Confederate Society
By Brion McClanahan

Brion McClanahan holds a Ph.D. in American history from the University of South Carolina and is a faculty member at Tom Woods's Liberty Classroom. He is the author or co-author of four books: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Real American Heroes(Regnery, 2012), The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution (Regnery History, 2012);Forgotten Conservatives in American History (with Clyde Wilson, Pelican, 2012); and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (Regnery, 2009). Courtesy of Lew

The Republicans won.  What’s next?  In a November 5 opinion piece for the Washington Times, Charles Hurt postulates that this could be the “most dangerous two years in 150 years.”  President Obama, Hurst fears, now has nothing to lose and will become more partisan as he moves farther to the Left.  Hurst contends this is a time for statesmanship, for Obama to channel his inner Abraham Lincoln and “save the Republic” as Lincoln did one-hundred fifty years earlier, to look to Lincoln’s bust in the Oval Office for inspiration.

Certainly, Hurst has correctly assessed Obama’s chosen path.  His post-election press conference was little more than a doubling down on the King Barack agenda.  Unfortunately, Obama is doing what Lincoln would do.  That is what makes him dangerous.  Lincoln did not unite anyone except those who insisted on the complete annihilation of the South and the shredding of the Constitution as ratified by the founding generation.  Consider Lincoln’s actions before the firing on Fort Sumter in April 1861:

1. Lincoln privately wrote Republican Senators urging them to reject all compromise measures, including the famous Crittenden Compromise of 1860.

2. Lincoln publically insisted that compromise was not an option in several speeches before his inauguration.

3. Lincoln refused to meet with commissioners from several Southern States who were sent to Washington in an effort to settle issues related to federal property and debt.  He, in fact, wanted Secretary of State Seward to feign sick to stall negotiations.  He did and negotiations never took place.

4.  Lincoln ignored the Washington D.C. Peace Conference of January 1861, convened by some of the most respected men in the United States for the express purpose of avoiding war.

5. Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address was combative and defiant and placed the burden of compromise on the South, a section which had already left the Union, and not the North, a section which had relentlessly agitated the bonds of Union over the previous eighty years.

6.  Lincoln began polling his cabinet the week after taking office about provisioning Fort Sumter.  All except his Postmaster General were against the move.  Lincoln supported sending a fleet knowing it would lead to war.  As he later wrote in his diary, the action had the desired effect.  The South fired first and Lincoln could call for troops by insisting the South started the War.

7.  The highest ranking general officer in the United States, Winfield Scott, argued against any action that might incite violence.  He was quickly dispatched from any advisory councils and later made irrelevant by the Lincoln administration.

Remember also that Lincoln was elected with less than forty percent of the total popular vote, was not on the ballot in several States, and did not receive one Electoral College vote south of the Mason-Dixon.  He was a minority president with an agenda that sixty percent of the American population rejected in 1860.

Lincoln’s partisanship and resolute dedication to the “party line” led to the War in 1861.  He refused to compromise, refused to work with those who opposed him, refused to listen to those who wanted to avoid war, and refused to deviate from his agenda.  Sound familiar?

Hurst has bought the Lincoln myth of the grand statesman unwillingly dragged into war by hell-bent “fire-eaters” in the South, and who through skilled maneuvering rescued the federal republic of the founding generation and preserved a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  The story is much more complicated.  American collective infatuation with “Honest Abe” is a mental roadblock and destructive to a civil society based on “consent of the governed.”

Republicans, for all of their faults, should be ready for a Lincolnian executive, one in which the rule of law is trumped by executive action, separation of power is held in contempt, and the Constitution is nothing but an unenforceable piece of parchment.  But to do so, they need to end their love affair with the sixteenth president and recognize President Obama as part of the Lincolnian tradition.  That would take a manly determination and a critical reassessment of their core beliefs.

Let’s hope the outcome in 2015 isn’t the same as in 1861.

By Robert Ferguson

It’s time for the majority of people in the United States to realize what the federal government really is; the most violent, out of control, destructive entity on earth and is by far the greatest purveyor of suffering the human race has ever experienced. Countries require an equilibrium to continue to have peace and stability within them. Factors such as shared social and cultural lineage, religion, language and more. That is why you see so much chaos in the “countries” of the Middle East, Africa and South America. The boundaries on the map do not accurately reflect those shared social and cultural bonds, they were carved out by imperial powers over the course of centuries of colonialism. The reality is that the United States should most likely be two or three countries with autonomous legal authority to their own. Perhaps north-northeast, the south, Midwest-west.

We are all fed the big lie that the Civil War was fought over slavery but more and more people, now with the Internet, are discovering the truth that Lincoln was, rather than a national hero, probably one of the worst presidents we ever had. His legend is a myth and a lie, which is why it has to constantly be repeated and reinforced starting at a very young age, our kindergarten children being put in Lincoln beards and made to recite the Gettysburg Address in front of the whole school. The recent movie “Lincoln”, which of course racked up Academy Awards, is based on a novel written by an admitted plagiarist (Doris Kearns-Goodwin), and lo and behold our dear savior president fights vampires as well!! It doesn’t matter who the person is sitting behind the Truman desk in the Oval Office, the whole lot of them are filth if only made so by the system of which they are a part. Countries in Europe are already clamoring for secession from the corrupt European Union which has taken a once rich and productive continent of peoples, with a long and beautiful history spanning more than a millennium, and bankrupted them in 21 years (1993 est.).

Secessionist and nullification movements are gaining momentum in every state in the union. Beltway boys in Washington, along with their counterparts in Brussels, would say yet “united we stand, divided we fall!!”. Perhaps, but only within equitable boundaries of human coexistence. The truth is the only thing they want to “unite” is more and more human beings under a single umbrella of taxation and control. We must simply say “NO” to and ignore federal decrees. No more printing money out of thin air corrupting our economy and robbing our wealth through inflation, no more imperial wars, no more CIA and NSA spooks, no more government brain-washing centers called “public schools”. No more. Oh but that exciting and very significant US Presidential election is coming up!! Long live the empire.

By James Bovard

James Bovard is the author of Public Policy Hooligan, Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, Terrorism and Tyranny, and other books. More info at;.Copyright © 2014 James Bovard

This is the 150th anniversary of one of the Civil War’s most destructive and controversial campaigns. Union Gen. Philip Sheridan unleashed a hundred mile swath of flames in the Shenandoah Valley that left vast numbers of civilians tottering towards starvation.  Unfortunately, the burning of the Shenandoah Valley has been largely forgotten, foreshadowing how subsequent brutal military operations  would also vanish into the Memory Hole.

In August 1864, supreme Union commander Ulysses S. Grant ordered Sheridan to “do all the damage to railroads and crops you can… If the war is to last another year, we want the Shenandoah Valley to remain a barren waste.”  Sheridan set to the task with vehemence, declaring that “the people must be left nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war” and promised that, when he was finished, the valley “from Winchester to Staunton will have but little in it for man or beast.”

Some Union soldiers were aghast at their marching orders. A Pennsylvania cavalryman lamented at the end of the fiery spree: “We burnt some sixty houses and all most of the barns, hay, grain and corn in the shocks for fifty miles [south of] Strasburg… It was a hard-looking sight to see the women and children turned out of doors at this season of the year.” An Ohio major wrote in his diary that the burning “does not seem real soldierly work. We ought to enlist a force of scoundrels for such work.” A newspaper correspondent embedded with Sheridan’s army reported: “Hundreds of nearly starving people are going North . . . not half the inhabitants of the valley can subsist on it in its present condition.”

After one of Sheridan’s favorite aides was shot by Confederates, Sheridan ordered his troops to burn all houses within a five mile radius. After many outlying houses had been torched, the small town at the center – Dayton -  was spared after a federal officer disobeyed Sheridan’s order. The homes and barns of Mennonites – a peaceful sect who opposed slavery and secession  – were especially hard hit by that crackdown, according to a 1909 history of Mennonites in America.

