by Al Benson Jr.

We have arrived at that time of year where the “historians” never hesitate to tell us about Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, and the distinct impression given in most articles and history books is the Lee’s surrender was automatically the end of the War. If not stated directly, it is implied that when Lee surrendered the South surrendered. Not quite so. All that Lee surrendered was the Army of Northern Virginia, nothing else. As commander of all the Confederate armies at that time, he could have surrendered them all. He didn’t. Joe Johnston surrendered his army in North Carolina at the end of April and other Confederate generals surrendered as May and June dragged on. Some, like Jo Shelby, refused to surrender.  They buried their battle flags in the Rio Grande and crossed over into Mexico. Others just walked away. I have been told though I can’t verify it, that Cherokee General Stand Watie did not technically surrender. Rather he signed a “cessation of hostilities” agreement and his men went home with their weapons. A more informed historian than me might know more about that.

However all that may be, the Confederate Government never did surrender. President Davis and his cabinet fled with the intent of working their way west to continue the struggle against Yankee/Marxism. Most of them were captured. A couple got away. But, for all that, the  Confederate Government never officially surrendered. And maybe that was a good thing–because no matter what they ever might have said on paper, the Yankee/Marxist Regime in Washington never stopped fighting the War. With the shooting over, though, they had to change their tactics.

The military historian Carl von Clausewitz once noted that: “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” In other words it’s all political (and theological) whether they fight or negotiate. You might also look at the reverse of von Clausewitz’s statement and note that “peace” is also the continuation of politics “by other means”–depending on how you define “peace.” If you define it the way the Yankee/Marxist does then it’s really not peace, but that term is used to define it so most people won’t realize that the federal government is still at war with them, even though they’ve been told that a “state of peace” now exists. In other words, “peace is war–by other means.” To the Yankee/Marxist it cannot be otherwise, for he is at war with you until he crushes you and only then will you have “peace” with him, and for you, that’s usually the peace of the grave!

So it was in the late 1860s via “reconstruction” and  when the Yankee troops left the South twelve years later after the War ended,  that closed phase one of “reconstruction” and paved the way for phase two. The effects of phase one, however, lingered on in the South, due to the implementation of the public school system and the forced use of Yankee/Marxist “history” books. The residual effect of those was intended to carry over until phase two could be implemented. Phase two of “reconstruction”  was implemented with the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement and that continues on until this day. “Civil rights” have now been expanded to include sodomite rights, transgender rights, lesbian rights, illegal immigration and Muslim terrorist rights, including the right to vote and get all the freebies that most hard-working Americans end up paying for and are denied.

So, looking at how our Ruling Establishment operates, I have to contend that the “peace” we are now suffering under is really nothing more than the continuation of the War of Northern Aggression “by other means.”

The first phase of “reconstruction” was not quite able to destroy Southern culture and faith. That’s not to say they didn’t mightily try, but they couldn’t quite bring it all off–and Confederate flags and monuments all over the South attested to that. The flags and monuments were, in a sense, the Southerners’ way of saying “You tried to kill to kill us culturally (and theologically) but you didn’t quite make it.” But not to worry–the Yankee/Marxists plan to atone for their shortsightedness this time around. This time they will make sure they grind both us and our culture into the ground so they can stand with their jackboot on our necks while we cry out “Uncle Sam” or how about “He loved Big Brother.” It’s all the same.

If you don’t think this is what they have planned for us then you have totally misunderstood the Yankee/Marxist worldview. This is exactly their agenda for us, and good Southern folks had better wake up to that fact. The Yankee/Marxist only understands one thing–resistance! You can’t dialogue with him; you can’t negotiate with him, you can’t “be nice” to him. He takes all that as a sign of weakness and plows ahead even more ruthlessly. You have to resist him. You have to continue to resist him. The Bible says “Resist the devil and he will flee.” Same principle–same adversary. Unless we are prepared to do that and to teach our children to do that, we will lose. It’s as simple as that, and we had better wake up and realize it!

Fort Sumter
April 12 - 14, 1861 
Charleston Harbor, South Carolina


When South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20, 1860, United States Maj. Robert Anderson and his force of 85 soldiers were positioned at Fort Moultrie near the mouth of Charleston Harbor. On December 26, fearing for the safety of his men, Anderson moved his command to Fort Sumter, an imposing fortification in the middle of the harbor. While politicians and military commanders wrote and screamed about the legality and appropriateness of this provocative move, Anderson’s position became perilous. Just after the inauguration of President Abraham Lincoln on March 4, 1861, Anderson reported that he had only a six week supply of food left in the fort and Confederate patience for a foreign force in its territory was wearing thin.

