whatever they advocate must be pure and “moral” (as long as it fits their agenda) and if people choose not to go along with their agenda they will use whatever means necessary to make sure they are forced to—legislation, physical force, peer pressure, or whatever.
The Yankee and the Marxist are the same animal with the same agenda—total domination of everyone and everything. It would be nice of more folks in the Southern Movement would wake up and become aware of this. Your enemies are not just Northern folks, many of whom agree with you on many issues. Your enemies are Marxists, and you need to wake up and realize that Communism ain’t dead—it’s just changed coats.
Get Thomas Fleming’s book. Get Professor DiLorenzo’s books about Lincoln and the Republican Party, and get Walter Kennedy’s and my book about the Marxist support for Lincoln and the Union and the Marxist foundations of the Republican Party. You won’t like much of what you read in these, but the truth will set you free, if you are willing to follow it.

By Thomas J. DiLorenzo

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

Historian and novelist Thomas Fleming is the author of more than fifty books, including two very good revisionist histories of the two world wars:  The New Dealers’ War, and The Illusion of Victory in World War I.  He has authored biographies of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and has written extensively about the founding generation, including his best-selling book, Liberty!  As a regular on PBS and NPR he is as “mainstream” as it gets.  That is, he was, until he published his latest bookA Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War.

No respectable historian believes the Deep North/government school fantasy that enlightened and morally-superior Northerners elected Abe Lincoln so that they could go to war and die by the hundreds of thousands solely for the benefit of black strangers in the “deep South.”  And Thomas Fleming is as “respectable” as one gets in terms of contemporary writers of history.  Fleming has discovered what scholars such as the late, great Murray Rothbard and the not-late-but-still-great Clyde Wilson wrote about many years ago: A war was not necessary to end slavery – the rest of the world did it peacefully; only 6 percent of adult Southern men owned slaves, which means that the average Confederate soldier was not fighting to preserve a system that actually harmed him and his family economically; and that the real cause of the war was what Fleming calls a “malevolent envy” of the South by New England “Yankees” who waged a war of economic conquest. In his own words, from the inside front cover of A Disease in the Public Mind:

[Northern] hatred for Southerners long predated their objections to
slavery.  Abolitionists were convinced that New England, whose
spokesmen had begun the American Revolution, should have been
the leaders of the new nation.  Instead, they had been displaced by
Southern “slavocrats” like Thomas Jefferson.

The inside cover of the book asks, “Why was the United States the only nation in the world to fight a war to end slavery?”  The standard “answer” to this question, which I have asked many times in my own writings, is that Southern plantation owners were by far the most evil human beings in world history, far more evil than British slave owners, Spanish slave owners, or French, Danish , Dutch and Portuguese slave owners.  Therefore, no peaceful means of ending slavery was ever possible.  This of course makes no sense at all, and Thomas Fleming recognizes it.

He points out that “Only 316,632 Southerners owned slaves – a mere 6 percent of the total white population.”  This leads Fleming to ask the obvious question:  “Why did the vast majority of the white population unite behind these slaveholders in this fratricidal war?  Why did they sacrifice over 300,000 of their sons to preserve an institution in which they apparently had no personal stake?”

Fleming actually understates this point:  Slavery only benefited the slave-owners who exploited the slaves but was economically harmful to all the rest of Southern society because slave labor is inherently inferior to free labor.  The entire South was poorer as a result.  Moreover, the average Confederate soldier, who was a yeoman farmer who owned no slaves, was harmed by the slave-owning plantation owners through unfair competition.  That is why so many Northern states like Illinois banned the migration of blacks, free or slave, from their borders, and it is also the main reason why the Republican Party opposed the extension of slavery into the new territories – they wanted to “preserve them for free white labor,” as Lincoln himself once said.  In every major Civil War battle Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves fought against (mostly border state) Union Army soldiers, such as Ulysses S. Grant, who did own slaves (Grant’s wife Julia, cousin of Confederate General James Longstreet, inherited slaves from her South Carolina family and Grant was the overseer of his father-in-law’s slave plantation for a period of time before the war).

