Many have, over the years, no doubt to their government school “educations” looked at the 14th Amendment, and been under the misguided delusion that it was a milestone in the cause of “racial equality.”
It might not hurt for those prone to such flights of fancy to take a look at the prime mover behind that amendment, the radical Thaddeus Stevens from Pennsylvania (and no credit to that state). I have recently done articles dealing with him so this will only add info to what’s already out there. Stevens has been characterized by some who’ve written about him as an “apostle of hate.” I guess you’d have to say that’s an apt description of him. His vindictive attitude toward the South before, during, and after the War of Northern Aggression might well be described as pathological.
Stewart Sifakis in Who Was Who in the Civil War has told us, of Stevens that: “In politics he moved from Federalist to Anti-Mason, to Whig, and finally to Republican. He served in the state legislature from 1833 until 1842, where he is most remembered for his defense of free public schools. He was a master at the distribution of patronage…” Just about every position noted here for Stevens was one of centralism and more government control. Note that he supported the concept of “free public schools” that was advocated by Karl Marx a little later in The Communist Manifesto which he wrote for The League of the Just (Illuminati).
Sifakis also told us that: “During the Civil War he wielded great influence as head of the House Ways and Means Committee. Although he had supported Lincoln in 1860, he was a constant critic of his moderate actions against the South, favoring instead a war of extermination and recolonization of the South, abolishing the old state lines.” A war of extermination against the South–Stevens sounds like a really nice guy doesn’t he? Just a paragon of Yankee/Marxist virtue! Virtue? Well, not exactly. Fawn Brodie, who wrote a biography of Thaddeus Stevens told us that: “Carl Schurz reported later that Stevens’ Pennsylvania neighbors ‘did not, indeed, revere him as a model of virtue; but of the occasional lapses of his bachelor-like life from correct moral standards, which seemed to be well-known and frequently talked about, they spoke with affectionate lenity of judgment.” An interesting commentary on Stevens’ Pennsylvania neighbors.
Brodie also told us that Stevens’ crusade against Masonry was “almost pathological in its nature…Later the Southern slaveholder became for Stevens a still more satisfactory object of attack. The desire to punish deepened with his advancing years, until after the Civil War it became an obsession.” Obsessed and pathological seem rather apt descriptions for Thaddeus Stevens–a quintessential Yankee/Marxist if ever there was one.
Anyone who has studied the career of Thaddeus Stevens ought to be convinced that his main intent, after presiding over the destruction of an orthodox Christian South, was to change the structure and direction of the federal government. He labored tirelessly to turn that government into an even more effective instrument of tyranny than it had been under Lincoln. A tall order!
Stevens made a point of giving speeches in 1865, after the shooting phase of the war ended. While notably professing to protect the “constitutional guarantees” of all, he advocated, in a manner similar to that of the Marxists, that the land of the “chief rebels” be seized and used to help pay the national debt. Stevens was doing nothing more than advocating the redistribution of someone else’s wealth, and he had the audacity to do it under the cloak of “constitutional guarantees.”
Every once in awhile Stevens let the cat out of the bag if you knew what to look for. In one of his speeches he said that: “In reconstruction…reformation must be affected; the foundations of their institutions, both political, municipal and social (Christian) must be broken up and relaid, or all our blood and treasure have been in vain. This can only be done by treating and holding them as a conquered people.” So where were Stevens’ “constitutional guarantees” he spoke so glowingly of? Well, just like today, they were for certain people. Here Stevens has given us the foundation of his personal theology. Every man has a theology whether he attends church or not. The true theology of Stevens and his Yankee/Marxist good buddies can easily be described as “subjugation and seizure” – in direct violation of both the 8th and 10th Commandments.
Stevens later said: “They (the South) ought never to be recognized as capable of acting in the Union, or of being counted as valid states, until the Constitution shall have been so amended as to make it what its framers intended: and so as to secure perpetual ascendency to the party of the Union (Republicans).” It would seem, at this point, that Mr. Stevens had appointed himself as the chief interpreter of what the true intent of the framers of the Constitution was. I can’t help but ask if Stevens’ allusion to the amendment process had anything to do with his upcoming plans in regard to the 14th Amendment.