By the end of Sheridan’s campaign, the former “breadbasket of the Confederacy” could no longer even feed the women and children remaining there.  An English traveler in 1865 “found the Valley standing empty as a moor.” Historian Walter Fleming, in his classic 1919 study, The Sequel to Appomattox, quoted one bedeviled local farmer: “From Harper’s Ferry to New Market, which is about eighty miles, the country was almost a desert… . The barns were all burned; chimneys standing without houses, and houses standing without roof, or door, or window.” John Heatwole, author of “The Burning: Sheridan’s Devastation of the Shenandoah Valley” (1998),  concluded: “The civilian population of the Valley was affected to a greater extent than was the populace of any other region during the war, including those in the path of Sherman’s infamous march to the sea in Georgia.” Unfortunately, given the chaos of the era at the end of the Civil War and its immediate aftermath, there are no reliable statistics on the number of women, children, and other civilians who perished thanks to “the burning.”

Some defenders of the Union tactics insist that there was no intent to harshly punish civilians. But, after three years of a bloody stalemate, the Lincoln administration had adapted a total war mindset to scourge the South into submission.  As Sheridan was finishing his fiery campaign, Gen. William Sherman wrote to Gen. Grant that “Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of it’s roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources.” Sherman had previously telegrammed Washington that “There is a class of people – men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order.” President Lincoln congratulated both Sheridan and Sherman for campaigns that sowed devastation far and wide.

The carnage inflicted by Sheridan, Sherman, and other northern commanders made the South’s post-war recovery far slower and multiplied the misery of both white and black survivors. Connecticut College professor Jim Downs’ recent book, Sick From Freedom, exposes how the chaotic situation during and after the war contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of freed slaves.

After the Civil War, politicians and many historians consecrated the conflict as a crusade for freedom and the grisly tactics were consigned to oblivion.  The habit of sweeping abusive policies under the rug also permeated post-Civil War policy towards the Indians (Sheridan famously declared “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”) and the suppression of Filipino insurgents after the Spanish-American War. Later historians sometimes ignored U.S. military tactics in World War Two and Vietnam that resulted in heavy civilian casualties.

The failure to recognize how wars routinely spawn pervasive brutality and collateral deaths lowers Americans’ resistance to new conflicts that promise to make the world safe for democracy, or rid the world of evil, or achieve other lofty sounding goals. For instance, the Obama administration sold its bombing of Libya as a self-evident triumph of good over a vile despot; instead, chaos reigns in Tripoli. As the administration ramps up bombing in Syria and Iraq, both its rhetoric and its tactics echo prior U.S. debacles.

Since 1864, no prudent American should have expected this nation’s wars to have happy or uplifting endings.  Unfortunately, as long as the spotlight is kept off atrocities, most citizens will continue to underestimate the odds that wars will spawn debacles and injustices that return to haunt us.

By Thomas 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 AbeHow Capitalism Saved AmericaHamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today. His latest book is Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government.

When the Washington Post reviewed Martin Scorsese’s movie “The Gangs of New York,” which included a reasonably-accurate portrayal of the 1863 New York City draft riots (see Iver Bernstein, The New York City Draft Riots), the Post’s reviewer expressed astonishment upon learning that such an event had occurred.  “We were all taught in school that there was national unity during the Civil War,” he opined.

Of course, there is never “national unity” about anything, especially war, democratic politics being what it is.  When is the last time you heard of a unanimous vote expressing national unity in the U.S. Congress about anything?  Even the vote to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor was not unanimous.

The myth of national unity during the “Civil War” was invented and cultivated by the history profession, the Republican Party, and the New England clergy in the post-war era to “justify” the killing of hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens in the Southern states; the plundering of the South during “Reconstruction;” the destruction of the voluntary union of the states and the system of federalism that was created by the founding fathers; and the adoption of Hamiltonian mercantilism as America’s new economic system.

Any serious student of the “Civil War” knows that this is all absurd nonsense.  In addition to myriad draft riots, there were massive desertions from the Union Army from the very beginning of the war (see Ella Lonn, Desertion During the Civil War); Lincoln did shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers and imprison thousands of Northern political dissenters without due process.  He did deport the most outspoken Democratic Party critic in Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Dayton, Ohio.  He did rig elections by having soldiers intimidate Democratic Party voters.  And he did send some 15,000 federal troops to murder the New York City draft rioters by the hundreds in July of 1863. All of this has been discussed for decades in “mainstream” history scholarship such asConstitutional Problems Under Lincoln by James Randall and Freedom Under Lincoln by Dean Sprague.  The history profession has, however, done a meticulous job in seeing to it that such facts rarely, if ever, make it into the textbooks that are used in the public schools.

But times are changing in the era of the internet and of independent scholarship on the subject by scholars associated with such organizations as the Abbeville Institute.  The Institute’s latest publication is entitled Northern Opposition to Mr. Lincoln’s War, edited by D. Jonathan White.  It includes essays by White, Brion McClanahan, Marshall DeRosa, Arthur Trask, Joe Stromberg, Richard Valentine, Richard Gamble, John Chodes, and Allen Mendenhall.  These nine scholarly essays destroy the nationalist myth of “national unity” in the North during the War to Prevent Southern Independence.

Marshall DeRosa’s opening essay on “President Franklin Pierce and the War for Southern Independence” goes a long way in explaining why the nationalists in American politics believed that it was imperative to invent the myth of national unity.  President Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire was a Democrat who opposed the invasion of the Southern states.   He was a Jeffersonian, states-rights president, which is why he was mercilessly smeared by Lincoln’s hatchet man, William Seward, who accused him of treason (re-defined by the Lincoln administration as any criticism of it and its policies).  The real objects of Seward and Lincoln’s wrath towards Pierce, DeRosa explains, were the ideas that President Pierce stood for and was elected president on, as illustrated in the Democratic Party Platform of 1852.

The main ideas of this platform, upon which Pierce ran for president were: a federal government of limited powers, delegated to it by the states; opposition to the form of corporate welfare known as “internal improvements”; free trade and open immigration; gradual extinction of the national debt; opposition to a national bank; and realizing that the Constitution would have to be amended as a means of peacefullyending slavery.  This latter position was the position of the famous nineteenth-century libertarian abolitionist, Lysander Spooner, author ofThe Unconstitutionality of Slavery.

It was because of these ideas that Pierce was libeled and smeared by the Republican Party of his day, with subsequent generations of historians merely repeating the smears disguised as “scholarship.”  Lincoln’s claim to fame, on the other hand, writes DeRosa, “is not that he adhered to the rule of law [as Pierce did], but that he had the audacity to disregard it.”  Thanks to the history profession, moreover, “Americans continue to pay homage to the villains that laid the tracks to our present sorry state of affairs.”

D. Jonathan White surveys the Northern opponents of Lincoln’s war that were slandered by the administration and its media mouthpieces as “copperheads” (snakes in the grass).  Among the “copperheads” were many prominent citizens of the North who, like President Pierce, were passionate defenders of the rule of law and constitutionally-limited government.  Their main complaints were against Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus and the mass arrest of Northern political opponents without due process; the draft law, which they considered to be a form of slavery; the income tax imposed by the Lincoln administration – the first in American history; and protectionist tariffs (the cornerstone of the Republican Party platform of 1860).  Because of these beliefs, hundreds, if not thousands of “copperheads” were imprisoned without due process by the Lincoln administration.

Allen Mendenhall contributes a very interesting article about how the famous U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was wounded three times in the war, became a sharp critic of Lincoln, his “mystical” union, and the war during the rest of his life.  Brion McClanahan’s essay describes in scholarly detail the Jeffersonian Democrats in the state of Delaware who opposed the war (the state gave its three electoral votes and 46 percent of the popular vote to Southern Democrat John Breckenridge in the 1860 election).  R.T. Valentine does essentially the same thing in his chapter on opposition to Lincoln’s policies in Westchester County, New York and the greater Hudson Valley.  He describes in detail how the residents of these areas, many of whom had family history in the area going back to the time of the founding, deeply resented the pushy, imperialistic, arrogant “Yankees” who were the base of Lincoln’s support and who had been moving into New York state from New England in droves.

