The "trial" of Mary Surratt and the Lincoln conspirators is still something that is debated about. Was it a legal trial or not? Reverdy Johnson, Mrs. Surratt's first attorney, had contended that the military court that tried the conspirators was without proper authority to do so as long as the civil courts were sitting. This is something that was argued for nearly a century and I'll bet you could still get a heated debate going about it in some circles. In my opinion, Mr. Johnson was correct. The war was over and the civil courts in the Union were all functioning and intact, so there was no reason to try this as a military case. It has also been contended in some circles that, had the trial taken place in a civil court, Mrs. Surratt would have been exonerated.

After the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, eight people were put on trial and found guilty--four sentenced to long prison terms and the other four sentenced to hang. One of those sentenced to hang was Mary Eugenia Jenkins Surratt, the first woman ever to be hung in the United States. John Wilkes Booth had supposedly been shot and John Surratt had escaped to Canada, eventually to make it all the way to Europe. These eight were seemingly all that were left and the government wanted to make sure they talked as little as possible to anyone.

Author Nathaniel Weyl has agreed with Otto Eisenschilm's view of what Edwin M. Stanton and company were all about. In The Battle Against Disloyalty he wrote: "In the Civil War and Reconstruction eras, the United States War Department bore some traces of resemblance to the Soviet secret police. It's leaders were zealots who believed that, if the end didn't justify the means, nothing else could."  

Colonel Baker, head of the National Detectives has been described by Weyl as "An enormously vain and unscrupulous person, Baker was also a congenital liar, intriguer, and twister." Sounds like just about the right qualifications for an agent in the Lincoln administration. His boss, the venerable Stanton has been pictured as "A rude, rough, vigorous Oliver Cromwell sort of man, incapable of generosity to a prostrate foe, arbitrary, bad tempered and impulsive, double-faced, tyrannical, with an inordinate desire for office." I wonder if those were his good points. Again, sterling qualities for a Lincoln administration member! In mentioning the Lincoln assassins (at least those we've been told about) Weyl observed that their trial "served as an opening move in deeply calculated positional play for something akin to a military dictatorship." Something else our "history" books never bother to deal with.

By now we should all have heard of Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison where American soldiers practiced various forms of torture, both emotional and physical, on various Iraqi prisoners--all a part of George Bush's "experiment" in democracy in Iraq. People were shocked when they read about Abu Ghraib. How, they thought, could Americans do such things?  They wondered how decent and upright American soldiers could partake of such behaviour--surely this had to have been the first time for this sort of thing, right?  Well, no, actually that's not quite right. Americans have been partaking of torture of one sort or another since the advent of the Lincoln administration. Lincoln and his associates seem to have had a paranoid fear of disloyalty to the federal government, to the point where thousands upon thousands of Northern civilians were arrested and hauled off to prisons on the basis of nothing more than vague suspicion or some neighbour's hearsay accusation.

The history of conspiracies in this country is fascinating, and the results of government "investigations" into these conspiracies is likewise fascinating, if only for the fact that there seems to be a standard, pat answer given by government investigators for most political conspiracies -- at least those involving political assassinations. It seems that, according to the government there are few real conspiracies and that most of the assassinations involve lone, crazed gunmen who keep diaries, of which the last several pages are often missing. I wonder if Hillary's "vast Right-wing conspiracy" would fit into this somewhere, but you'll pardon me if I don't take the trouble to find out.

How much have we all heard in the past couple decades about how our Confederate symbols all represent nothing but slavery, or nazism or oppression or some other such contrived garbage? You would think, after partaking of some of the fulminations of the liberal, lying media, that all slave owners in the South had been greedy, greasy, totally unscrupulous men, that they all had plantations the size of New Jersey, and that they all got their jollies by beating (single-handedly) all of their hundreds of slaves every morning before breakfast and then expecting them to go out and work a sixteen-hour day.

That old Southern ballad I'm A Good Ol' Rebel has a line in it that says "I can't take up my musket and fight 'em (the Yankees) now no more." In our day we might well amend that wording to say "I can't lift up my hand, and pledge allegiance (to the Yankee flag) now no more."  

Over the years I have belonged to several conservative and patriotic groups. Almost inevitably, at meetings, rallies, speeches or whatever functions these groups put on, the pledge of allegiance to the United States flag was a must, often being recited even before some local pastor was able to offer a prayer asking God to bless the meeting. And everybody stood up and dutifully recited the pledge. It was a sign of your patriotic fervor, and I, in my rank ignorance during those early days, did it along with the rest.

Awhile back, someone that I think must have been a student, contacted me. He informed me that he was studying the topic of secession and asked me a question regarding that subject. He wanted to know--can a state secede from the Union without the agreement of the other states, or "parties to the compact," as he expressed it. His terminology was interesting (and correct), as most folks don't refer to the Constitution as a compact anymore, and mostly haven't since the conclusion of the military aspect of the War of Northern Aggression.