From Stevens’ comments one comes away with the feeling that his concept of “original intent” was to change the Constitution by amendment to make it say what he thought it should have said but didn’t. Also, are we not also forced to conclude, from his statements about the “perpetual ascendency of the party of the Union” that he was, in fact, advocating what amounted to a one-party state? In essence that is what “reconstruction” did in the South. Karl Marx must have absolutely drooled with anticipation!
The hypothesis has been put forth that, in 1776, we fought a war for independence, not a revolution. I agree with that. Others have put forth the idea that our “Civil War” was really a revolution in disguise (and a Marxist one at that), and I have to agree with that. If you don’t think so, then read Lincoln’s Marxists. The intent of the War of Northern Aggression was to radically change our form of government, while giving the appearance of trying to preserve it.
If such was accomplished by 1865, is it any wonder today that we still struggle with “civil rights,” “Women’s Lib,” unprecedented federal intrusion into our private lives, and a host of other ills?
Let me say again as I have in the past, that our problems in this country did not start with FDR, or even the Federal Reserve. Some of them probably started with Lincolns Internal Revenue Service, but most likely, even that cancer is but a predictable symptom of the religious apostasy that has, for the past 170 years, eaten the true heart and soul out of what was once America but is now post-America.
Until we come to grips with that truth we will continue to spin our wheels and get nowhere. You can’t begin to think about fighting apostasy by “getting a few more conservatives into Congress.” While that might be a desirable step, it will only be a speed bump for the Deep State. A return to our biblical roots, the Reformation faith “once delivered to the saints” is the only thing that will suffice to save America and that return must be accompanied by repentance.
~ Comment ~
The following commentary was left on Mr. Benson’s Blog in response to the above posting. ~ Ed.
It’s important for all to know the truth about what ignited both conflicts. Both conflicts were ignited by someone attempting to or taking something away from others…
That something was ‘The Right To Choose’.
1) The Revolution of 1776 or War of Independence by the Colonies was ignited when Great Britain’s King ordered British troops to march on the colonies and confiscate their Arms, Ammunition and Arrest their town leaders.
2) The Revolution of 1861 or War of Northern Aggression by the southern agriculture states of the “united” states of America was ignited when the Northeastern states decided to build a manufacturing industrial infrastructure in the Northeastern states to control world commerce from the Northeastern states. That movement in the North by business tycoons and their political allies in the United States Government took the form of taxing the southern agriculture states and their trading partner Great Britain. The Northeast business tycoons, later called “Robber Barons” and their new pro-industry Republican Party, formed in 1854 following the failed pro-industry Whig Party, sought and succeeded in electing a majority new Republican Party in the U.S. Congress and the Presidency. With the majority in Congress and a Republican President in the Whitehouse the Northeast business tycoons were successful in isolating the southern agriculture state legislatures votes and the Northeast dominated the U.S. Government. The new Republican majority in the U.S. House completely shut out the southern agriculture states ability to introduce bills, discuss bills or successfully out vote the pro-industry Republican members, who immediately began passing tax (tariff or posts) legislation that was signed by former Whig Party member and leader and in 1860 the President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who won his election against several opponents to become President with 39% of the vote, making him a “minority” president within a “majority” political party.
Two strategies were conceived and implemented by the new Republican pro-industry party in cahoots with the Congress and President: 1) Ability to pass tax laws without opposition and the ability to bribe new western territories coming into the union to come in as pro-industry, but to call themselves anti-slavery states. This move was the new Republican Party of the Northeast’s strategy to recruit, by bribery, more members of the U.S. House of Representatives so the Southern agriculture states would always be the minority in the House. Each 30,000 residences in each new stated would gain 1 House member, and their nefarious covert strategy would ensure a pro-industry majority in the House thereby dominating the U.S. Congress, and the new minority Pro-industry President would gleefully sing Congresses new tax laws, which were focused on raising the huge number of funds needed to build a manufacturing industrial complex in the Northeast and only the Northeast, but the pro-industry business tycoons and their Central Government allies quietly recruited new western state politicians to come into the Union as anti-slave states, which was nothing more than a code word for “pro-industry”… Never the less the Northeast business tycoons’ plot worked and they succeeded in shutting the southern agriculture members of the U.S. House out of the ability to participate in the legislating process of the U.S.A.