Fleming contends that the real reason for the war – and for why, of all the nations on earth, only the U.S. associated war with the ending of slavery – was twofold:  First, there was the extreme “malevolent envy” of Southerners by the New England “Yankee” political class, who had long believed that they were God’s chosen people and that they should rule America, if not the rest of the world.    Second, there were a mere 25 or so very influential New England abolitionists who had abandoned Christianity and even condemned Jesus Christ, while embracing the mentally insane mass murderer John Brown as their “savior.”  This is part of the “disease in the public mind” that is the theme of Fleming’s book.

John Brown, who had declared himself to be a communist, had organized terrorist attacks in Kansas which included the murder of entire families who did not own slaves, and the murder of free black men.  “Perhaps most appalling,” writes Fleming, “were the murders of James P. Doyle and his two oldest sons, while Doyle’s wife, Mahala, pleaded frantically for their lives . . . .  The Doyles were immigrants from Tennessee who . . . had no interest in owning slaves.”  Brown claimed that his purpose was “to strike terror into the hearts of the pro-slavery people.”  He planned even larger acts of terrorism at Harpers’ Ferry in 1859 where he was apprehended by U.S. Marines led by Colonel Robert E. Lee, and he was hanged for his crimes.

Fleming discusses in great detail how John Brown came to replace Jesus Christ in the minds of Northern abolitionists, who adopted his mantra that blood must shed in order to eradicate sin.  That is, if they were to be saved and sent to Heaven, there must be bloodshed, and the more the better.   That is why peaceful emancipation was not achieved in America, writes Fleming: It was not stubborn and evil Southern plantation owners who were the problem, it was the bloodthirsty abolitionists.

John Brown “descended from Puritans” and was “the personification of a Puritan,” says Fleming.  And he truly became a “god” to the New England “Yankees.”  “Ralph Waldo Emerson expressed awe and near-worship of John Brown,” writes Fleming.  He lavished praise on John Brown’s “religion of violence.”   Emerson called Brown “that new saint” who “would make the gallows as glorious as the cross.”  Henry David Thoreau said that “Brown was Jesus.”  He was “the bravest and humanest man in the country,” said Thoreau with horribly clunky English. He described Brown in that way after learning of Brown’s execution of non-slave-owning, innocents in front of their wives and children.  These men were clearly crazy, and their writings must have contributed a great deal to the “disease in the public mind.”

The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was also a John Brown worshiper. As a typical New England Yankee Garrison possessed “the prevailing attitude” of New Englanders in that “they were inclined to believe in the moral depravity of anyone who disagreed with them,” and had “an almost total lack of empathy” for their fellow countrymen in other parts of the country.  This, says Fleming, was “a flaw that permeated the New England view of the rest of America.”

An abolitionist compatriot of Garrison’s named Henry C. Wright declared that Jesus Christ was a “dead failure” for allowing slavery to exist, and insisted that “John Brown would be a power far more efficient” than Christ.  Armed with such beliefs, Garrison and comrades waged a decades-long campaign of hatred against all Southerners.  Their newspapers broadcast for decades that the South was “a province ruled by Satan” and was guilty of “four unforgivable sins: violence, drunkenness, laziness, and sexual depravity.”  “From Richmond to New Orleans, the Southern states are one great Sodom,” wrote one New England publication.  Fleming writes that such frantic “theological somersaults” were strikingly similar to “the public frenzy that gripped Massachusetts during the witch trials . . .”   And some people wonder why Southerners in 1861 no longer wanted to be part of a union that included New England Yankees.

Thomas Fleming has discovered historical truths that Clyde Wilson long ago wrote about.  In an essay entitled “The Yankee Problem in American History” Wilson pointed out that “by Yankee I do not mean everybody from north of the Potomac and Ohio.  Lots of them have always been good folks.”  He, like others before him, used “the term [Yankee] historically to designate that peculiar ethnic group descended from New Englanders, who can be easily recognized by their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, and lack of congeniality, [and] for ordering other people around . . . .  They are the chosen saints whose mission is to make America, and the world, into the perfection of their own image.”  “Hillary Rodham Clinton,” Clyde Wilson continues, “is a museum-quality specimen of the Yankee – self-righteous, ruthless, and self-aggrandizing.”

By 1860, writes Wilson, “The North had been Yankeeized, for the most part quietly, by control of churches, schools, and other cultural institutions, by whipping up a frenzy of paranoia about the alleged plot of the South to spread slavery to the North,” the theme of Abe Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech.  Of course, that was never the plan and never a possibility, but the “diseased” public mind of the North, fueled by the slick political rhetoric of politicians like Lincoln, actually persuaded many in the North.