Most people in earlier days, especially in the South, did indeed, view the Constitution as a compact, by which sovereign states gathered and delegated (not surrendered) a portion of their power to a federal governing body. The federal government was, in a sense, supposed to be a delegate for the several states, given only certain things by them to do that were more difficult for them to handle individually.

Back in the very early days of the Unitarian/socialist inspired public brain laundry movement, there were some men like Robert Owen the socialist and Amos Bronson Alcott, the meandering Transcendentalist, who firmly believed that public education was the best way to reform society, and the best way to do that was to get the children out of the hands of their parents at the earliest possible age.  

These men and others became avid supporters of something called the Infant School Movement, a program designed to get children out of the home as early as two years of age. The poor kids supposedly learned all their nasty habits at home during those early formative years. So, if you could get the kids out of the home and into the infant schools of the public school promoters, you could then get rid of all those bad habits, and by the time the youngster was six years old, the public "educator" (change agent) basically controlled him body and soul.

Recently, in my article about Mr. Lincoln's socialist tendencies, I believe I mentioned his biographer, Carl Sandburg. I briefly noted how Mr. Sandburg had soft-pedaled the socialism of Robert Owen of New Harmony, Indiana fame. I felt that Sandburg, as knowledgeable a man as he was, must have known something about the socialism or Robert Owen, yet mentioning Owen in his biography of Mr. Lincoln, he chose not to share that information with his readers. Being aware of Lincoln's socialism, and finding that Mr. Sandburg chose not to deal with Owens' socialism, it began to make me, with my suspicious mind, wonder just a bit.

Over the years I have contended that Abraham Lincoln was a socialist--not that he was a card-carrying member of some socialist group, but rather that his mindset had that bent. In that contention I have met all manner of reactions, everything from some who agree with me (and many do), to outright ridicule from Lincoln lovers in the North (and some in the South, too). Many seem to feel, although they would not express it in those terms, that Mr. Lincoln should be elevated to the level of Deity. Also, I have run across almost complete apathy in much of the South, and other sections of the country as well. Southern folks at least used to know that Mr. Lincoln had been a less-than-desirable president; they knew he had been responsible for alot of bad things during the "late unpleasantness" and that was about it. Many, no matter what their persuasion, had the thought (planted) in the back of their heads that, for all his faults, Lincoln was, at least, a "good" man. The contention that he was some kind of socialist really shakes them up, and mostly, they just don't want to hear anymore on the subject. It's not that they are apathetic--it's just that they don't know and they don't care. Please don't rattle their chain or rock their boat--just leave them fat and happy with their illusions.

Just as, over the years, we have all been treated to the ethereal fables of Mr. Lincoln as the "great emancipator" of blacks, so have also been treated to many stories about his supposed Christian faith. The problem with all of this is the most patriotic and conservative folks have bought into this hook, line, and sinker. I talked several years ago with a conservative man who informed me that Lincoln "got saved" in the White House. I asked him for some evidence and then sought to go a little into the true nature of Lincoln's character. At that point, he informed me that he "didn't have time for all this." Conversation ended. He had no evidence to back up what he said and I had just punctured the aura of secular holiness that surrounded his secular saint, and he wasn't happy with that. He really didn't want to be confronted with any facts that might force him to change his opinion.

It is amazing to see how many blacks today continue to revere the memory of Abraham Lincoln as though he had actually done something for them. Of course many whites do the same thing. In fact, there is an entire cottage industry operating nowadays, consisting of people, many of whom are academics, whose entire goal in life seems to be the attempted beatification of "Saint Abraham." Most of this foolishness is due to the fact that, in our government schools, we have been taught a laughable, shoddy imitation of history. The facts must never be allowed to get in the way of the fantasy.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is a dubious document that has been widely touted as having "freed the slaves." It didn't. It was aimed at the slaves in Confederate territory where Lincoln had no legal authority. Slaves in both states and territory controlled by Mr. Lincoln's dictatorial regime remained firmly in bondage until the 13th Amendment freed them, several months after Mr. Lincoln's demise. Even Lincoln, himself, admitted the proclamation was a war measure and probably would not have passed any sort of constitutional muster. So who did it really free? No one, that's who. It was never intended to "free" anyone. It was excellent propaganda and that was it. Period!

If anyone ever needed evidence that the "system" in this country is broken all he'd have to do is to watch the charade that passes for a presidential race in the upcoming election.

This year's presidential race features the biggest stable of also-rans to come down the home stretch in many a moon. The ONLY viable and worthwhile candidate in the whole bunch, both major parties included, is constitutionalist Ron Paul from Texas. And it should not surprise you that he is the one candidate the media avoids mentioning like the plague, unless they can come up with something they preceive as dirt on him. So far, they've managed to come up with precious little dirt, but not to worry, they will keep trying, even if they have to manufacture something. They thought they'd be able to hang him when someone came up with some copies of The Ron Paul Political Report, a newsletter published sometime back in the 1990s. In one issue of that newsletter, Martin Luther King was described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." That's news??? Conservatives and patriots have been saying, and documenting, that for decades. Even King's good old buddy, Ralph Abernathy, basically said as much in his autobiography And The Walls Came Tumbling Down.