Arthur Trask demonstrates that there was also a great deal of opposition to Lincoln’s war in Philadelphia, where many residents had long-lasting business and personal relationships with Southerners, while John Chodes writes of the horrible wartime governor of Indiana, Oliver P. Morton, who apparently fancied himself as a mini-Lincoln with his imprisonment of dissenters and other dictatorial acts.

Joe Stromberg and Richard Gamble contribute chapters that explain the role of the Northern clergy in instigating the war.  Stromberg writes of the impulse of many Northern clergymen to use the coercive powers of the state to try to create some version of heaven on earth.  Worse yet,  “[T]he war of 1861-1865, as preached by the clergy surveyed here, became a permanent template for subsequent American crusades, whatever their origins.  From the Free Soil argument of the 1850s, through two World Wars, Cold War, and down to Iraq and beyond.  American leaders insist that their latest enemy [ISIS?] is both inherently expansionist and committed to some form of slavery.  It is therefore the duty of the new enemy to surrender ‘unconditionally’ and undergo reconstruction and reeducation for the good of all mankind . . .”

Richard Gamble traces the transformation of “Old School Presbyterianism” to where it embraced “political preaching.”  For example, upon Lincoln’s election a national assembly meeting in Philadelphia issued a proclamation that was “a turning point in the history of American Presbyterianism”:  “That in the judgment of this Assembly, it is the duty of the ministry and churches under its care to do all in their power to promote and perpetuate the integrity of the United States [government], and to strengthen, uphold, and encourage the Federal Government.”  The Old School Presbyterians, writes Gamble, “enlisted their church on the Union side,” which is to say, the side that would soon be invading, murdering, raping, and plundering its way through the Southern states.  This, Gamble argues, is how war and imperialism became the keystone of America’s “civil religion.”  This bogus “religion” is illustrated a thousand times over in the Laurence Vance archives on

The Abbeville Institute is to be congratulated for publishing this latest correction of the historical record regarding Lincoln’s war.  Northern Opposition to Mr. Lincoln’s War should be a part of the library of every American who resents having been lied to by his teachers, professors, film makers, and authors, and who seeks the truth about his own country’s history.

by Al Benson Jr.

In his rather convoluted thinking, Abraham Lincoln stated that: The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.” Some historians have noted that this association of the colonies before the Articles of Confederation was adopted, was a body that could only suggest certain courses of action, none of which had the force of law–a deliberative body–nothing more. Such facts made no difference whatever to Abraham Lincoln. They didn't fit his agenda and so he ignored them. As far as he was concerned, it was all “the Union” even though his ethereal version of it existed in his mind before the documents that founded the Union existed. Walter Kennedy and I noted in Lincoln’s Marxists on page 109 and following, which is chapter 5 entitled Lincoln’s Mystical View of the Union that this was Lincoln’s mindset.

Sad to say, this seems to be a rather strong tack in the Yankee/Marxist mindset in general. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase also seemed to lean strongly in this direction with his view of the Union.

John Niven, in his book Salmon P. Chase–a biography also noted: Had the Confederate States by their secession from the Union given up their former identity as Sumner, Stevens and other radical politicians argued? If they had, then it would logically follow that secession was a lawful act and the Union had existed only at the sufferance of the states, an argument Lincoln dismissed as an abstraction…

It has been argued that “The South never really understood the Union.” That may be true–at least they never understood it in the sense that the Yankee did. Had they truly done so, I would submit that the Southern states never should have ratified the Constitution to begin with. Christian statesman Patrick Henry warned his fellow Virginians with common sense arguments and logic of the dangers of Virginia’s ratification of the Constitution. Virginians did not heed his words. They should have. And yet, maybe some of the mud stuck against the wall, for in Virginia’s ratification ordinances it was stated: We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected…do, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression. New York’s ratification statement pretty much says the same thing. And their ratification ordinances were accepted with this language included in them.

In other words, some states ratified the Constitution with the proviso that, should things not work out in this new union, they had the right to leave. That was the Southern understanding of this new Constitution, and it would seem that some Northern folks had the same understanding. I agree with them. Yet, suffice it to say, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, after the War of Northern Aggression (or could we call it the War of Marxist Revolution?) took a view totally opposed to that truth, as had Lincoln. Should anyone really be surprised? After all, the winners always get to redefine the “history.”

Chase noted, in 1869, that the Constitution in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. He felt that once a state or territory got into the Union, that was it. It was there for eternity unless its status was determined by a revolution, or “consent of the states.” Chase noted the language in the Articles of Confederation about a “perpetual Union.” That term, “perpetual” did not appear in the new Constitution, but rather the new document referred to a “more perfect Union.” Chase apparently took that to mean “more perpetually perfect.” If Chase was aware or either Virginia’s nor New York’s ratification terminology he kept silent about it. After all, those ratification ordinances contradicted his “indestructible Union” tomfoolery.

And Chase was, apparently, more than ready to accept more broad, sweeping powers for the federal government. In 1866 he observed: That the war had changed the government and the powers of government were essentially different from what they were before the war. Now there was an understatement if ever I saw one, and yet a revelation as well. He’s telling you, right flat out, that the war gave the federal government more and expanded powers–probably not constitutional ones–but not to worry, Chase’s Supreme Court would remedy that little problem.

So Chase followed in the same vein that Lincoln had–the Union existed before the states and it was indestructible and irrevocable. And once you were in, you were still in, even if you seceded–in fact you really didn't secede, you only thought you did. Of course, then, to get back into this “Union” you had never really been out of, you had to ratify certain amendments. At this point, the logic (and I use that term loosely) of the Yankee/Marxist absolutely defies description.

You have to wonder where these people got their notion of an “indestructible” Union. Did it have anything to do with what they were smoking? When the group assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 gave us the Constitution (when it was really beyond their instructions to do so) what they did, in effect, was to secede from the Articles of Confederation and give us a whole new government–one that did not use the words “perpetual union” and one that did not forbid secession, even though I have been informed that it really did.

When the New England states sent delegates to Hartford, Connecticut in 1814 to consider the secession of the New England states no one said anything. Admittedly, they ended up not seceding because the War of 1812 which had New England merchants so stirred up ended. However, they were strongly considering it, as they did two other times. In those days you didn't take trips like that just to engage in political chit-chat. Yet no one complained. No one told the New Englanders that their secession was illegal or that the supremacy clause in the Constitution forbid them from ever seceding at any time unless all the other states were willing to let them go. The right of a state to secede was accepted. Remember the secession language in the New York and Virginia ratification ordinances? But some inform us that this was all meaningless, that once you were in you could never get out unless all the states were willing to let you go. You almost wonder if there was a slight double standard in operation here–it would have been okay if the New England states did it but not if the Southern states did it.

Contrary to Chase’s “indestructible Union” theory, Professor Donald W. Livingston has written in Secession, State & Liberty that “There was a time, however, when talk about secession was a part of American politics. Indeed, the very concept of secession and self-determination of peoples, in the form being discussed today, is largely an American invention. It is no exaggeration to say that the unique contribution of the eighteenth-century American Enlightenment is not federalism but the principle that a people, under certain conditions, have a moral right to secede from an established political authority and to govern themselves.” Livingston further wrote that: “The Constitution of the United States was founded as a federative compact between the states, marking out the authority of a central government, having enumerated powers delegated to it by sovereign states which reserved for themselves the vast domain of un-enumerated powers. By an act of philosophical alchemy, the Lincoln tradition has transmuted this essentially federative document into a consolidated nationalist regime…In this version, the reserved powers of the states vanish, and the states themselves are transformed into resources for and administrative units of a nationalist political project…” That is exactly where we find ourselves today, thanks to the views of men like Lincoln and Chase, who, in a political sense, “Changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator…” (Romans 1).

The Southern states, and some Northern ones, always considered the Constitution to be a compact between sovereign states. Had it been understood by them as anything but that, it is highly doubtful that many of these states, a mere thirteen years after the end of our War for Independence, would have entangled themselves in the clutches of an indissoluble union from which they could never withdraw. The Declaration of Independence was, after all, a secession document.