Clyde Wilson describes abolitionism in almost an identical fashion that Thomas Fleming does:

Abolitionism, despite what has been said later, was not based on
Sympathy for the  black people nor on an ideal of natural rights.
It was based on the hysterical conviction that Southern slaveholders
Were evil sinners who stood in the way of fulfillment of America’s driving
Mission to establish Heaven on Earth . . . .  Most abolitionists had
Little knowledge or interest in black people or knowledge of life in
The South . . . . many abolitionists expected that evil Southern whites and
Blacks would disappear and the land repopulated by virtuous Yankees.

Ralph Waldo Emerson was one of these.  He once predicted that since black people were, in his opinion, and “inferior race,” they would eventually “go the way of the Dodo Bird” and become extinct.

A Disease in the Public Mind is filled with scorn for the abolitionists and their un-American beliefs, including their belief of the inferiority of black people.  By failing to know anything at all about Southern society, never spending any time there, writes Fleming, the abolitionists did not understand that many of the slaves were highly skilled and talented blacksmiths, carpenters, coopers, farmers, and artisans of all sorts.  This ignorance has led generations of Yankees, including many of today’s “liberals,” to believe that because of slavery, the descendants of slaves “would have to be treated like children, at best, or creatures form an alien planet at worst.”

Thomas Fleming would likely be in complete agreement with Murray Rothbard, as well as Clyde Wilson, on the nature of mid-nineteenth century “Yankees.”  Rothbard wrote in his essay, “Just War,” that:

[T]he North’s driving force, the ‘Yankees’—that ethnocultural group
who either lived in New England or migrated from there to upstate
New York, northern and eastern Ohio, northern Indiana, and northern
Illinois – had been swept by . . . a fanatical and emotional neo-Puritanism
driven by a fervent ‘postmillenialism’ which held that as a precondition
for the Second Advent of Jesus Christ, man must set up a thousand-
year Kingdom of God on Earth.  The Kingdom is to be a perfect society.
In order to be perfect, of course, this Kingdom must be free of sin . . . .  If
you didn't . . . stamp out sin by force you yourself would not be saved
(emphasis added).

This is why, said Rothbard, the “Northern war against slavery partook of a fanatical millennialist fervor, of a cheerful willingness to uproot institutions, to commit mayhem and mass murder, to plunder and loot and destroy, all in the name of high moral principle.  They were Pattersonian humanitarians with the guillotine: the Anabaptists, the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks of their era.”

Thomas Fleming points out that the husband of Julia Ward Howe, author of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” was one of the financiers of John Brown’s terrorist mass murder sprees.  Her song replaced “John Brown’s Body” as the Yankee anthem as it celebrated the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens as “the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

Thomas Fleming discusses many other historical facts in A Disease in the Public Mind that yours truly has also written about and been denounced as a a liar, a slavery defender, a “Neo-Confederate,” and worse.  He praises Thomas Jefferson for being among the first American statesmen to propose the peaceful emancipation of Southern slaves.  He describes in detail the breathtaking hypocrisy of New Englanders who “rediscovered the sacred union,” he writes sarcastically, after having plotted to secede from the union for a dozen years after Jefferson’s election as president.

Fleming also writes of how the “Yankees” habitually attempted to plunder the South with protectionist tariffs that protected their manufacturers from competition.  He understood that the Republican Party’s opposition to the extension of slavery into the new territories was based on their wish of “Free Soil for Free (White) Men,” the title of chapter 19.  That is, they wanted a Homestead Act that would hand out free land to white settlers while banning the existence of all black people, free or slave.  He quotes Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley explaining that his “paramount objective” was to “save the union” and not to end slavery.

In his final chapter Thomas Fleming writes about Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was an officer in Lincoln’s army who was wounded in battle.  After the war, “For seventy years, he repeatedly condemned the abolitionists and others who claimed they had a message from some higher power that everyone had to obey.  Above all he voiced his contempt for people whose claim to certitude often persuaded other men to kill each other.”  If this sounds familiar, it is because it has been the guiding principle of American foreign policy ever since 1865.