On Thursday, April 11, 1861, Confederate Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard dispatched aides to Maj. Anderson to demand the fort’s surrender. Anderson refused. The next morning, at 4:30 a.m., Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter and continued for 34 hours. The Civil War had begun! Anderson did not return the fire for the first two hours. The fort's supply of ammunition was not suited for an equal fight and Anderson lacked fuses for his exploding shells--only solid shot could be used against the Rebel batteries. At about 7:00 A.M., Union Capt. Abner Doubleday, the fort's second in command, was afforded the honor of firing the first shot in defense of the fort.

The firing continued all day, although much less rapidly since the Union fired aimed to conserve ammunition. "The crashing of the shot, the bursting of the shells, the falling of the walls, and the roar of the flames, made a pandemonium of the fort," wrote Doubleday. The fort's large flag staff was struck and the colors fell to the ground and a brave lieutenant, Norman J. Hall, bravely exposed himself to enemy fire as he put the Stars and Stripes back up. That evening, the firing was sporadic with but an occasional round landing on or in Fort Sumter.

On Saturday, April 13, Anderson surrendered the fort. Incredibly, no soldiers were killed in battle. The generous terms of surrender, however, allowed Anderson to perform a 100-gun salute before he and his men evacuated the fort the next day. The salute began at 2:00 P.M. on April 14, but was cut short to 50 guns after an accidental explosion killed one of the gunners and mortally wounded another. Carrying their tattered banner, the men marched out of the fort and boarded a boat that ferried them to the Union ships outside the harbor. They were greeted as heroes on their return to the North.

Shiloh, Tennessee
April 6, 1862

The battle of Pittsburg Landing began as a complete surprise to the Federal Army encamped around the Shiloh church. Despite a Confederate force of nearly 40,000 men, concealed less than two miles to their front, no one in the Union force seemed aware of the danger. However, young inexperienced Southern troops yelled, blew their bugles, beat their drums, and even fired their damp weapons to see if the powder was dry.

The Confederate Army had been arranged in three battle lines. The Third Corps under General William J. Hardee would constitute the front line. The second line would be led by General Braxton Bragg, and follow the first line by several hundred yards. At a similar distance behind Bragg would follow General Leonidas Polk's First Corps, and the reserves would consist of three brigades under General John C. Breckinridge.

The suddenness and ferocity of the attack forced the Federals out of their camps. Federal officers began to regroup their brigades and rally their men, and soon determined defenses were in place to oppose the attack. Slowly falling back, the Federals fought for every yard, as the Confederate advance continued.

Some of the fiercest fighting would occur after midday on the Confederate right, at what would become known as the "Hornet's Nest." Wave after wave of courageous Southern charges were cut down by General Benjamin Prentiss's men, who were prone behind a fence. The turning point of the fight for the Hornet's Nest would take place through the beautiful blossoms of a peach orchard located there. General John C. Breckinridge was brought forward with his reserves in a last-ditch effort to break the bottleneck. For an hour, Breckinridge led his brigades in attacks on the Hornet's Nest, with little success. Breckinridge decided to make one final desperate charge with the help of General Johnston.

The sheet of flame burst from the Hornet's Nest as the Confederate line charged through the peach orchard. The Hornet's Nest had fallen.

As the Federal soldiers fell back they continued to fire in the direction of the southerners. A shot cut an artery in Johnston's leg; the blood flowing into his boot was not at first apparent. The general's horse was led under cover and the general was lifted to the ground. Having dispatched his personal doctor to care for some Federal soldiers, no one present would apply a tourniquet. Cradled in the arms of his brother-in-law, General Albert Sidney Johnston gave a faint smile and slipped away.

The command of the Confederate Army now fell to General Beauregard. Grant's men had been pushed back to the Tennessee River. Thousands of Federal Soldiers hid behind the bluffs. Prentiss' stand at the Hornets' Nest had slowed the Confederate advance long enough for evening to come. Beauregard wired Jefferson Davis that he would finish Grant up the next morning. But Federal Major General Don Carlos Buell and his 20,000 men would arrive that night.

By James Ronald Kennedy

As the first American bombs begin to rain down on mud and adobe structures in some far distant land, “patriotic” Americans rush to support “our men in uniform” which actually means that we must not question the empire’s new no-win war. President Obama, the Federal Empire’s current glorious leader, has announced the initiation of yet another imperial no-win war and “conservatives” have once again rushed to support the empire’s war efforts and its glorious leader. The mere fact that a neo Marxist, community organizer, with little or no experience in international politics and military strategy is the one commanding our efforts should give any reasonable person reason to pause and re-consider the wisdom of this new no-win war. Yet just the opposite is happening.

