Over the years, in many articles, I have documented the support Karl Marx and his friend, Engels, had for Lincoln’s “glorious Union” during the War of Northern Aggression. By now it should be no secret to anyone except those who depend on government school textbooks for their historical information. Leftist European revolutionaries strongly supported the Northern cause. Even court historian James McPherson has to admit that much, though he does it with pride, which shows you where McPherson is really coming from.
It was mentioned in the book Karl Marx by Franz Mehring that the English branch of the Communist International, when Lincoln was re-elected in 1864, sent him a message of greetings and congratulations.
Marx was the one that drew this message up, addressing it to the “son of the working class” that had been given the job of “leading his country in a noble struggle to emancipate an enchained race.” That had to have been the biggest pile of 19th century horse manure on record, because both Lincoln and Marx knew better. Neither of them gave a tinker’s damn for the “enchained race” except as an excuse to beat down the South.
According to Mehring, Marx put maximum effort into the message to Lincoln, something unusual considering how lazy Marx was. Lincoln did not fail to notice this. Much to the surprise of a London newspaper… “he (Lincoln) answered the address in a warm and friendly tone.” It’s what I have previously stated—a mutual admiration society consisting of Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln, needless to say, was far from being the country bumpkin, hayseed lawyer that our “history” books have portrayed him as.
And Marx and Engels were far from being alone. Other European radicals and socialists also strongly supported the Union cause. The well-known Russian revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin, with whom Marx had some notable differences, was also a partisan of the Union cause. According to the book Russian Radicals Look to America by David Hecht, Bakunin was a keen observer of social conditions in the United States.
According to Hecht: “As has already been recorded, Bakunin was a firm opponent of American slavery and unwaveringly supported the North during the Civil War. This attitude was shared by Herzen (also by Belinski, Chernyshevski, and Lavros) and was to be expected… in view of his specifically Russian experience of opposition to serfdom.” So not only Bakunin, but all these other revolutionaries of various stripes supported the Northern cause. I have to wonder at this point how many of these erstwhile socialists in Europe realized that four slave states still remained in the Union and the Union showed no interest whatsoever in emancipating the slaves in those four Union slave states. But I guess we are not supposed to ask that question. After all, none of our “historians” bother to.
While in America, Bakunin wrote to Herzen and Ogarev that, “In the struggle between the Northern and Southern United States… the North… has all my sympathies. So, Bakunin visited the United States. You have to wonder where these supposedly penniless leftist agitators got the money to travel around the world. Passage to America wasn’t cheap. So, where did Bakunin come up with the bread to come here?
Like Marx, Bakunin berated the North for their slow start in the War. After the shooting part of the war was over, Bakunin was strongly in favor of the racial “Reconstruction” policies of Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner and Edwin Stanton and that crowd. He must have talked to the “right” people while he was here. Bakunin wanted the North to impose revolutionary measures on the South. He got his wish.
Bakunin said that for “popular self-government (really communism) to become a true reality, that ‘another revolution… far more profound…’ would be a necessity.” Stop and analyze what Bakunin said for a moment. He recognized that the War of Northern Aggression was a revolution. By his use of the term “another revolution” he referred to a revolution beyond the war, which could only be the emergence of “Reconstruction” and the civil rights movement that was demonstrated by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Think about that for a while.
So, from Marx and Engels to Bakunin and Herzen, the communist/socialist sentiment in Europe was overwhelmingly in favor of a Northern victory, contrary to the desires of ordinary working folks in Europe who favored the South, as we noted in a previous article. The communists saw something in the Union cause they loved (apostasy and anti-Christianity) and they saw something in the Southern cause they hated (orthodox, Reformed Christianity)! While this may seem over-simplified to some, it is the root from which the theology of socialism grows.
Considering the wide influence held in the North by abolitionists, Unitarians, and European communists, I think we may have to strongly reassess what our “Civil War” was really all about. The communist/socialist influence in the North has only grown stronger as research has continued. “Those people” sought a revolution against a basically Christian South, and to put it in the proper light, they dredged up slavery as their noble pretext for anti-Christian revolution. Had the slavery issue not been handy some other reason would have been used to justify their revolutionary intent.
Hopefully with some of the recent articles on this page you will have grasped the fact that our “Civil War” was little more than a pretext for socialist revolution in America. That war was our French Revolution, and as France has not, to this day, recovered from her revolution, so have we never fully recovered from ours, the real one—the “Civil War.” We live with the results of that war still today. No one born after 1865 has ever lived under the system bequeathed to us by the Founders. Since the supposed end of the War of Northern Aggression we have all been living in Post-America.
-By Al Benson Jr.
O I’m a good old rebel, now that’s just what I am. For this “fair land of freedom” I do not care at all. I’m glad I fit against it, I only wish we’d won, And I don’t want no pardon for anything I done.
Excellent article. Keeps the McKinley Kantors and Carl Sandburgs in perspective.
Yes, where did all the penniless socialist agitators of the world come up with the money for their globe trotting adventures? Good article.
The largest and most powerful plantations that controlled the Mississippi Delta were, of course, Jewish. They not only used the slaves they brought to bankrupt their wage-paying Irish-Scot neighbors, they also controlled King Cotton, a huge industry of insurers, brokers, warehousers, and shippers.