By Al Benson Jr.
Recently a new mayor was elected, after a run-off election) in Jackson, Mississippi. There was almost nothing about it in any of the “news” papers that I saw and I checked with friends in Mississippi, about sixty miles south of Jackson, and they said the same thing. When it came to the new mayor of Jackson it was pretty quiet on the home front and not much news was passed out other than that he had won the election.

It was like everything else in this country anymore. If you want to find out what really goes on you have to check out sources from other countries.

I had never even heard of Jackson’s new mayor until I read an article on Trevor Loudon’s New Zeal Blog, that was a real eye opener. It was entitled “Chokwe Lumumba, Van Jones, Rev. Jeremiah Wright—Race Radicals, Marxist Militants”. Mr. Loudon started the article off with: “What do Jackson, Mississippi’ radical new Mayor Chokwe Lumumba, former Obama ‘Green Jobs Czar’ Van Jones, and former Barack Obama pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright have in common? All of them are veterans of the Communist instigated Black Radical Congress.” Loudon went on to explain how over 70 activists from over twenty cities around the country met in Chicago (where else) to start planning for a Black Radical Congress. Although the participants came as individuals, they represented groups like the New Afrikan People’s Organization, the Labor Party, the Communist Party USA, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, African American Agenda 2000, the Democratic Socialists of America and “the Communist Party splinter Committees of Correspondence.”

Loudon also mentioned “two Marxist Obama mentors, Timuel Black and Alice Palmer,” who took part. “Palmer was an official of the Communist Party contolled U.S. Peace Council and the bona fide Soviet front International Organization of Journalists.” The Black Radical Congress sounds like an old home week affair for the most radical leftists in the country. And Jackson’s newly elected mayor was part and parcel of it. Do you think the average person in Jackson had or has any idea of all this. I don’t.

In yet another column on the same blog spot Mr. Loudon observed that: “Elected in May, Mr. Lumumba is already making his mark on the city, charting a new direction—one that may have implications far beyond Jackson, indeed far beyond Mississippi. In 1983, the Communist Party USA and Democratic Socialists of America took advantage of a split electoral race to elect their candidate, radical lawyer and former Congressman, Harold Washington, as Mayor of Chicago. Washington appointed hundreds of leftists to city positions and solidified a movement that went on to elect two more allies: Carol Moseley Braun and then Barack Obama to the U.S. Senate from Illinois. Last month, history repeated itself in one of the South’s largest Black majority towns. Activists in Jackson, Mississippi took another advantage of another split field to steer one of their leaders, Chokwe Lumumba, into the mayorality.”

And much like Obama, Lumumba is busily appointing dedicated left-wingers to positions of importance. Loudon noted: “Already Lumumba has appointed a bona fide communist to this transition team—Bill Chandler, Executive Director of the very influential Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance. Chandler is a veteran of Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Workers, he is a former Communist Party USA affiliate and was recently a member of the National Coordinating Committee of Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a Communist Party splinter group. It is because of Chandler and his radical allies in the state legislature that Mississippi has been unable to pass legislation clamping down on illegal immigrants in the state.”

Although folks in Mississippi have not been treated to much information about Jackson’s new mayor, other folks around the country have been quite active in his behalf.

I came across a site where they had a group in New York City that was putting on fundraisers back in March, 2013 to help Mr. Lumumba to get elected. Now why should folks in New York City care all that much about who gets elected mayor in Jackson, Mississippi unless his election is part of someone’s agenda?
I also ran across an item on  that said: “Congratulations! Chokwe Lumumba Elected Mayor of Jackson, Mississippi” and it gave a little more background of Lumumba. The article noted: “As an attorney, Lumumba has represented legendary activist, poet, actor and Hip-Hop artist Tupac Shakur in several cases and his grandmother, Assata Shakur, who Lumumba calls a ‘Black Panther heroine. Assata, formerly Joanne Chesimard, was a member of the Black Panther Party and Black Liberation Army. She sought asylum in Cuba after being accused of killing a New Jersey state trooper…” So, to Jackson’s new mayor this Black Panther(ess) was a heroine. Anyone who doesn’t realize that the Black Panthers are a Marxist-oriented group just isn’t paying attention.