The Kennedy Brothers, in their groundbreaking work The South Was Right stated, on page 162: “In her act of ratification, Virginia drew a protective shield around the sovereign community and declared that sovereignty is derived from the people…The states did not intend to establish a supreme judge to rule over them. Before entering into the proposed constitutional contract, the state of Virginia (along with several other states, both north and south) declared the legal right of the sovereign community (the people of the state) to recall any delegated power if it is used in an act of oppression or injury against the people. The fact that the other states accepted the Virginia Act of Ratification without question is reason enough to maintain the assertion that they were in agreement with Virginia.”

If the Constitution is looked to as a document that forms an “indestructible” Union, then the states that ratified it have been lied to–sold a bill of goods, bought a political “gold brick’ as it were–a brick made not of gold, but of iron–that iron to forge the chains of those states that may finally realize they have been lied to and so they want out!

Secession was not illegal, was not rebellion as the Northern politicians claimed, and, as author James Street said: “The South got a raw deal.” And the Lincoln/Chase concept of “perpetual Union” is what is taught in the government schools in this country–to make sure no one ever again concludes that secession might be the answer to the problems of an ever-expanding socialist regime in Washington.

Editor's note: The following essay by Pastor Baldwin is an excellent example of what we Confederates often phase the two headed coin. The choice between Democrats and Republicans is not a choice at all but merely "the choice" that Washington establishment powers allow the voters to make. All this banter regarding how this election is about saving the Republic is diddly squat! That Republic for which they often refer to was destroyed in 1865 at Appomattox. As the quote at the top of this page by General Lee shows, he had second thoughts about that too after the reality of that surrender came home to roost. At least the Confederate government never surrendered the Republic so perhaps it is still possible to revive it, but first we must revive our Confederacy. If you like what you see here, please become a member of the Confederate Society today! Kevin Carroll

By Chuck Baldwin
October 9, 2014
reprinted from our friends at

Republican hacks are famous for promoting the “lesser of two evils” mantra. The idea goes something like this, “No matter how bad or evil a Republican candidate might be, the Democrat candidate is always worse, therefore, in order to keep the worse candidate out of office, meaning the Democrat, one must vote for the “lesser of two evils,” meaning the Republican candidate. Obviously, the only way one can buy that philosophy is he or she must accept the premise that the Democrat candidate is ALWAYS worse than the Republican candidate; however, this premise only makes sense in the smoke-filled back rooms of Republican Machiavellians such as Karl Rove and John Boehner--and in the closed and shackled minds of their slavish GOP robots.

The idea that the Republican Party is a “good” party and the Democrat Party is a “bad” party is just so much horse manure. The fact is that BOTH major parties in Washington, D.C., have routinely turned their backs on the American people, the Bill of Rights, individual liberties, State sovereignty, and constitutional governance for most of the last half-century. And when it comes to building a universal Warfare State abroad and a ubiquitous Police State at home, the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., is far, far worse.

For example, the American people lost far more liberties under President G.W. Bush (a Republican) than we have under President Barack Obama (a Democrat). Bush gave us the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA, and the Department of Homeland Security, and the preemptive war doctrine, just to name a few. Yes, these egregiously tyrannical acts continue under Obama, but he is simply perpetuating what Bush began. Obama may be driving the tank now, but Bush designed it, built it, and test-drove it.

Furthermore, big-government Republicans are the ones who have mostly created this phony, albeit expensive, “war on drugs.” Between the Democrats’ “war on poverty” and the Republicans’ “war on drugs” and “war on terrorism,” our country is financially--not to mention morally--bankrupt. And don’t think for a second that Nancy Pelosi or Obama want to give amnesty to illegal aliens any more than John McCain, Lindsey Graham, or John Boehner do, because they don’t. The only ones inside the Beltway who oppose amnesty for illegals are the Tea Party Republicans.

Come on, folks, think! If electing Republicans was all that was necessary to keep out the bad guys, why does Karl Rove and John Boehner, et al. spend millions of dollars trying to DEFEAT INCUMBENT Republicans such as Congressman Justin Amash in GOP primary elections?

Here are proven vote-getters, proven winners, sitting congressmen, incumbent Republicans, and the GOP leadership in Washington, D.C., spends millions of dollars trying to defeat them. The Republican leadership spends millions of dollars trying to defeat REPUBLICANS!

See one story: Rebel Leader Justin Amash Wins Big In Michigan

This proves that the GOP leadership in Washington, D.C., has much more in common with Democrats than it does with constitutionalist members of its own party. It also shows that the GOP establishment is much more concerned about maintaining the big-government status quo of Washington, D.C., than in defending the Constitution or in representing its own stated platform.

In truth, the GOP platform means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the GOP leadership. It is just liturgy to deceive rank and file Republicans into believing that their national party truly represents them. It doesn’t. It represents the same Big Government, Big Business, globalist elite that the Democrat Party represents.

In fact, if you want to have some fun with your spare time, just spend a couple of hours researching just how many former congressmen and senators from both major parties went on to become lobbyists for FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS after leaving Congress.

In reality, both Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C., have been fighting a “war on liberty” for decades.

To say that Republican candidates are automatically and always “less evil” than Democrats is a joke. Yes, the Democrats seem obsessed with redefining marriage; saving spotted owls, wolves, and swampland; giving out Welfare checks and food stamps; and implementing nationalized health care. But, when it comes to building a Warfare State and Police State, Neocon Republicans are FAR WORSE than Democrats. Far worse!

If voting for “the lesser of two evils” is your thing, and you must choose between a Democrat and a Neocon Republican, the Democrat (not the Republican) is usually “the lesser of two evils.” And, sadly, that is exactly the choice that the people of the State of Montana have to make in their lone U.S. House seat next month.

The Democrat candidate is John Lewis. Lewis is, well, a Democrat. The Republican candidate is Ryan Zinke. Zinke is a big-government, pro-war, pro-Police State Neocon. Not only is Zinke not a conservative, he isn’t even much of a Republican.

While a State Senator in 2009, Zinke had a score of 65% from NARAL, one of the country’s most outspoken pro-abortion organizations, meaning he voted WITH pro-abortionists far more than he voted against them. He voted against the interests of the Montana Family Foundation in 1 out of every 3 votes. He voted against educational choice and voted with the Montana Education Association-Montana Federation of Teachers 73% of the time. Zinke is so weak on the Second Amendment that the NRA Political Fund graded him with a C in 2008. He is on record as saying “civilians” should not be allowed to possess .50 caliber rifles. Of course, now that he is a candidate for the U.S. Congress, and given that Montana is one of the most pro-gun states in the country, Zinke has recanted his no .50 caliber rifle position and touts himself as being solidly “pro-gun.”

One of Zinke’s former colleagues in the Montana legislature, Ken Miller, said, “Senator Zinke claims to be for job creation and natural resource development in Montana but has an established history of supporting radical far left groups that fight hard to keep good paying jobs out of Montana.”

In fact, Zinke has changed so many of his positions during this campaign that Ken Miller said Zinke has “asserted himself as a John Kerry protégé flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flopper.”

But it is Zinke’s ethics that has raised the most questions about his fitness to be elected to Congress. Miller notes: “Senator Zinke was a founder and chairman of SOFA, a ‘Super PAC,’ gathering large out of state, special interest money. He was a major leader and fundraiser for SOFA up to his candidacy. Now SOFA is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting his candidacy.”

Miller goes on to say that Zinke’s congressional campaign “has raised more than 80% of its funds from outside of Montana, with much of it coming from Wall Street fat cats and DC insiders.”

And let’s not forget that Zinke is a co-owner of a drone manufacturing company. But we can expect him to vote pro-liberty in the war against the proliferation of the government usage of drones to spy on American citizens, can’t we? Yeah, right!

Here is the Vote Smart tab sheet on Ryan Zinke: Ryan K. Zinke’s Ratings And Endorsements

Furthermore, according to Navy SEAL commander, Larry Bailey, Ryan Zinke “tries to rewrite his personal history in order to achieve political office.” In other words, Zinke is lying about his military record. Captain Bailey went on to say this about Zinke, “Ryan’s ambitions will not stop here. He has shown by his dissimulation of facts regarding his career that he is willing to do whatever it takes to reach the next level.”