The Federal Empire’s ruling elite can always count on Americans, especially Southerners, to “rally round the flag” anytime a president decides to attack an enemy that “threatens” American interest in some far distant part of the world. Like Pavlov’s dogs salivating at the ringing of a bell, Southerners can always be counted on to stand behind the “good ole USA” whenever Washington’s ruling elites rattle the war sabers. This knee-jerk nationalism—disguised as patriotism—has provided the Federal Empire with the political support needed to maintain a vast military-industrial complex and countless sons and daughters to serve as the Empire’s cannon fodder. As we send our military marching off to yet another no-win war, perhaps we should identify who the real winners are in these numerous wars to “protect vital national interests.”

The invasion, conquest, and continuing occupation of the Confederate States of America was the first major imperial war conducted by the Federal Empire and with such a triumphant beginning more imperial conquests were sure to follow! It was certainly a no-win war for “we the people” of the once sovereign states of Dixie! But who were the winners? It cost the taxpayers of the North approximately $3 billion in treasure alone—the invader also paid a substantial price extracted by the expert marksmanship of Southern farm boys defending their homes from the invader’s torch. But power hungry national politicians, Northern War Governors, their crony capitalists friends especially in the railroad and iron mills and of course the big banking houses that financed the War were the big winners. The initial and continuing cost paid by the Southern people is discussed in Our Re-United Country? The sad reality of reconciliation, Kennedy and Kennedy, published in the July-August 2014 issue of the Confederate Veteran. The bottom line is that the United States of America’s victory over the Confederate States of America established Washington, D.C. as the unquestioned ruler of North America. In the process of war and Reconstruction the ruling elites of the newly created Federal Empire destroyed the original and legitimate government—a government consisting of a federation of Sovereign States with a constitutionally limited federal government, reserving maximum freedom and liberty to “we the people” within our respective sovereign state. America’s constitutionally limited Republic of Republics was replaced with a new and perverted supreme federal government and as the Federal Empire’s centralized power and control expanded, the liberties of “we the people” of the once sovereign states disappeared.

Two republics were destroyed as a result of Lincoln’s aggressive war of invasion and conquest—the Republic of the Confederate States of America created by the free and unbridled consent of the governed in each Southern State and America’s original Republic of Republics as established by the Founding Fathers representing the consent of the governed in the original thirteen colonies that seceded from Great Britain in 1776. An all powerful, supreme Federal Empire now stands where individual freedom and liberty once flourished. The Federal Empire, as with all empires, demands constant expansion of its political and commercial control both at home and abroad. The price of the empire’s constant expansion is paid with blood and treasure “voluntarily” surrendered by the empire’s subjects. And to be clear; “we the people” of once sovereign states are no longer citizens—citizenship requires the enjoyment of maximum freedom and liberty—we are now mere subjects of the supreme federal government. As good “patriotic” subjects our duty is to simply hear and obey our masters in Washington, D.C.

Empires love war. War allows the ruling elite to do things that would not have been possible absent the created crises of war. War allows the empire’s ruling elite to engage in “the murderous pursuit of worthless objectives.” Worthless objectives? For example; “to save the Union” or revenge “Remember the Maine” or “to make the world safe for democracy” or “the war to end all wars” or “nation building” or the most common used today “to protect vital national interests.” These vital national interests usually include the unacknowledged protection of such things as pipelines in the Balkans in which cronies have a financial interest or to protect shipping routes from Saudi Arabian oil fields in which cronies have financial interests. The common denominator in all of America’s wars since the rise of the Federal Empire is that as a result of each war the Federal Empire’s political, commercial (as in crony capitalism), and military position is substantially increased with each war. Just as in Lincoln’s war, the ruling elite and those with close connections to the ruling elite profit handsomely while the empire’s “patriotic” subjects pay the ultimate price in blood, treasure and personal freedoms.

Even though “we the subjects” prefer to live in peace none-the-less we always support the empire’s wars. Nazi leader Hermann Goering’s chilling words at the Nuremberg trials after World War II should serve as a warning to “we the subjects” of any empire: “Why of course the people don’t want war…it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship…the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

How much more Southern blood and treasure will “we the subjects” of the Federal Empire “voluntarily” sacrifice on the altar of empire? What do we gain by the ever increasing political, commercial, and military power of the Federal Empire? As in the recent “economic” crises of 2007 the powers-that-be in Washington, D.C. and their crony allies on Wall Street profited because they were “too big to fail” but “we the subjects” lost because we were too small—as in expendable—to count. Empires love war and those who confuse nationalism with patriotism will eventually pay the price of the empire’s endless no-win wars. Empires do not voluntarily surrender their ill-gotten perks, privileges and power; therefore it is foolish to think that by merely electing “good” conservatives and sending them to the Empire’s capitol that reform will automatically take place. Perhaps it is time for “we the people” of the once sovereign states of Dixie to follow the example of Quebec and Scotland and begin to demand the right of self-determination, the right to be the masters in our own homes. Imagine the impact of a grassroots effort to compel the Federal Empire to acknowledge the right of the Sovereign State(s) to nullify unconstitutional acts of the Federal government or to secede if necessary to preserve the rights and liberties of “we the people.” Perhaps it is time to think about a living under a government of our own choosing; a government that protects our borders and leaves us and the world alone!