Jackson’s new mayor has some really interesting friends and I’d be willing to bet that 99% of the voting population in Jackson doesn’t have and never will have a clue. Jackson is a stepping stone for this man and he seeks to ascend even higher, like Obama, in the leftist pantheon of “gods.”

Dear Patriots:

  Perhaps this Declaration is worth a ‘Re-Read’ and a Comparison to what we have today in Washington.

  Please Note the comment at its conclusion.

  Have we Not recreated that which we once opposed and tried to prevent from reoccurring in 1860?

  Think about it, and then perhaps the ‘Connection of our Confederate Dots’ will take on a Greater Significance.

Deo Vindice,

Craig Maus

President, The Confederate Society of America

(Thanks to Mark Motto for providing- Member, Board of Directors of The Confederate Society of America)




The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Guess what. These guys took the equivalent of Obama in their day (King George III) to task and called him out.



By Al Benson Jr.

In the Holy Scriptures, Jesus Christ speaks in John 14:6 and says “I am the way; the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” That’s a pretty straight forward statement. He is saying that no man ever gets to God, except through Him. Down through the centuries people, not willing to come to Christ, have continued to try other ways. There is a reluctance in men, because of their sin, to accept the truth. They always want to do it “their way.” And often to do it “their way” they will invent new ideologies (which they claim are not religious, but really are) which ultimately destroy the lives of millions. Marxism is one such ideology. Most naïve folks today think that because the Berlin Wall was torn down that communism is dead. I hate to disappoint you, but it ain’t so Marxist ideology (theology) is alive and well on many college campuses in this country and lots of other places and it has a pretty good toe hold in Washington. But, then, that is nothing new.

I read an interesting and penetrating article recently on written by Christopher C. M. Warren and published on Friday, June 8, 2012 called Karl Marx and the Communist Religion of Hate. In part Mr. Warren stated: “The thesis of this short paper is that Karl Marx, the founder of communism, was a man of profound religious beliefs who formed what basically amounts to an ‘anti-Christian religion’. Why he became anti-Christian is the central mystery of his life. Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the founders of Communism, grew up in wealthy families far removed from a life of poverty and is one of the contradictions to be found in the lives of communist leaders. Their successors—Lenin, Trotsky and the others who led the Bolshevik Revolution in Russian in 1917—became multi-millionaires…As one historical commentator notes: ‘Running left-wing movements has always been the prerogative of spoiled rich kids. This pattern goes all the way back to the days when an over-indulged and affluent young man named Karl Marx combined with another over-indulged youth from a wealthy family named Friedrich Engels to create the Communist ideology.” There is some doubt as to who actually created the Communist ideology and if you look at the people who hired Marx to write The Communist Manifesto you have to conclude the ideas were not totally his but he shared their worldview.

The historical commentator’s quote continued: “The phoniness of the claim to be a movement of the working class was blatant from the beginning. When Engels was elected as a delegate to the Communist League in 1847, in his own words, ‘a working man was proposed for appearances sake, but those who proposed him voted for me.’ It may have been the first rigged ‘election’ of the Communist movement but it was certainly no the last…”

Mr. Warren has noted: “Marx’s followers pursued an anti-Christian Utopia that—from the beginning—focused on political power, not on meeting the needs of the poor. Like today’s seductive vision of change, their socialist/communist transformation required a ‘crisis’ and a ‘pirpose’ that would capture public attention.” Almost sounds as if he is referring to our current “hope and change” fantasy.

In regard to a poem Marx wrote, Mr. Warren said: “Marx was 18 when he wrote these things. His life’s program had already been established. There was no word about serving mankind, the proletariat, or socialism. He wished to bring the world to ruin. He wished to build for himself a throne whose bulwark should be human fodder.” So Marx’s anti-Christian religion was built on the misery of others and on his own personal selfishness. Marx and Engels were, basically, spoiled brats who should have been taken to the woodshed when they were young enough for it to have done some good.

Whittaker Chambers in his informative book Witness has observed that Communism and Christianity are two “irreconcilable faiths.” On page 712 he gives a quote from someone else—“The problem of Communism is not an economic problem. The problem of Communism is the problem of atheism.” Upon reading that many will think that atheists have no religion, which is not accurate. Their guiding theology is that Jesus is not the Christ, is not Lord. And it would seem that this is the theology that holds sway in Washington, regardless of who we elect to any office. That tells you something. It tells you that even if you vote and elect “conservatives” they will have no influence over the direction the government goes in.