See the report: Controversy About Ryan Zinke, Montana Candidate For Congress

Zinke is trying to obfuscate his dismal voting record in the Montana Senate by constantly touting an exaggerated military record as a U.S. Navy SEAL. Every commercial, advertisement, and periodical produced by his campaign brags and brags on him being a SEAL.

Ladies and gentlemen, military service, by itself, neither enhances nor diminishes a candidate’s fitness for high public office. If service in the U.S. military was strategically important to elected public office, why hasn’t it been made a requirement for elected public office? Many of America’s most notable political figures had ZERO military service. I’m talking about men such as John Adams, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, etc. Are we to think that men such as these were less than qualified for political office because they did NOT participate in military service? Absurd thought!

A local online Republican hack likes to tout Zinke’s military record while noting his Democrat opponent has no military record--jumping to the sophomoric conclusion that the Republican Zinke is better qualified (and more patriotic) than his Democrat opponent due to this one fact. That is so stupid!

There are military veterans serving on both sides of the political aisle on Capitol Hill. According to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs website, there are 20 Democrats and 69 Republicans serving in the 113th Congress who are military veterans. And according to, in the 111th Congress (the latest report I found), of the number of military veterans who were serving in the U.S. Senate, 15 were Democrats (including the late Senator Ted Kennedy), and 12 were Republicans.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email AlertsEmail Address*
First Name

 *required field

To say that we should vote for Ryan Zinke simply because he is a military veteran is ludicrous. If that’s the case, the next time there is a political race in which the Democrat candidate is a veteran and the Republican candidate is not, we should automatically vote for the Democrat, based solely on that fact, right? You’ll never hear one of these Republican hacks draw that conclusion. No. They only want it one way. And the reason we only hear Zinke bragging (and exaggerating) about his military record in his campaign commercials is because he doesn’t want the voters of Montana to become aware of his voting record.

Again, if you want to use the hackneyed cliché that we must vote for “the lesser of two evils,” then the Democrat John Lewis is your man, because Ryan Zinke--like the rest of these big-government, pro-war, pro-Police State Neocon Republicans--is definitely the GREATER EVIL.

As for me, I don’t vote for “the lesser of two evils.” But, I can tell you this: the Republican Ryan Zinke scares me a whole lot more than the Democrat John Lewis. And that’s a fact.

 If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

by Al Benson Jr.

Often when the issue of secession has been “historically” dealt with it has been done in such a manner as to give the impression that it was purely a Southern political phenomenon. Clearly our present establishment “historians” love to have it so. As usual, there is a little more to the story than what they are pleased to tell us.

Lots of people other than Southerners, in years gone by, admitted the right of secession in this country. Well-known anti-slavery American jurist Joseph Story admitted the right of a state to withdraw from the Union. Judge Story stated: “The obvious deductions which may be, and indeed have been drawn, from considering the Constitution as a Compact between the States, are, that it operates as a mere treaty, or convention between them, and has an obligatory force upon each State no longer that it suits its pleasures, or its consent continues;…and that each State retains the power to withdraw from the Confederacy, and to dissolve the connection, when such shall be its choice;…” So it would seem that Judge Story thus admitted the right of a state to secede.

Thomas Jefferson believed in the right of state secession, and, according to Alexander H. Stephens, the Kentucky Resolutions fully established this.

Even ultra-nationalist Alexander Hamilton was forced, by his own admission, to admit that the right of state secession existed. In regard to Hamilton, Alexander Stephens, who was named after him, wrote: “Even Mr. Hamilton must have believed that this right was incident to the systems; for in his urgent appeals to Mr. Jefferson, as early as 1790, for his influence with members of Congress, in aid of the bill for the assumption of the States debts, he presented the strong reason, that if the measure should not pass, there was great danger of a secession of the members from the creditor States, which would end in ‘a separation of the States.’…he was Secretary of the Treasury. Would he have urged such an argument if he had not believed that those States had a right to withdraw?” That’s an interesting question that those nationalists today of the Hamilton stripe might consider addressing themselves to–then again, maybe not.

And William Rawle, U.S. District Attorney under George Washington, said: “The Union is an association of the people of Republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics…It depends on the State itself, to retain or abolish the principle of representation; because it depends on itself, whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right, would be inconsistent with the principles on which all our political systems are founded;…”

Even DeToqueville addressed the secession question. He had stated: “The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so,…”

Even Utopian socialist Horace Greeley, no real friend of the South, said that: “The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nonetheless;…We hope never to live in a Republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets.” It could be that Mr. Greeley didn't really understand the motives of Abraham Lincoln, who had, himself, recognized the right of secession in early 1848–conveniently, just before the onslaught of the socialist revolts in Europe! Again, for more about that read Lincoln’s Marxists.

Just before, and during, the War of Northern Aggression, the sentiment in favor of secession came from other areas of the country and not just from below Mason-Dixon.

In Douglas County, Illinois a meeting was held which announced that: “We regard the Emancipation Proclamation…as the entering wedge which will ultimately divide the middle and northwestern states from our mischief-making, puritanical, fanatical New England brethren…” Culturally, this has happened, even though Lincoln’s “mystical Union” has been held together with bayonets.

In Brown County, Indiana, a gathering was convened that put forth this sentiment: “…Our interests and inclinations will demand of us a withdrawal from political association in a common government with the New England states, who have contributed so much to every innovation upon the Constitution to our present calamity of civil war, and whose tariff legislation must ever prove oppressive to our agricultural and commercial pursuits.” Mind you, such secession sentiments are coming forth from Indiana and Illinois.

Other sources have cited secession sentiment in even the Middle Atlantic states–New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. Author William C. Wright has written that: “The secession movement was prominent in the five Middle Atlantic states. Within these five states were three types of secessionists; first, those who wanted to join the Confederacy; second, those who wished to form a central confederacy, that is, to join with the other border states and divide the United States into three separate nations; third, those who preferred to let the South go in peace rather than to use force to save the Union.”

Wright noted that Pennsylvania was the most pro-Union of these states, while New Jersey had strong economic and social ties with the South. New York was divided between the up-state region which supported the Union and the Hudson Valley and New York City areas that had ties to the South. New York City Mayor Fernando Wood had even made the proposition that New York City be made into a “free city.” Wright has duly noted that: “Together, the advocates of secession weakened the Lincoln administration’s ability to react to the Confederacy. At the same time, they offered the South hope of Northern support if war broke out.” In view of this, one might be led to wonder if this situation was the real reason for Lincoln’s actions in regard to Fort Sumter. I might also question why almost none of this type of material is ever presented in our “history” books, if such they can seriously be called. But that would be little more than a rhetorical exercise because I already know why.

The majority of people today, North and South, largely due to the abolitionist propaganda presented in our “history” books (whoever said history books had to teach real history?) and the rampant apostasy in the country as a whole, have viewed secession and the War of Northern Aggression in a strictly secular light. Many who have studied history will readily admit to the political and economic causes of the War, though some continue to persist it was all about slavery. However, most will not touch the theological reasons for secession.

However, there were many in the South that viewed secession in the same light that they viewed the biblical separation spoken of in Second Corinthians 6:14-18. They looked at an increasingly apostate and “progressive” North, while, in the main, most Southerners clung to orthodox Christianity. Informed Southerners watched much of the Northern clergy, no doubt influenced by the taint of Unitarianism, seek to deify man and to exalt the goodness of his human nature and his “free will.” It was the same sort of thing they did with abolitionist/terrorist John Brown in 1859 where Northern Unitarians claimed that Brown’s gallows was equal to Christ’s cross.

The late Professor M. E. Bradford, writing in the Southern Partisan magazine for the fourth quarter of 1991, noted that: “…Professor Bell Wiley observes, the Southern churches had always warned their communicants against ‘extreme confidence in human endeavor.’ The ordinary Southerner of 1860 did not approach the world as did those who had voted for Mr. Lincoln. They were…’as dubious of human ability in social and political matters as in the matter of salvation.’ The belief of the sovereignty of God and dependence of man was the whole of their thinking.”