By Bernard Thuersam 

William T. Sherman viewed Southerners as he later viewed American Indians, to be exterminated or banished to reservations as punishment for having resisted government power. They were subjects and merely temporary occupants of land belonging to his government whom they served. The revealing excerpts below are taken from “Reminiscences of Public Men in Alabama,” published in 1872:

Headquarters, Department of Tennessee, Vicksburg, January 1, 1863.

[To] Major R. M. Sawyer, AAG Army of Tennessee, Huntsville:

“Dear Sawyer — In my former letter I have answered all your questions save one, and that relates to the treatment of inhabitants known, or suspected to be, hostile or “secesh.” The war which prevails in our land is essentially a war of races. The Southern people entered into a clear compact of government, but still maintained a species of separate interests, history and prejudices. These latter became stronger and stronger, till they have led to war, which has developed the fruits of the bitterest kind.

We of the North are, beyond all question, right in our lawful cause, but we are not bound to ignore the fact that the people of the South have prejudices that form part of their nature, and which they cannot throw off without an effort of reason or the slower process of natural change.

Now, the question arises, should we treat as absolute enemies all in the South who differ with us in opinions or prejudices . . . [and] kill or banish them? Or should we give them time to think and gradually change their conduct so as to conform to the new order of things which is slowly and gradually creeping into their country?

When men take arms to resist our rightful authority, we are compelled to use force because all reason and argument ceases when arms are resorted to.

If the people, or any of them, keep up a correspondence with parties in hostility, they are spies, and can be punished with death or minor punishment. These are well established principles of war, and the people of the South having appealed to war, are barred from appealing to our Constitution, which they have practically and publicly defied. They have appealed to war and must abide its rules and laws.

The United States, as a belligerent party claiming right in the soil as the ultimate sovereign, have a right to change the population, and it may be and it, both politic and best, that we should do so in certain districts. When the inhabitants persist too long in hostility, it may be both politic and right that we should banish them and appropriate their lands to a more loyal and useful population.

No man would deny that the United States would be benefited by dispossessing a single prejudiced, hard-headed and disloyal planter and substitute in his place a dozen or more patient, industrious, good families, even if they be of foreign birth.

It is all idle nonsense for these Southern planters to say that they made the South, that they own it, and that they can do as they please — even to break up our government, and to shut up the natural avenues of trade, intercourse and commerce.

We know, and they know if they are intelligent beings, that, as compared with the whole world they are but as five millions are to one thousand millions — that they did not create the land — that their only title to its use and enjoyment is the deed of the United States, and if they appeal to war they hold their all by a very insecure tenure.

For my part, I believe that this war is the result of false political doctrine, for which we are all as a people responsible, viz: That any and every people has a right to self-government . . . In this belief, while I assert for our Government the highest military prerogatives, I am willing to bear in patience that political nonsense of . . . State Rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, and other such trash as have deluded the Southern people into war, anarchy, bloodshed, and the foulest crimes that have disgraced any time or any people.

I would advise the commanding officers at Huntsville and such other towns as are occupied by our troops, to assemble the inhabitants and explain to them these plain, self-evident propositions, and tell them that it is for them now to say whether they and their children shall inherit their share.

The Government of the United States has in North-Alabama any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war — to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything . . . and war is simply power unrestrained by constitution or compact. If they want eternal warfare, well and good; we will accept the issue and dispossess them, and put our friends in possession. Many, many people, with less pertinacity than the South, have been wiped out of national existence.

To those who submit to the rightful law and authority, all gentleness and forbearance; but to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better. Satan and the rebellious saints of heaven were allowed a continuance of existence in hell merely to swell their just punishment.”

W.T. Sherman, Major General Commanding

(Reminiscences of Public Men in Alabama, William Garrett, Plantation Printing Company’s Press, 1872, pp. 486-488)

by Al Benson Jr.

Having followed the ethnic cleansing program of the cultural Marxists for several years it has come as no surprise that they have, again, attacked Confederate flags and symbols with much vitriol in the past six months or so. The shootings in Charleston gave them fresh impetus, a shot in the arm, if you will.