A European Mr. Chambers referred to as “Smetana” once told him “You don’t understand the structure of American society or you would not ask such a question. In the United States the working class or Democrats. The middle class are Republicans. The upper class are Communists.” If you understand who constitutes the upper class to be members of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission then you are not far off the mark.

I think, from reading his book, there were a lot of things Mr. Chambers did not realize. He found that, when he tried to expose the Communists he had worked with for years, the government in Washington, as a whole, was not interested. Chambers was horribly smeared by the media, who always defended the Communists and were merciless against any anti-Communist and especially against those who exposed what the Reds were doing in the US government. Communist espionage in the US government was the sacred cow—it was not to be touched and when you started to expose Communists like Alger Hiss or Harry Dexter White and some others then you had to be stopped at any cost. Chambers clearly saw the struggle against communism as a battle between “two irreconcilable faiths” and I can not disagree with him. The Communists today still continue to attack anything they perceive as Christian. In that they carry out the agenda of those in back of them as well as their own. As the Scripture truthfully states that Jesus is Lord so the ruling elite in this country and others will oppose that truth because what they really want is a world the worships them and their authority. They want to be gods and to accomplish that they must remove God from his throne so there will be room for them on it.

Their only problem is that it will never work, but yet they will, and have, ruined millions of lives in their attempts, both their own disciples and those who dared to oppose them.

I recall talking to a man, probably 30 years ago now, as we sat in my living room over coffee. I told him of my Christian understanding of Communism and that, because of that, I had to oppose it in any lawful way I could. I never forgot his comment to me. He said “ You are going to lose, you know that don’t you?” To which I replied “Whether I win or lose is not the case. It’s a matter of doing what’s right.” He seemed to accept that answer.

Whittaker Chambers felt the same way. He felt that, in the end, he would lose, that, looking at the country as it was in his day, the Communists would win. Yet he decided to expose them anyway—because it was the right thing to do.

You cannot compromise with an anti-Christian faith. You cannot just sit it out and hope it will go away, or just sit it out because to expose it is a “negative” reaction and you don’t want to deal in negatives. Anti-Christianity needs to be exposed. Just possibly in the exposure, some of those who are anti-Christian may be led to repentance and thereby get their lives straightened out. But in all of it we must point to the fact that Jesus IS the way to God and so, in God’s time all the schemes of the Communists and One World crowd will fail and maybe the Lord will exercise His sovereign control by using His people to expose the evil.

By Al Benson Jr.

This week the majority of public school-educated folks will celebrate their “freedom” on the fourth of July. Some will put up American flags (some churches already have scores of them up) while others shoot off bunches of fireworks and hot dogs will be consumed by the ton as the country celebrates our “independence.”
We have been educated to celebrate the illusion of freedom, a freedom that has not existed for well over 100 years, but we have been taught to think it’s there, and with what passes for education in our day no one has even thought about questioning any of this. We just accept it. After all, didn’t George Bush tell us the Muslims hated us because of our freedoms? He then went on, with the Patriot Act, to eviscerate what few of those freedoms still existed. If the Muslims hated us for our freedoms, then, in order that we do nothing to “offend” them, those freedoms needed to be subtly removed. Bush and Cheney worked mightily at that and so has Comrade Obama. They have all taken to heart the old saying “freedom is slavery.” And their agenda is to enforce that.
So, as we approach the glorious Fourth, stop and think about what freedoms you still enjoy. And are those “freedoms” any different from those the folks in the Soviet Union had?
A friend sent me an email tonight noting that there are currently 16 gun control bills now pending in the US House and Senate. The Senate, thanks to monumental pressure from the Gun Owners of America and other groups, was forced to vote down gun control measures they would have loved to have passed for Comrade Obama, last April. With elections coming up next year they had to be careful—but wait until after next year’s elections and see what happens. Comrade Obama has been instructed by his CFR handlers to gut the Second Amendment and no matter what he says, he is working on that. Don’t think he’s finished because he lost round one. Marxists are nothing if not tenacious. Patriots and Christians should be that tenacious but they seldom are.
So what “freedoms” do you still enjoy? Well, you have the right to do what the government tells you to do. You have the right to like what the government tells you to like. You have the right to dislike what the government tells you not to like. You have the right to partake of the leftist worldview the federal government thinks you should have—and if you decide not to partake of that worldview you have the right to be spied on, have your email monitored, have your Facebook account tapped into, have your phone calls monitored and you may, if you make enough of a fuss, earn the right to drone surveillance or possible assassination if you really tick someone in Washington off. After all, didn’t Obama appoint an “assassination” czar awhile back?
I tell you, folks, with an impressive list of “freedoms” like this, how can anyone complain? After all, don’t we have the freedom to be safe rather than free? The feds tell us we do, so it must be so. After all, if you can’t trust your government who can you trust—right?
At this point the federal government is in the process of depriving us of our first, second, fourth, fifth and ninth and tenth amendment rights—and we have the unbridled freedom to sit back and watch them do it. And if, for some foolish reason we choose not to agree with that, well there are always those drones.
The old bandit in the John Wayne movie said “You ought to leave a man his illusions.” And the feds have, this year as in many years past, left us with the illusion that we are a free people when nothing could be further from the truth.
We have been taught that evil is good, that bitter is sweet, that less is really more, that freedom is slavery, and it would seem that we love to have it so because it never occurs to us to question it. Someone once said “None are so enslaved as those who think they are free.” That describes this country today. “The brainwashed never wonder.” 