Now that January is again upon us, we will be literally inundated with glowing tributes to Michael King Jr. "Who's he" you might ask? Well, thanks to his daddy, his stage name is Martin Luther King Jr.

Author and columnist Alan Stang has commented on the MLK holiday, (which seems to last almost the whole month, after which we are then transported into black history month, which doesn't seem to end until mid-April), saying that: "...George Washington has been demoted. Look at your calendar. His birthday has been submerged in 'Presidents Day' with the result that the only American honored with a holiday all his own is Mike King." So we have managed to slide down the slippery cultural slope from George Washington to Martin Luther King Jr., whose best friends seem to have been Marxists.

Just recently I read an article on WorldNetDaily that amply demonstrated all I have been saying about government schools for decades now.

It seems that government school officials in Des Moines, Iowa have allowed and promoted what they call a "gender-bender" in which students all participate in cross-dressing. Supposedly, this is part of their homecoming week, along with days for other things, but you have to wonder who thought up this idea and who among the school officials sanctioned it and apparently saw no problem with it? Almost sounds like the school system there is trying to make potential Rudy Giulianis out of the kids.

Over the years many have contended that government, or public, schools were little more than indoctrination factories for the New World Order. They were there to make sure the kids learned just enough to be good little worker bees and good little consumers, but not enough to really question what goes on. I surely don't disagree with that sentiment. And I just recently read an article that bears this contention out.

Well, the word is officially out in academia--it has been established that all white people are racist pigs, at least according to the University of Delaware. And what proof do they have? They don't need any proof, all they have to do is say it and that makes it so. That being the case, I would urge any and all you racist whites that have kids enrolled at the University of Delaware to quickly remove them to other institutions of "higher learning". After all, if you are white you certainly don't want to taint the halls of the University of Delaware with your inescapable racism.

To paraphrase--What to my wondering eyes should appear but cadres of (Black) Panthers all coming here (to Jena, Louisiana). That was my thought after picking up the Monroe, Louisiana newspaper the other day and reading an article on the front page that stated that the "New Black Panthers" are coming to Jena, Louisiana to patrol the streets to keep the Jena 6 and their families secure from alleged Ku Klux Klan threats. My second thought was that the good folks in Jena, both white and black are just going to love that! I wondered if the police might try to keep them out as a possible disruptive influence, and then I thought, no, that probably won't happen. It wouldn't be politically correct to do that. Now if they happened to be an outfit called "The White Panthers" you can be sure they would be denied access to the streets of Jena, but the Black Panthers probably won't--"racism" and all that, you know.

The small rural town of Jena (pronounced Jeena) Louisiana has recently been subject to a massive dose of what I charitably call "civil rights fertilizer." There seems to have been racial tensions among high school students in Jena, a town with a population of somewhere around 2800, of which something like 12% is black. It's interesting that most of the older folks don't seem to be having problems with each other--it only seems to be the youngsters. I'm curious about what they might be teaching in the government schools there.

For almost three years now Donnie Kennedy, co-author of the best selling The South Was Right, and I have been working on a book dealing with the Marxist and socialist penetration of both the Union armies and the Republican Party, before, during, and after the War of Northern Aggression. The title of the book is, for those who have not read about it already, Red Republicans And Lincoln's Marxists.

At the end of last year I published a special report in The Copperhead Chronicle newsletter called "Feminists and Forty-Eighters." It detailed, at some length, the connections between the Forty-Eighter socialists both in this country and in Europe and the radical Feminist Movement at that time and the decades following. (Sorry folks, no copies of that left, but the report will appear as an appendix in the new book Donnie Kennedy and I have written Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists. It is worth noting that those early feminists equated the marriage bond as a form of slavery, and therefore, to be abolished. Their radical agenda has not changed in the last 160 years.

More and more of late I have been reading articles dealing with certain black racist groups that claim to have the best interests of average black folks at heart (they really don't). It seems these organizations can't take time to address the problems of black crime in the black community or of single-parent families in the black community in any meaningful way. It's much more lucrative for them (and it gets more press coverage) if they spend their time and resources attacking Confederate symbols. Ive come to the conclusion that they really don't give a rip for the welfare of black families. They only use that as a facade to mask their real agenda--the destruction of Southern, Christian culture.

One of the most studiously ignored facts dealing with the War of Northern Aggression is the continued support Abraham Lincoln received from various socialists and communists, both in this country and in Europe, not only during the War, but before it when he ran for president in 1860. Today's court historians, if they bother to mention this at all, do it only in passing, and in such a fashion that most people never pick up on it. That is not entirely without design.

Al Benson Jr.'s, [send him email] columns are to found on many online journals such as Fireeater.Org, The Sierra Times, and The Patriotist. Additionally, Mr. Benson is editor of the Copperhead Chronicle [more information] and author of the Homeschool History Series, [more information] a study of the War of Southern Independence. The Copperhead Chronicle is a quarterly newsletter written with a Christian, pro-Southern perspective.