The total removal of anything “Confederate” has long been a part of their agenda, both the  ones on the street and those in board rooms in New York and Washington. Indeed, the ones on the street are little more than “useful idiots” for the ones in the board rooms. They are the cannon fodder for the revolution promoted by those who plan to remake American culture, most particularly Southern American culture, in their own image. These people are the ultimate idolators.

I have noted, for a couple decades now, how the “news” media has sought to connect the Confederate Battle flag to the Ku Klux Klan. This has been an ongoing project. This is one thought they have assiduously attempted to implant into the minds of the American public—KKK equals Confederate flag–it’s all the same, you have one you have the other, so just equate the two and don’t even bother to think about it (because beyond that they’d rather you didn’t).

Even for the media and the leftists, though, there are always some flies in the buttermilk. If you go back and follow some of the history down you begin to find it hasn’t always been that way.  This is what the anti-Southern cultural mind-benders would rather you didn’t do–follow the history down.

We’ve all seen photos of the (what passes for news) media of KKK marches, rallies, or what have you and there are always almost more Confederate flags around than there are people. Hint: this is not by accident. I saw a video tape once of a KKK parade in Northern Illinois that had two flag bearers at the front of the procession, one carrying a US flag and the other carrying a Confederate flag. The media person doing the video inadvertently focused in first on the guy carrying the US flag, and realizing he had goofed, he immediately switched and concentrated on the person carrying the Confederate flag for the rest of the video and you never saw the US flag again. This is so typical. In fact, I was surprised,  that this late in the cultural genocide game you could still see a US flag in a KKK parade. Most had been purged and replaced with Confederate flags. This was probably fifteen years or so ago.

While doing some research for another project, I happened to come across a whole batch of old photos of KKK rallies and marches from back in the 1920s and 30s. And guess what? They weren’t all in the South. One was in Washington, D.C.; another was in Ohio. I even found a picture of one in Minnesota–hardly the heart of Dixie! Turns out, if you do  a little research, you find that, in the earlier part of the 20th century the Klan was very prevalent in Ohio, Indiana and other Midwestern states, more so than in the South. I’m not saying the South didn’t have them, but they don’t seem to have had as many as the Midwest did. And somehow, I tend to doubt that all those Midwestern Klan members  were rabid and racist Southern rednecks. In fact, growing up in the North, I got to know a couple people in New England that had been Klan members in their earlier days. These people were Northerners. They had never lived anywhere near the South. They had been part of that great Northern former Klan population that no one ever mentions (or is supposed to be aware of).

One thing I noted in those old Klan photos–anytime they had a march or a parade you had more US flags on hand than you could shake a stick at. Yet this is never mentioned. Only the present day Klan (which is not nearly as big as people think it is) is ever talked about.  Only the current Klan carrying Confederate flags is ever noted–outside of thinly veiled attempts at making Nathan Bedford Forrest the chief bugaboo of the Klan–forever!

Now I realize I’m not even supposed to think of this, but, if the Confederate flag is “racist” because the Klan carried it, does that also make the US flag racist because the Klan carried it? Well? Don’t hear too many replies from the left. Of course I realize that, to the real Far Left, every flag in this country is “racist” except that of the old Soviet Union, that great leveler (with machine guns or otherwise) of society. But I do wonder why it’s okay to portray the Confederate flag as “racist” because certain groups carried it and then to ignore the fact that these same groups also carried the US flag. Maybe it’s not quite time to label the US flag racist in a major campaign yet.

There was a point in time when the KKK switched from carrying the US flag to carrying the Confederate flag. Why?

by Al Benson Jr.

The article on http://www.nytimes.com for March 14th had a headline that read: “Momentum to Remove Confederate Symbols Slows or Stops.” The article, written by Alan Blinder, noted the well-synchronized push last year to get rid of Confederate symbols (he didn’t call it well-synchronized, I did).

Then Mr. Blinder wrote: “But that was last year. Now, not even nine months after the massacre at Charleston’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, the momentum to force Confederate symbols from official display has often been slowed or stopped. In some states this year, including Alabama, lawmakers have been considering new ways to protect demonstrations of Confederate pride…the pendulum has gone in the other direction…” Mr. Blinder almost seems saddened about this. Well, after all, he does write for the New York Times–no friend of  Confederate symbols at any time.

He notes movements in at least 12 states to try to ensure that Confederate symbols and monuments are preserved and recognized. Blinder contends that “The actions that did materialize, though, emboldened defenders of Confederate heritage displays.” Speaking in Mississippi, Greg Stewart, executive director of Beauvoir, which was Jefferson Davis’ last home, stated that “Our strength right now is the result of their (the cultural Marxists) overreach.” Steward noted that many Southern folks are quite reluctant  to allow state officials to decide how to commemorate the region’s history. He said:  “We knew in Mississippi that the trick is always to keep the decision in the hands of the public.” Southerners have learned over the past couple decades how their “elected representatives” have betrayed them when it came to protecting Southern heritiage.  You just cannot trust the politicians, who are usually out to pander to the politically correct and who will sell out the heritage of their states for either votes or campaign contributions, especially if they might be harboring “presidential aspirations.”