By and with Permission from Bernhard Thuersam; Chairman of
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial

North Carolinian Estimate of Sherman's Associates 

“On March 7, 1865 General William T. Sherman and his army of mercenaries from Germany, Ireland,

Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland and Prussia, as well as the northern United States, many of whom

could not speak English, crossed the North Carolina State line.

Behind them lay the smoking ruins of sacked Georgia and South Carolina cities, homeless widows

and orphans, and death by starvation. At Laurel Hill, NC, Sherman halted to refresh his troops, and from

here he wired General Schofield in Wilmington that he would be in Goldsboro, NC March 20, 1865

via Fayetteville, NC. On March 12th Sherman and his army of barbarians reached Fayetteville.

After plundering the residential section, it was then burned. Also destroyed were four cotton mills,

the churches, banks, courthouse and warehouses. Sherman then moved on looting and burning.

Any item that could not be carried, including furniture, carpets and farm equipment, was destroyed.

Even the cabins of the slaves were robbed by the Yankees.” 
(Land of the Golden River, page 101)

The Cruel Yankee Enemy:
June 7 (1863). Sunday (Diary entry): 
"From every side evidences of the barbarity, savageness, and insolent assumption of the

Yankee government in the policy on which they have resolved in the conduct of the war, thicken.

The policy fully disclosed is to trample out all opposition in all places which come into their possession,

even if it leads to a deportation of the whole population. They have Negro regiments in every military

department except Hooker's, mostly enrolled in the South. Massachusetts with

characteristic regard for consistency, principle, and thrift is sending her [non-resident] Negroes

to the wars to be killed off, a clear gain every way. 

A letter (circular) was captured on a vessel taken on the Neuse (N.C.) some days ago, addressed

to General (John G.) Foster by (Augustus S. Montgomery) dated Washington City, which proposed

a plan for organizing a general insurrection on August 4 next throughout the Confederate States

to be supported by United States armies.

The slaves were to be informed through the contrabands, and the circular was to be passed from

one military commander to another, each writing below, without his signature, the word "approved"

so that the friends of the enterprise might know how far it had the support of the military authorities,

and that they might each be aware that it was generally known and approved. Copies of this were

sent by [North Carolina] Governor Vance to the War Department and to General Lee. This diabolism

was not authenticated by any government authority, but bore evidences of having

the countenance of the United States Government.

There is nothing which they suppose tends to the destruction of the South which they are not prompt

to embrace....The Earth contains no race so lost to every sentiment of manliness, honor, faith or humanity,

at once so servile and so tyrannical, so mean and so cruel, such willing slaves, and so bent on

destroying the independence and existence of their enemy."
(Inside the Confederate Government, pp. 69-71)

"In The Country of the Enemy"

Dec. 22, 1862
"At one point the column was confronted by a spunky secesh female, who, with the heavy

wooden rake, stood guard over her winter's store of sweet potatoes. Her eyes flashed defiance,

but so long as she stood upon the defensive no molestation was offered her. When...she changed

her tactics and slapped a cavalry officer in the face, gone were her sweet potatoes and other stores

in the twinkling of an eye."