When the South finally figured out what the plot was they began attempting to get the Republicans to compromise and some Northern members were willing, but the Republican’s new pro-industry President flatly refused to compromise. Tax laws were introduced and passed that was punitive to southern agriculture and their overseas trading partners, but which were beneficial to Northeastern manufacturing…
The South was left with no choice, because President Lincoln refused to compromise, and ultimately decided to withdraw from the voluntary union they had joined, as was their right, and form their own peaceful agriculture nation which was done in March 1861.
The Republican President was incensed that all of their scheme might come tumbling down if the tax paying states of the South and their overseas trading partners became competition for their new Northeastern manufacturing complex. Their new party leader, Abraham Lincoln, then threatened waging a “civil war” on the southern states if they withdrew, but he did it in the accepted strategy that we see today in politics–use deflective rhetoric and blame others for what you intend to do or say, essentially a flip-flop strategy we see today with the Marxist Democrat Party leaders… Lincoln made the veiled threat skillfully, as was his habit, in his first inaugural address threatening “civil war” on the South to continue collecting the high taxes imposed on southern agriculture and their overseas trading partners. But to subdue the agriculture South President Lincoln, as the leader of their coup d’état against the South Lincoln would have to create a plot to lure the South into a situation that he could use in the North to persuade residents to support his assault on the unarmed peace loving agriculture South that had no ability to fight a “civil war” or resist an all-out assault by Northeastern military forces. The South had no army and no navy, few transportation facilities and no manufacturing to produce war stores and arms–essentially the south was unarmed and common sense tell anyone today that they had no hope of winning if they did start a “civil war” with the Northeast, and Lincoln knew that. That’s why he threatened war and he and Union Gen. Scott drew up there little talked about but deadly Southern assault plan that came to be called “The Anaconda Assault Plan” to surround and isolate the agriculture state from the world and then assault each state to enslave it and use military force to produce the crops and funds needed to build their American Industrial Revolution to control world commerce from the Northeast. Lincoln and Scott planned their plot to force the South to take the blame for starting a war with the Northeast. But, Lincoln and Scott made many mistakes that we know of today that proves Lincoln’s Plot to start a war with the South was contrived. That covert incident has come to be known as the Fort Sumter Plot, but most don’t realize that it also included a Union assault on Fort Pickens in Pensacola Harbor, which was actually assaulted and captured before Fort Sumter was assaulted by the Union. The first battle of Lincoln’s “civil war” wasn’t the covert espionage plot by Lincoln and Scott but the assault on the Confederate state of Virginia at Manassas Junction… The rest is history! The South was no match for the Northeast’s military and manufacturing complex, but Lincoln’s narcissism resulted in his failing to achieve the result his Northeastern business tycoons wanted. Lincoln never succeeded in forcing the agriculture south to supply the funds the Northeastern “Robber Barons” needed to build their American Industrial Revolution to control world commerce from the Northeast–that would have to wait until after Lincoln’s War of 1861, whatever name one chooses to attach, and there are many some descriptive and some not…
‘The Right To Choose’ is still the hope of the citizens of our nation… ~ Al Barrs
February 2, 2019
~ The Author ~
Al Benson Jr. is the editor and publisher of “The Copperhead Chronicle“, a quarterly newsletter that presents history from a pro-Southern and Christian perspective. He has written for several publications over the years. His articles have appeared in “The National Educator,” “The Free Magnolia,” and the “Southern Patriot.” I addition to that he was the editor of, and wrote for, “The Christian Educator” for several years. In addition to The Copperhead Chronicles, Al also maintains Revised History.
He is currently a member of the Confederate Society of America and the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and has, in the past, been a member of the John Birch Society. He is the co-author, along with Walter D. Kennedy, of the book “Lincoln’s Marxists” and he has written for several Internet sites as well as authoring a series of booklets, with tests, dealing with the War of Northern Aggression, for home school students.
Mr. Benson is a highly respected scholar and writer and has graciously allowed the family of Kettle Moraine Publications to publish his works. We are proud to have his involvement with this project.
He and his wife now live in northern Louisiana.