A member of the political class noted that “we should take into account the sensitivity of all of our citizens on all issues.” What he was really saying was that you should take into account the “sensitivity” of all citizens except those wanting to preserve their Southern history and heritage. He didn’t quite say it that way but if you have watched the politcal doublespeak as I have over the years, you know that’s what he meant. Everybody should get a say but Christian, Confederate white folks. I realize that may be putting it bluntly for some, but that’s the way this game usually works. Everybody is supp0sed to have a say but us and we are just supposed to sit back in the corner and continue to feel guilty over a slavery or whatever that has been gone for 150 plus years now.

They continue to tell us we should just forget about the Confederacy and “move on.” Well, how about them following their own advice and forgetting about the slavery issue and just “moving on?” Ahh, but you see, they can’t do that–because pushing the “it was all about slavery agenda” is part of their game, part of the class struggle technique, part of the “divide and conquer” plan they have for the different races in this country, part of the agenda to destabilize both country and people, so they can continually fan the flame of “racism” so people don’t forget. Without all this Marxist class struggle baggage people might even learn to get along with each other and actually put the past in a proper perspective and move on, and that is the absolute last the Marxist agitators in Washington and around the country want. They don’t want peace and quiet–they want agitation and violence because it plays right into their program.

So I asked myself–why is this guy writing this particular article now? Nine months after the fact, things have quieted down. Why now? Is this supposed to be “marching order” for some radical Marxist group to start fanning the flames again? Are we soon supposed to be subjected to yet another round of cultural Marxism, ethnic cleansing, and whatever else the Left has decided is best for the country now?

Years ago I had a friend and mentor that was a pastor. He followed Communist activity and was, probably, in his own right, an expert on it. He made the statement once, and I never forgot it,  that when the Communists promoted a particular project, they did so for a certain amount of time and then they stopped–and if you waited about six months you would then see the Communist project promoted in the major media in this country.  On the two or three instances that I checked his timing on this he was right on the money!

So I am wondering if this current situation isn’t an extension of that same game.  We all know, or should know, that the cultural Marxists are not about to let the issue of Confederate history and symbols rest for any period of time. They haven’t been able to get rid of them all yet and they have met resistance. So why would they quit? You have to know they will be back again–and again, until they get what they want–ethnic cleansing on a grand scale, starting in the South and then working West and North. The reason they backed off was that they started to get pushback and it would have been counter-productive to continue at that point, so they backed off.  Is it getting close to the time they are supposed to renew their offensive this year? We had better keep our eyes open and exercise discernment because our adversary, like his father, prowls about “like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.”

A history lesson on Irish Slavery by the British.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children aged 10 to 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Still 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. Many people today avoid calling the Irish slaves called what they really were: Slaves. They use words such as "indentured servants" to describe what happened to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten “White” Slaves The Slaves That Time Forgot.

They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children. Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment.

They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives. We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? We know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade. But, are we talking about African slavery? King James II and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor. The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies.

By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves. Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white. From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well. During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish.

However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle. As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts. African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.

The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude. In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion.

These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company. England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia.

There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat. There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end it’s participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong. Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories. But, where has this ever been taught in our public (and PRIVATE) schools???? Where are stories of Irish Slavery in the history books? Why is it so seldom discussed? Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims merit more than a mention from an unknown writer? Or is their story to be one that their English pirates intended: have the Irish story utterly and completely disappear as if it never happened. None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal.

These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books-conveniently forgot-By John Martin

http://www.loudounnow.com/2016/03/10/mcauliffe-vetoes-war-memorials-preservation-bill/



From the Governor's office:
                                                                                               
RICHMOND – Today Governor Terry McAuliffe vetoed House Bill 587, which would hamper the authority of Virginia local governments to make their own decisions about monuments or war memorials within their jurisdictions.

The Governor also directed Secretary of Natural Resources Molly Ward, the former Mayor of Hampton, to form a work group with the Department of Historic Resources to begin a dialogue and study best practices about how to balance the preservation of history with the legitimate concerns many Virginians have about certain types of monuments and memorials.

The Governor’s full veto statement is below:

March 10, 2016

Pursuant to Article V, Section 6, of the Constitution of Virginia, I veto House Bill 587, which overrides the authority of local governments to remove or modify monuments or war memorials erected before 1998.