Feb 8th, 1863
"Leaving the Washington [North Carolina] road on our right.....we were not long in ascertaining the fact

that we were on a foraging expedition, and if history should call it a reconnaissance, the misnomer will never

restock the stables and storehouses, the bee-hives and hen-roosts, that night depleted along the road of Long Acre.

We received an early hint that we were going to capture a lot of bacon twelve miles out of Plymouth,

but if the residents along the road this side that point managed to save their own bacon and things,

they certainly had reason to bless their stars. If it would not be considered unsoldierly and sentimental,

your correspondent might feel inclined to deprecate this business of foraging, as it is carried on.

It is pitiful to see homes once, perhaps, famed for their hospitality, entered and robbed; even if the robbers

respect the code of war. It is not less hard for women and children to be deprived of the means of subsistence

because their husbands and sons and brothers are shooting at us from the bush. But war is a great,

a terrible, an undiscriminating monster, and no earthly power may stay the ravages of the unleashed brute."

"In The Country of the Enemy," Diary of a Massachusetts Corporal, pp. 102-103

Pianos and Furniture for Northern Homes:
".....(I)t was during the winter of 1862-63 that General Foster made a raid from New Berne up to near

Tarboro, NC, and as soon as I could ascertain his designs and objective I began to concentrate troops

to meet him. Foster was at a village about twelve miles distant. In the morning Foster was far away

on his road to New was cold and snow covered the ground,

and pursuit was useless except by cavalry. 

I am quite sure vandalism (especially stealing) commenced in New Berne, for the pianos and furniture

shipped from there decorate to-day many a Northern home. At Hamilton most of the dwellings had

been entered, mirrors broken, furniture smashed, doors torn from their hinges, and especially were the

feather beds emptied into the streets, spokes of carriage wheels broken , and cows shot in the

fields by the roadside, etc. It was a pitiful sight to see the women and children in their destitute

condition. Alas! Toward the end (of the war) it was an everyday occurrence, and the main object

of small expeditions was to steal private property." 
(Two Wars, General Samuel G. French, pp. 150-152)

"Fall of the Confederacy Unexpected to the Last"

“Dear Children – One warm day in April [1865], a great many ladies and children assembled in the public

square in Raleigh, near the Capitol, all anxious to hear the news…some one said “It is reported that Lee

has surrendered” -- such consternation on the faces of the people, then as the news became more general,

such weeping and wringing of hands, such heavy hearts – privation, sorrow, death, defeat and poverty.

Raleigh was now filled with wounded and disabled soldiers; the churches and every available space turned

into hospitals. I did what I could, but it seemed nothing. The Episcopal church being nearer to me, I went

there mostly; many poor men were on the benches, some in high delirium, some in the agony of death.

A young soldier passed away, none knew his name or home; as the coffin lid was being screwed down,

a dear lady pressed her lips to his brow, and said: “Let me kiss him for his Mother.”

Every heart responded and all eyes filled with tears. Volumes of heartrending and pathetic incidents could

be written of our four years’ cruel war. Although we were becoming less hopeful, yet the Fall of the

Confederacy was unexpected to the last.
(A Grandmother’s Recollection of Dixie, page 28)

"Hung for Defending His Country"

“Dear Children – Soon our troops began to pass through [Raleigh, April 1865], weary, dirty fellows,

and hungry also, every one that could, fed them; they could not stop but in passing, we stood at the gate

and handed them bread and ham; they were marching to the tune of Dixie, the war song that we vainly

thought was going to lead them to victory.

Our soldiers retreated towards Hillsboro, the Federal soldiers pursuing.

One reckless Confederate soldier from Texas was in the rear guard; he fired on a Yankee soldier,

so close were the pursuers to the pursued. After firing he turned and put spurs to his horse, but

unfortunately his horse stumbled, and he was captured. The next morning under a guard of soldiers,

he was carried by our home, (I looked on with anguished heart) to the grove back of your Grandfather’s,

and hung to the limb of a huge tree, under which your uncles and aunts had played in childhood.” 
(A Grandmother’s Recollection of Dixie, page 29)