In regard to Southern clergymen, Professor Bradford wrote: “Because most Southern clergymen were, during the years of sectional conflict within their denominations, convinced that apostasy and infidelity had become the dominant religions of the North.” You know something? They were right! Bradford observed that: “As the War approached, these (Southern) clergymen more and more tended to view the sectional controversy as a dispute between those who acknowledged the authority of the Scripture and those who set their own moral sense above it–in other words, between Christians and infidels.”

Thus we have another, seldom acknowledged, yet perhaps the most important dimension to the secession question–the spiritual and theological dimension. The majority probably have no interest in dealing with this aspect of the question. The “history” they’ve been taught tells them not to, but the spiritual dimension was and is here and needs to be dealt with. As someone with a Christian worldview, I believe all truth is educational and all things, ultimately, reflect someone’s theology. Everything eventually comes down to this–choose who you will serve, the Trinitarian God of the Scriptures or the World System. It has to be one or the other. Many Southern secessionists held to this view. For them, although political issues were prominent as were economic ones, their ultimate view of secession was a theological view. They viewed the doctrine of biblical separation and secession as one. In our apostate day, such a conclusion merits our serious consideration.


A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States
by Alexander H. Stephens (volume one)
Krause Reprint Company, New York, 1970

Democracy in America
by Alexis de Tocqueville (volume one)
Vintage Books, New York, July, 1990

The Hidden Civil War
by Wood Gray
Viking Press, New York, 1942

The Secession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States
by William C. Wright
Associated University Presses, Inc. Cranberry, New Jersey, copyright 1973

A Theological and Political View of the Doctrine of Secession
by Al Benson Jr.
The Copperhead Chronicle, Sterlington, Louisiana, copyright 1995, reprinted 2009
(booklet 30 pages)

By Ron Paul

Ron Paul Institute

October 2, 2014

Even though it ultimately failed at the ballot box, the recent campaign for Scottish independence should cheer supporters of the numerous secession movements springing up around the globe.

In the weeks leading up to the referendum, it appeared that the people of Scotland were poised to vote to secede from the United Kingdom. Defeating the referendum required British political elites to co-opt secession forces by promising greater self-rule for Scotland, as well as launching a massive campaign to convince the Scots that secession would plunge them into economic depression.

The people of Scotland were even warned that secession would damage the international market for one of Scotland’s main exports, whiskey. Considering the lengths to which opponents went to discredit secession, it is amazing that almost 45 percent of the Scottish people still voted in favor of it. 

The Scottish referendum result has done little to discourage other secessionist movements spreading across Europe, in countries ranging from Norway to Italy. Just days after the Scottish referendum, the people of Catalonia voted to hold their own referendum measuring popular support for secession from Spain.

Support for secession is also growing in America. According to a recent poll, one in four Americans would support their state seceding from the federal government. Movements and organizations advocating that state governments secede from the federal government, that local governments secede from state governments, or that local governments secede from both the federal and state governments, are springing up around the country. This year, over one million Californians signed a ballot access petition in support of splitting California into six states. While the proposal did not meet the requirements necessary to appear on the ballot, the effort to split California continues to gain support.

Americans who embrace secession are acting in a grand American tradition. The Declaration of Independence was written to justify secession from Britain. Supporters of liberty should cheer the growth in support for secession, as it is the ultimate rejection of centralized government and the ideologies of Keynesianism, welfarism, and militarism.

Widespread acceptance of the principle of peaceful secession and self-determination could resolve many ongoing conflicts. For instance, allowing the people of eastern Ukraine and western Ukraine to decide for themselves whether to spilt into two separate nations may be the only way to resolve their differences.

The possibility that people will break away from an oppressive government is one of the most effective checks on the growth of government. It is no coincidence that the transformation of America from a limited republic to a monolithic welfare-warfare state coincided with the discrediting of secession as an appropriate response to excessive government.

Devolving government into smaller units promotes economic growth. The smaller the size of government, the less power it has to hobble free enterprise with taxes and regulations.

Just because people do not wish to live under the same government does not mean they are unwilling or unable to engage in mutually beneficial trade. By eliminating political conflicts, secession could actually make people more interested in trading with each other. Decentralizing government power would thus promote true free trade as opposed to “managed trade” controlled by bureaucrats, politicians, and special interests.

Devolution of power to smaller levels of government should also make it easier for individuals to use a currency of their choice, instead of a currency favored by central bankers and politicians.

The growth of support for secession should cheer all supporters of freedom, as devolving power to smaller units of government is one of the best ways to guarantee peace, property, liberty — and even cheap whiskey!

by Al Benson Jr.

In 1860, according to Abraham Lincoln, the Southern states did not possess the right to secede from the Union. Lincoln’s view of the Union was that it had actually predated the Constitution, and that, once in the Union, a state basically had no right not granted to it by Big Brother in Washington. Although he would not have couched it in exactly those terms, that was where he was really coming from. Donnie Kennedy and I have dealt with this in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.

However, in light of his own remarks, Mr. Lincoln’s anti-secession sentiments were very selectively applied, just like the edicts of the present Regime are today. Lincoln was opposed to Southern states seceding from the Union to preserve their Christian heritage and the rights of the individual states according to the Constitution and he was also opposed to their secession because they paid the major portion of the country’s tariffs and to have them gone would cost the Northern states big tariff bucks that the South had heretofore paid. In Lincoln’s mind, these were not good enough reasons for secession, but he did view secession as a viable option if the reasons for it were chaos and revolution.

On January 12, 1848, Lincoln, while in Congress, made a speech in which he stated the following: Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right–a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.Supposedly, Lincoln was applying this to Texas in 1848, after their late unpleasantness with Mexico. Even were such the case, Lincoln should have been honor-bound to recognize, for other states, what he seems to have recognized for Texas.

However, with my suspicious mind, my personal contention is that, while Lincoln may have referred these remarks to Texas in a secondary way, his prime target for these sentiments was the socialist revolutionary movement that was soon to erupt in several countries in Europe in early 1848. That was the year the socialist and communist revolutionaries plunged Europe into chaos with bloody revolts in several countries. This activity began shortly after Lincoln gave his secession speech in Congress.

The carefully crafted persona of “Honest Abe the railsplitter,” the hayseed from the Illinois prairies, is one that has been carefully nurtured by our politically correct, Cultural Marxist, historic spin doctors. They definitely can’t afford to let us know what “Father Abraham” really was, a sharp, politically astute lawyer and lobbyist for the big railroads, as well as a thoroughly pragmatic politician with his own leftward-leaning agenda.

Lincoln was hardly the country bumpkin that biographers and “historians” have made him out to be. He was conscious of world events and had his own ideas and opinions regarding them. He was acquainted with what went on in Europe. By the same token, many in Europe kept tabs on what was happening over here. Lincoln’s 1848 speech in favor of secession (although the historians won’t admit that’s what it was) was well-timed to give European socialists the kind of American support for their endeavors that many of them could only have dreamed about. It let them know that there were American politicians that supported their socialist agenda.

In his book Lincoln And The Emperors A. R. Tyrner-Trynauer stated on page 32: The sympathy of the United States in general and Lincoln’s Republicans in particular for the revolutionaries of Europe was a long-established fact. That was written in 1962. More recently, in 1991, historian James McPherson, revealing a bit more about Lincoln, told us that: Lincoln championed the leaders of the European revolutiion of 1848; in turn, a man who knew something about those revolutions–Karl Marx–praised Lincoln in 1865 as ‘a single-minded son of the working class’ who had led his ‘country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world’. Look at and analyze what McPherson is telling you there. The “reconstruction of a social world” is supposed to be the death knell for the old Christian South, for private property, and of real Christian culture. That’s what it was really all about. Why else do you suppose that, when the Northern radicals (socialists) in Congress sought to destroy the culture of the South they called that program “Reconstruction?” That was Marx’s terminology.