The rich history of our Commonwealth is one of our great assets. My administration strongly supports historic preservation efforts, including the preservation of war memorials and monuments. However, this legislation would have been a sweeping override of local authority over these monuments and memorials including potential ramifications for interpretive signage to tell the story of some of our darkest moments during the Civil War.

There is a legitimate discussion going on in localities across the Commonwealth regarding whether to retain, remove, or alter certain symbols of the Confederacy. These discussions are often difficult and complicated. They are unique to each community’s specific history and the specific monument or memorial being discussed. This bill effectively ends these important conversations.

I am committed to supporting a constructive dialogue regarding the preservation of war memorials and monuments, but I do not support this override of local authority.

Accordingly, I veto this bill.

Sincerely,\
Terence R. McAuliffe

This, less than a year after McAuliffe made the public statement "LEAVE ALL THE STATUES ALONE", when asked about the future of Richmond's Confederate monuments.   http://m.nbc12.com/nbc12/db_/contentdetail.htm?full=true&contentguid=od%3anY1X7UA4&pn=&ps=#display

This announcement is evidence of McAuliffe's inconsistency and hypocrisy, considering it comes on the heels of two other major press releases about preserving battlefields and a second season of a "Civil War" mini series ($$$)...issued just days before he vetoed a bill that would protect the monuments and memorials honoring the men who died defending the Commonwealth. 

https://governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/newsarticle?articleId=14339
https://governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/newsarticle?articleId=14494


If you would like to let the Governor know how you feel about his decision, you can reach him here...  https://governor.virginia.gov/constituent-services/communicating-with-the-governors-office

Bottom line?

By vetoing the War Memorials Protection Bill, our carpetbagger Governor has made it very clear that he stands with the liberal Democrats in the Virginia Senate (House Democrats overwhelmingly supported the measure) and the NAACP who petitioned the Governor to veto the bill, and against ALL of Virginia’s veterans. This, in a very public way, is done without truly harming our Cause.

The fact is, his veto is worthless. This bill ONLY served to tighten a possible loophole in a Virginia Statute that ALREADY protects our Veterans’ monuments and memorials. The law still stands. He knows it does... and that it’s just a matter of time until the Supreme Court says the same.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!

Susan Hathaway

Va Flaggers

by Al Benson Jr.

If you read what passes for “history” books in this country, especially in our excuses for educational institutions that we refer to as public schools, you will find very little, if anything, having to do with the demographics involved in the War of Northern Aggression. Until Donnie Kennedy and I started doing research for our book Lincoln’s Marxists I had read only snatches here and there about the different ethnic groups that populated this country during the 1840s and 50s. Once we started researching to find out more about the infamous socialist Forty-Eighters we wrote about we found all manner of information–very little of which came from traditional “history” books. We got a lot of information from biographies, which are sometimes more historically complete than history books.

But almost nowhere, except for a brief  comment here and there, did anyone deal with the number of foreigners that ended up in the Union armies. As I have said before, on several occasions, that was almost a forbidden subject.

What started me thinking about this again was a book I picked up back in the early 1990s at a library sale in Rochester, Minnesota when we were visiting there. The book was The Desolate South–1865-1866 written by John T. Trowbridge.  I had glanced through it here and there, but never seriously, until recently. It’s not an easy read for someone with my Southern mindset.  Trowbridge came across to me as a thoroughgoing Yankee type and it seemed, as I read, that he spent about two thirds of the book trying to make the North look good and the South bad. So what else is new? The edition I have was published in 1956.

Trowbridge took a trip through the Old Confederacy shortly after the shooting part of the War ended and I think what he wrote may have been one of the first psychological shots fired at the South once the Yankee/Marxists decided they could do  better with propaganda than they had with bullets. Cartridges couldn’t kill the descendants of the Confederate soldiers–propaganda just might.

However, in his early attempt at cultural Marxism, there were some things it was not easy for him to completely cover up.  In one of his jabs at the South, he and a reporter were talking to an ex-Confederate soldier who said “The Confederate army was never whipped!  We were overpowered.”  Of course Trowbridge and his friend had a snide laugh over that, but then the ex-Confederate said “It was the foreigners! You never would have beaten us if it hadn’t been for the foreigners that made up your armies.” The soldier had noticed something that most don’t talk about–the large number of foreigners in the Union armies. Of course Trowbridge and company had to make light of that and then move on to something less controversial, and less revealing.