And, of course, this tiny fraction of the population owned the majority of slaves per capita, excepting the black slave brokers who owned them as inventory.
Who else would own the banking system of chattel loans? People have been buying slaves on payments from these guys since the banking houses of Mubartu and Ergibil in Nebuchadnezzer’s Babylon. That’s what hollowed out Rome’s economy and funded Islam’s rise.
So why would Northern Judeo-Puritan banks and shippers attack Southern Jewish plantation owners?
Firstly, because the profitability of King Cotton, the Internet of its time, was fading; many were switching to tobacco, that’s when slave brokers began breaking up slave families to sell the kids (another Jewish specialty) and laborers to tobacco farms. Railroads were the new big thing, so the margins became even leaner as the money went there.
More importantly, because their key strategy is to get their enemies to kill each other. Who died in the Civil War?
Christians killing Christians…the Puritan zealots had already pulled this stunt for their masters time after time, that’s why they were kicked out of Europe after killing half its population. (They were the Christian version of Islam, another Jewish golem. Arab pagans didn’t create it.)
A permanent minority uses stories to leverage two majorities that exceed them in numbers and martial prowess. Once your enemies are weakened, you sweep in like carpetbaggers to rule the ruins at a steep discount.
The Northern Rothschild banks got seriously rich off of the Civil War, rich enough to eventually capture the DC government, although it took 43 years of bank panics to do it. (They were busy consolidating their hold over Britain in the interim.)
The Civil War was like the Israel Zionists versus the Ukraine Khazars today. Always a dominance fight with this bunch, as long as they have goyim to do the dying.
Addendum: I should’ve said capture both the Union and the DC government. They shot Lincoln over the greenback, just as they shot JFK over the US banknote, among other things. Heck, the Roths agents have shot 5 presidents.
Amen Alzaebo!
Now the whole world is in the grip of jewish supremacy. Trump’s cabinet is all Zionist. Nowhere to go really except up.
Why, thank you john844, I wasn’t sure if it was acceptable. May I mention a bit about that odious, genocidal monster, Calvin, father to the mad Puritan abolitionists and to the 30 Years War.
Calvin was a 23-year old nobody when he first showed up in Geneva. He soon got kicked out, yet came back when he was 26. Nobody knows where he got his money, except from the “Huegenot bankers”.
The Huegenot bankers were not Dutch, as commonly repeated. They had gotten kicked out of Portugal, after being kicked out of Spain for trying to bring back their Moorish employers. Yes, the shapeshifters.
Calvin burned at least ten times as many people at the stake as had the Catholic courts over centuries. He directed the 30 Years War of Protestants against Catholics from his stronghold in Geneva, funding this Christian on Christian war though mysterious means; the original Protestants, such as Lutherans, didn’t want to bring down the Catholic Church, but reform it. Calvin rampaged through villages in Spain and Germany, but he had a special animus towards the Irish. This lunatic began the original war on “witches”; according to him, any woman with red hair and green eyes was a witch, and he was determined to exterminate them.
(“Spare the rod and spoil the child” was part of an anti-Puritan song from 1644, people were aghast at Puritan levels of child abuse and their practice of child slavery. Scholars neglected to translate the two different terms of “rod”; the mewcar, a judicial cane used on adult miscreants, and the other (can’t remember it, sorry) meaning “scepter”, slang for “scroll”, as in directing and teaching, scolding and nagging meant for children.)
He turned Geneva into the first European totalitarian city-state, banning nearly all public joys with a repressive form of sharia. At his masters’ bidding, he directed the most terrible brother war Europe had ever known until the World Wars.
His masters have created religious war from their beginning, and religious war using proxies and janissaries. Most especially against us, the whites, who are indeed the Creator’s intent; since they cannot *be* us, they mean to replace us with themselves, that none will remember this crime against Creation’s Design itself. They and their master can only have this world, but take it they will if they can. Calvin was their creature, and Christ’s name has suffered from his ill reputation ever since.
I think the ‘shebet’ is the scroll-scepter (since a rolled-up scroll look like a scepter, and bears its lawful authority); as Thomas Sowell noted, those wagging tongues of Jewish grandmothers intimately involved with their children develops the kids’ brains, while the “no” and “shut up” of black mothers turns their kids into little snots.
I think there’s some truth in the ire you direct against Calvin and Puritans, but I think it’s a mistake to paint the historical picture with such broad strokes. Not all the Puritans were as soft on Jews as Cromwell. William Prynne certainly wasn’t.
https://barnesreview.org/product/why-the-jews-should-be-kept-out-of-england/
Regarding Calvin, our own R.L. Dabney wrote “The Five Points of Calvinism”; and he was certainly no abolitionist.
https://www.trinitybookservice.com/the-five-points-of-calvinism/
I think that much of the Cavalier/Roundhead controversy is fuel-fed by what I’d regard as a false view of eschatology. A number of the Puritans saw a future calling of the Jews. I don’t believe even Calvin held this view. Thankfully, most Reformed theologians that I know also reject this idea.
Lastly, I’d never advocate for child abuse, but Proverbs 13:24 does enjoin corporal punishment.