Worth noting again, as Donnie Kennedy and I stress in our book, is the fact that socialist revolutionaries from the 1848 European debacle flocked to join the Union armies as the War of Northern Aggression got under way. Lincoln had the verbal support of Marx and Engels, as well as that of the Russian revolutionary Bakunin. Socialist and communist personalities ended up with high-ranking positions in Lincoln’s armies and also ended up in positions of influence in journalism, education, politics, and the list goes on. The fact that European socialists so lopsidedly supported the Union cause should give people pause to consider the true nature of the Union cause. Was Karl Marx really concerned about Lincoln freeing an “enchained race” of blacks? Hardly! Marx’s own personal comments show that he was prejudiced against blacks, and so was Lincoln for that matter. If you don’t think so, scrounge through the Lincoln Douglas Debates and see what you find. For both Marx and Lincoln the blacks were nothing more than cannon fodder for the socialist world revolution–and nothing has changed since then.

In the final analysis you have to ask, were Lincoln and Marx really that far apart? Such a question today will, no doubt, shock some tender souls who have been taught that Lincoln was, in effect, a secular messiah–the apotheosis of a mere man into a “god.” But, then, today, some feel that way about Obama. A noted television journalist, awhile back, said of her and her colleagues regarding Obama, “We thought he was the messiah.” I can only assume, at this point, that she has had her rude awakening. That same rude awakening needs to take place in regard to “Father Abraham” and his socialist and communist friends in the early Republican Party (and in the same party today along with the Democrats).

 by Joan Hough

Wouldn't it be wonderful, if on the day of APRIL 26th at the stroke of 12:00 noon, all descendants of Confederates would take one moment to say a silent prayer for our beloved Confederate dead? Many of our ancestors lie, even this day, scattered in mass graves in the North---some, lie quietly under Southern skies in family graveyards in the South—--Some sleep on the land of a champion of States’ Rights at Arlington; some, in Confederate cemeteries throughout the forever and always land of Confederates.

The years have gone by. All who lived then are dead now –all our Confederates—our soldier boys—all their parents and grandparents, their sisters, their brothers, their wives, their children, their sweethearts-- all our great grandfathers and all our great, great--all dead. All gone, but not forgotten.

Not EVER forgotten! For our Confederates, like the Jewish people in Germany, knew the horror of a lie-powered war waged against them –for our people, our Confederates (including all civilians---mothers and babies, old folks and the young) experienced their own Holocaust -- saw Genocide practiced against them by invaders, spurred on by Lincoln’s warmongering belligerence.2 (A belligerence which became shockingly evident when he refused to meet with Confederate representatives to discuss peace and even with Napoleon III of France for the same purpose,2 and when, after Fort Sumter, Lincoln thanked Gustavus Fox, his naval commander, for helping to manipulate the South Carolinians into firing at Fort Sumter.2

Let us all pray then for the valiant men and women who gave their lives or suffered immensely in the fight for Southern Liberty, be they black Confederates (and there were thousands of those) whites, reds, or browns. Be they Christians or Jews or Indians, or Americans of Mexican origin, etc.--rich or poor or middle-classed.

Let us pray for our many thousands of brave Confederates who suffered life-altering, horrendous wounds in defense of our South when Lincoln's Republicans attacked Southern homes on Southern soil, as his Yankee armies invaded a sovereign Confederate republic.

Let us pray for the many thousands of Southern boys killed by the overpowering, thrice their number, Northern soldiers, egged on by the overpowering lies of the New England controlled Republican party whose avarice for money and control of the central government was cleverly disguised by their lying claims and their concerted propaganda that the war was being fought to free the slaves and to save the union.1 & 2 (Claims unmade until the war was half over and the South was winning it.)

Let us pray for our bitterly attacked, large number of Southerners who were brilliant, highly educated, seriously dedicated Constitutional scholars and well knew the Constitutional right of secession belonged to each and every state in the Union—--a union which, until Lincoln and his radicals, was always referred to in the PLURAL 2 —“The union are” , not “ the union is”—--meaning the states (the people) ARE superior to the union (the Central Government) and have the right to counter the union’s government and have the right to secede. Northern states (particularly the New England ones) had threatened secession long before the Southern ones even considered it --—meaning the PEOPLE are the BOSS of the central government, and not the central government the boss of the people.2

Let us pray for the Southern people--–folks who, just a couple of generations from an earlier secession (the first American Revolution) from the British Empire, heard at their grandfathers’ and great grandfathers’ knees, how Southerners had rebelled against unjust laws and unjust taxation and sought and obtained liberty.

"...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..." --Declaration of Independence

Let us pray for the descendants of those first Revolutionary warriors who, seeing the identical type of enormous taxation loaded on them by the New England dominated Republican party, chose to depart from an association with it, and to refuse to participate in a government which had changed itself from a Constitutional one, in which States’ had rights, to one wherein the central government was ALL POWERFUL--- the States lost their rights, and the Constitution was gutted.

“I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." --Jefferson Davis

Let us pray for the young Southern boys killed before reaching the age of 13, because they found it necessary to defend the dirt their father had farmed before marching off to war.

Let us pray for all Southerners--women, babies, old folks who died from exposure and hunger after General Sherman's forces burned entire towns occupied only by civilians—destroying, intentionally, their homes, their stores and churches—and looting all, plundering all, even executing civilians.

Let us pray for all of the Southerners on their little farms who saw their few mules and horses stolen, saw the crops in their fields and gardens totally devastated to satisfy the Yankee desire to starve the women, the children, the old folks, the sick and the wounded and thus injure the morale of the South’s fighting men and, deliberately, depopulate the land of people considered to be "undesirable" by the all powerful empire, the Lincoln-created government of the North.

Let us pray for the Confederate women and children who saw Yankees kill the cows that gave the children their milk, and the hens that laid the eggs, and the pullets and the pigs that filled farm dinner plates.

Let us pray for the Southern women and children and old folks who saw stolen or destroyed the meat hanging in their smoke houses, and the jars of preserved vegetables and fruits needed to keep a family alive in farm lands far from towns—---at a time when there were no grocery stores, no super markets, no restaurants, no Pizza parlors and no hamburger joints.

Let us pray for all the Southerners who experienced Yankee atrocities and war crimes perpetrated by General Philip Sheridan --–an ever so moral Yankee, personally thanked for his deeds by Lincoln.2

Let us pray for the entire South’s people who lost everything --–and whose sad, terror-filled fate, when revealed to Abe Lincoln, caused him to laugh (as reported by General Sherman in Sherman’s memoirs).2

Let us pray for the citizens of Marion County, Missouri who voiced Southern sympathy and were persecuted by Yankee backed officials.2

Let us pray for the folks in Palmyra, Missouri who, having said the least thing a bit pro-south, were thrown in jail by the general of the Yankee that he could have ten Southerners to execute if a Union Informer was not returned from his capture by Confederate military forces. General McNeil chose ten civilian men by lottery from the town’s people, choosing only the best educated, most influential and important men. The execution of these men and the manner of it made it one of the cruelest, most barbaric, massacres imaginable, arousing the horror and disgust of many Northerners as well as of all Southerners who learned of it. This was the second major act of murder in the area—--previously, sixteen surrendered Confederates had been brutally murdered by the Yankees. Torture and threat of torture was employed by the Yankees too many times to be counted. Lincoln, upon learning of McNeil’s atrocities, promoted him. 2

Let us pray for all the citizens in Alexandria, Louisiana, in the very center of Louisiana---- the women, children--the sick and the old, the entire civilian population of the city—-- forced to crawl, run, or hop—--some dragging loved ones behind them as they were forced to seek refuge in the waters of the Mississippi River; small children screaming because they were lost from their mothers----All knowing absolute terror, fleeing from the heat and burning of the fires set at the orders of General Nathaniel Banks because of his overwhelming desire for vengeance after losing the Battle of Mansfield. General Nathaniel Banks, withdrawing from the civilian occupied city, chose to burn it to the ground. He gave no warning. He left the women, kids and old folks with only the clothes on their backs.2 Nobody knows the civilian deaths he caused. (People in Alexandria had not forgotten and told me so when I lived there in 1950.)