However, if you stop and think about it, this Confederate soldier had hit on something worth considering. Recently I came across an article by an Andy Waskie called Foreign Soldiers in the American Civil War. Mr. Waskie noted: “Based on enlistment rolls and other official reports and stated in round figures, out of approximately 2,000,000 Union soldiers enlisted during the war over two-thirds were native-born Americans.Thus, only under one-third (1/3) of all troops were non-natives…”  Now stop and think about that for just a moment. The “only under one-third” that he almost seems to dismiss with a cavalier attitude, if his figures are correct, comes to something like 660,000 foreign-born soldiers in the Union armies! Folks, for my money, that’s a lot of foreign input.

Others disagree with his figures. One site I looked at, http://www.civilwar.org  observed that: “Maybe as much as a quarter of the Union Army was made up of foreigners–men who had not been born in America. Of these, the largest group was the Germans, followed by the Irish, Canadians, and English…Often regiments would be formed consisting entirely of men from one of these countries. The polyglot nature of the Northern forces  could sometimes create confusion when officers barked orders in several languages.” in other words, you had entire regiments of Union soldiers that were German, Austrian, Hungarian or whatever, that did not even speak English, and their orders had to be given to them in their native tongues. I have never seen a history book that I can recall that even mentioned this, let alone dwelt on it.

Another site, http://www.historynet.com  noted pretty much the same. It said: “Many of these immigrants joined the Union Army; the XI Corps of the Army of the Potomac was known as ‘The Dutchman’s Corps’ because it included so many German immigrants, but it became something of a catch-all for foreign-born recruits from throughout Europe and even the Mideast…Around 25% white Americans of the Union Army were foreign-born.” Soldiers in the Union Army from the Middle East? Wonder if it was some of those Muslims that Obama has told us helped to build the country?

The website http://www.Spartacus-educational.com was a bit more revealing. Of course they are also a bit more ideological. Their site noted, quite forthrightly that: ” Abraham Lincoln, a northern opponent of slavery was elected as president in 1861. It has been pointed out that without the support of an overwhelming number of immigrants, Lincoln would have lost the election.” So you could almost say that Comrade Lincoln was the “foreigners’ president.” He owed them, and they didn’t hesitate to collect in the way of generalships, ambassadorships, etc. The Sparacus article continued: “It is estimated that over 400,000 immigrants served in the Union Army. This included 216,000 Germans and 170,000 Irish soldiers. There were several important German born military leaders such as August Willich, Carl Schurz, Alexander Schimmelfennig, Peter Osterhaus, Franz Sigel and Max Weber…” All of the inestimable gentlemen here listed were Forty-Eighter socialists except August Willich, and he was an outright communist. Donnie Kennedy and I have dealt in some detail with all of these “interesting” personalities and more in Lincoln’s Marxists.

However you parse the figures out, it seems that you had somewhere between 400,000 and 600,000 foreign-born troops in Mr. Lincoln’s armies. While we have to admit that the vast majority of these were not socialists or communists, many of their commanding officers were. All of the above mentioned socialist/communist crew were generals! And we know that August Willich was one general that lectured his men on the glories of socialism/communism. That much is on record. How many more of these socialist turkeys did the exact same thing that we have never heard about?

All this should give you some hint as to why there was so much destruction  of private property in the South during the War and why some Union soldiers went out of their way to desecrate Christian churches in the South. That was, and is, all part of the Marxist agenda–and in one form or another–it has never ceased!

The agenda was to destroy white, Christian, Southern culture, and if you have not been slumbering for the past two decades you should have figured that out. The fact that more white Southerners haven’t figured it out is a testimony to the sleeping-pill effect that public education has had in the South since its birth down here as a major part of “reconstruction.”

So lets fast-forward slightly and look at today. We see a continuing and concerted attack here, and nationally, on anything Southern, Christian, and Confederate at all levels, the political, educational and cultural. Most of what we are fed in contemporary “culture” today is a finely-tuned and refined version of cultural Marxism. The cultural Marxists are having a field day, while most Christian Southerners sleep on, waiting for a “secret imminent rapture” that will not, and I stress WILL NOT remove them from the field of battle. As the Lincoln government sought the socialists and communists from Europe to swell the ranks of its armies, so the current Marxist regime in power in Washington is seeking the admission of hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern “refugees” (terrorists) to swell the ranks of those that will water down and dilute Western Christian culture, and they are even hinting at making it a crime to say anything negative against them. These people and the illegal immigrants knocking down the borders are the storm troopers of the New World Order–and they are being and will be used in the same way Lincoln used the European socialists and communists.  See any parallels at all here?

We should learn from history–and not from the “history” we’ve been taught in school. We need to begin to dig and to find the truth for ourselves because absolutely No One that is part of the Ruling Elite wants us to grasp any of this. So ask the Lord to guide you and start doing the homework–and as you do the homework, ask Him to show you all the possible means of legitimate resistance to this One World Government agenda.