Let us pray for the Southerners of Atlanta, Georgia where Abe Lincoln arranged a carpet bombing seige that destroyed 90 percent of their city, evicting thousands upon thousands of civilians from their homes, looting their private property---—waging total war against a defenseless civilian population in a pattern that was continued throughout the Republican Army’s invasion of the South.2

Let us pray and pray again for the civilians in the heartland of Georgia who knew the fury of General William Tecumseh Sherman who declared that there could be no peace in the country UNTIL LARGE PARTS OF THE SOUTHERN POPULATION HAD BEEN EXTERMINATED, and so made a deliberate effort to starve to death Georgia’s civilian population. It was a goal of the Republicans to see all Southerners dead or off the continent. Lincoln expressed the opinion that they should be allowed to leave.2

Let's pray, especially, for the civilians--—the women, the babies, the old folks in Marietta, Roswell and New Manchester Georgia where Sherman, with Lincoln’s approval, had his soldiers pull down and burn the homes, burn all their personal property—--steal all jewelry—--and leave the helpless civilians, starving, with only the clothes on their backs.2

Let us pray then for those long lost, OVER TWO THOUSAND weeping women in the Roswell, Marietta and New Manchester area who, at the orders of General Sherman, were kidnapped and thrown with and without their children on trains and shipped North, their services to be sold for literally pennies making them, in truth, WHITE SLAVES FOR THE YANKEES! Poor, lost little Southern ladies and the defenseless terrorized children-- most of them were never to see their loved ones ever again. The Republican government during Reconstruction made no effort to return these kidnapped Southerners back to their homeland.2

Let us give a special prayer of thanks for the courage of Louisiana’s governor Henry Watkins Allen who collected testimonies from eyewitnesses of the Yankee invasion in Louisiana in an effort to preserve the truth of the North’s fiendish activities for future historians.2 (Truth telling, of course, was suppressed during the Republican-controlled Reconstruction’s ten years and by the central government thereafter and has been begun again only by recent scholars.)

Let us pray for the innocent young man named William Mumford who was hanged on the orders of Yankee General Benjamin Butler because the boy had taken down a Union flag from a flag pole in unoccupied New Orleans.2

Let us pray for all the virtuous Southern ladies in New Orleans who were treated like prostitutes by Yankee soldiers on the direct orders of Yankee General “Beast” Butler who, also, sent to prison without a trial New Orleans women and preachers and priests who refused to welcome the invaders. He closed churches and prohibited church attendance.2

Let us pray for the Confederate children who experienced the horrors deliberately forced on them by Yankee soldiers-- watching enemy soldiers kill and leave lying on the ground every single chicken the family possessed---–watching the deliberate killing of a beloved pony performed in front of a child’s young eyes by the Yankee Killer, so the child would always remember the day the Yankees won the war. 2

Let us pray for the sick, old gentleman confined to his bed in Lafayette, Louisiana, who had all of his worldly possessions stolen from him by Yankee soldiers, even his bed covers and for the ninety year old in Louisiana, who had soldiers take his everything--—including his clothes, and for the Goulas family in St. Mary Parish, who had Yankee soldiers steal all their clothes, their baby’s clothes and their beds-- and for Mrs. Vilmeau in Louisiana who had her wedding ring bitten from her finger and her pierced earrings torn from her ears—--and we should pray for her husband who was shot twice while trying to protect his crying, bleeding wife and for the families in New Iberia who watched Yankees open the burial vaults of the New Iberia dead and scatter the bodies upon the ground and use parts of the tombs for cooking and heating purposes.2

And let us pray for Dr. Brashear of Louisiana and his family. Even dead and buried in his tomb in Morgan City, Louisiana, Dr. Brashear was attacked. His body was tossed out and his metal coffin stolen by the Yankee soldiers.2

Let us pray for the citizens of Opelousas, Louisiana, who saw a Massachusetts Army unit turn the Opelousas Methodist Church into a brothel---and for the Catholics in New Iberia who saw the Yankees dance in the robes of their priest and steal their chalice from the Catholic Church-- and for the citizens of Franklin, LA, who saw the members of Mr. Lincoln’s Republican army tear up the Methodist Church there, and use the pews and other bits of the church as furnishings for a pool parlor.2

Let us pray for the grand children of Mr. Theodore Fay in Franklin, Louisiana who had Yankees steal all their little toys.2

Let us pray for the Southern women and old people who experience agonies, as they watched Yankee soldiers gleefully burn family bibles containing the records of Southern lives since the Revolution—--and for the civilians in Chesterfield, South Carolina who were forced to stand by as General Sherman’s men torched their Courthouse containing all of the records for the county, including marriage bonds and property records--—and burning my own Hough records. (Source: Telephone conversation with clerk in that County Courthouse)

Let us pray for the Southern women who were forced to scavage the woods for plants to eat and acorns to boil for coffee after the food in their homes and in their fields was taken from them.

Let us pray for all of the Southern Blacks who experienced many numbers of hideous Yankee atrocities including the rapes of their women by Yankee soldiers, the killing of young girls who resisted being raped, the abusing and robbing of black adults and even the shooting of some of them for no apparent reason, Yankee imposed starvation, being thrown out of their own homes, having loved ones die because of lack of medical treatment and nourishment, and Yankees, brutally chasing down and forcing black males into their army where they were seen to die by the hundreds.2

Let us pray for the helpless civilian citizens of Meridian, Mississippi where General Sherman had 10,000 of his men use axes and fire to make sure that Meridian no longer existed 2—--leaving the women, children, sick and the old to suffer from starvation and the elements.

Let us pray for the women, children and the old and sick in the Shenandoah Valley where Lt. General U.S. Grant, soon to become a U.S. President, ordered General Hunter to have his men totally wipe out everything there, 2leaving many thousands of innocents to death by starvation.

Let us pray again and again for our stolen Republic wherein each state possessed rights that made it supreme to a central government---Rights recognized during the Revolution and after the secession from the British Empire—--Rights acknowledged by the writers of the U.S. Constitution.

Let us pray for a long dead President by the name of Abraham Lincoln, whose greed for money and power destroyed a Republic and replaced it with an all powerful Central Government lacking checks and balances--–a government our later Presidents called a 'Democracy.'

Let us pray for Abe Lincoln who decided to go against the rules of all civilized nations and wage a war of horrendous nature against women and children.

Let us pray for all the boys, young and old men who fought in that War of Northern Invasion, Northern Aggression against a sovereign nation by name of the Confederate States of America.

Let us pray for all fighters on both sides of that war--- and especially, for those who died---three times the number killed during all the years of war in Viet Nam.

And let us pray a very special prayer that three modern historians by the names of James Ronald Kennedy,2 Walter Donald Kennedy,2 and Thomas J. DiLorenzo,2 who have dedicated much of their lives to digging up the long hidden truths about the horrors perpetrated by Lincoln and his mighty Republicans against the South. The Kennedy and DiLorenzo books have furnished most of the information covered in this request for prayers. Let us pray that their books will be read by millions of Americans who will be awakened to the monstrous lies long told by our all powerful Central government and to the need for its mighty reformation.

And for Walter Donald Kennedy, let us all add a separate prayer that he will gain the opportunity to expose to the entire nation, the grave injustices done to Confederates and to their descendants and to all Americans who have been deluded by the lies of the U.S. government told since the 1860’s. Let us pray that Walter Donald Kennedy will be given a national platform which will allow him to tell the world exactly what this nation must do in order to regain the Constitutional government created for it by the founding fathers, taken from us during the so-called Civil War and, precisely, what we must do to be able to restore truth to our U.S. government.

And, I, myself, will say a private prayer for my three great grandfathers who said their own prayers as they fought in that war for Southern Independence—--the bloodiest of all wars involving Americans---fought against overwhelming Yankee odds--and for my great uncles who fought and for my many great aunts and my three great grandmothers who dodged the Yankees throughout each Yankee invasion that reached them and for my many cousins involved because they were all true Southerners.

I, especially, will pray for all men and women who were brave enough to share their experiences with their own children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. despite the laws muzzling free speech for ten or more years---prohibiting any negative speech about the Yankees—--laws passed by the Republican controlled government forces in the Confederacy during that horrendous period of Southern punishment known as Reconstruction.

  • 1 Thomas J. DiLorenzo. Lincoln Unmasked. Crown Forum of Random House, Inc., New York: 2006.
  • 2 James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy. The South Was Right. Pelican Publishing Company, Inc., Gretna , Louisiana , 1998