Customer Reviews

Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"The Union is Dissolved!" This was the Charleston Mercury headline for the evening of December 20, 1860. South Carolina had seceded from the Union. The United States were no longer united and would never be truly united again.

South Carolina and the 10 other Southern states who followed her in seceding from the Union were not traitors. Each state belonging to the Confederacy had left the old Union the same way it had joined - by majority vote of elected representatives. According to our founding fathers and authors Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr., Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists, Southerners were simply exercising their Constitutional right to form a new government.

By the late 1850s, the heavily populated, mostly industrial Northern states were trying to expand the powers of the federal government in order to benefit their industrial benefactors. This they did at the expense of the less populated, mostly agricultural Southern states. After the 1860 election of a big government radical who promised numerous unconstitutional changes, 11 Southern states decided it was time to form a new nation, one whose federal government did not exceed the powers granted it by their constitution - which, by the way - was nearly identical to the old one.

There was one difference, as Kennedy and Benson point out. Northern banks and businesses profiting in slavery had refused to allow an end to their profitable African slave trade. The Confederacy put an end it. Those who claim Southerners left the Union because they feared Mr. Lincoln might end slavery argue a lie that has been propagated for 145 years. The so-called Civil War was never about slavery, and Mr. Lincoln's all-powerful federal government didn't free the slaves. It bought them.

Kennedy and Benson's research reveals some remarkable facts about Abe Lincoln, his political party and his genocidal army. Lincoln and his party, ironically called Republican, didn't interpret the Constitution the same way our founding fathers did and were willing to do whatever was necessary to put an end to "states' rights," even if it meant killing every Southern man, woman and child, white or black, free or slave.
A republic is a nation ruled by law, but the new Republican Party and its leaders would prove to be contemptuous of both state and federal law, especially the U.S. Constitution. And as Kennedy and Benson discovered, those who formed the basis of the Republican Party had a lot to do with its big government ideology.

In 1848 there were 18 socialist/communist uprisings throughout Europe, uprisings that had the sympathy of a young lawyer in Illinois. These revolutions all failed, so their leaders fled Europe for the refuge of the United States, settling primarily in the northeast and Midwest, taking occupations in journalism, education and politics - the same professions still dominated by leftwing radicals today. Google the names Friedrich Anneke, Carl Schurz, Franz Sigel or Joseph Weydemeyer, and see what information you get.

These socialists/communists had no love for the U.S. Constitution and only venomous loathing for the Holy Bible, but they made this country their home and the new Republican Party their party. Many of these "Forty-Eighters" were protégés of Fredrick Engels and Karl Marx himself, who wrote at least two letters to Comrade Lincoln and even wrote a eulogy for him upon his assassination.

I've read where three of every five Southern men who survived the war at all were missing an arm, leg, eye or some other body part. Many returned home to no home at all, finding it either burned or confiscated by carpetbaggers or scallywags. To add to this insult, what families could be re-united found their children being herded off to public schools where they could be re-educated, "cured" of the thought crimes of believing in states' rights or any other strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and especially the Holy Bible.

For all our losses though, Northerners actually lost more. That's right. I'm not talking about the fact that they suffered more battle casualties. The people in the supposedly victorious North to this day think they won something, when in fact they lost everything. Their precious Union died that December evening in 1860 and despite the best efforts of their bloody bayonets, there is still no unity! Oh, and they didn't free the slaves either. They joined them.

Did these socialists/communists really have an influence on the U.S. government? Consider these four major objectives of the communist party and think about where we are today:
1. An indivisible, all-powerful federal government. States' rights?
2. A heavy, progressive income tax. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."
3. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. What happens when you don't pay your property tax? To whom then does "your" property really belong?
4. Free and compulsory public education. Google Legally STUPiD.

See what I mean! Buy a copy of Red Republicans and learn the truth you'll never read in a newspaper, hear on network news or learn about in public schools. I can't say enough to commend all the scholarship behind this book, and I encourage every freedom-loving American to read it.

RC Murray
author of Legally STUPiD: Why Johnny doesn't have to read

Bigger government. More social programs. Look to the government for help, aid, comfort, and direction. This is no doubt where we are in America today. No matter if the leadership is Republican or Democrats or independents, all want bigger government. In 2000 President Bush was elected President promoting smaller government but by his departure in 2009, the United States government is larger than ever before. Where does the idea of big government come from? Why do diseasters such as Hurricane Catrina and the city of New Orleans reveal that people are more dependent on government than ever before and with no hope of getting out from under its grasp?

In this eye-opening book, Walter Kennedy shows how red republicans influenced Abraham Lincoln and the American political system during the Civil War to bring about their hope for larger government based on the principles of Marxism with the State taking control of all property rights and restributing wealth. This was the rally cry for the North during the Civil War to liberate slaves and to bring about one republic without state's rights to interfere. For Southerners, the Civil War was an act of aggression against independent States with their own rights. The North rallied to fight this idea.

Kennedy does a good job of showing the history of the red republicans, their ideals, and how their influence is still felt today. He shows how Lincoln, whether he realised it or not, was heavily influenced by the red republicans. This effect is ongoing in both political parties today. Overall this is a great book and an enjoyment to read.

This is a brilliant work by Walter Kennedy and Al Benson; and is on a quality level equal to the excellent works by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo of Loyola College. Kennedy and Benson take on the subject that very few are willing to discuss: the Marxist influences upon Lincoln, his administration, and the Union Army. This is a book that will upset "The Lincoln Cult," but it is far better to know the truth than to perpetuate a myth! I am a Northern man, and it is with sadness to now believe that the election of Lincoln, was probably the greatest disaster to hit our Republic! Lincoln destroyed the Republic given to us by the founding fathers; he did not preserve it!

Many modern Americans assume that socialism didn't affect our national politics until the twentieth century, but authors Kennedy and Benson have set out to prove otherwise. "Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists" is the result of their boots-to-the-ground research on a rather neglected topic: how the theories of Marx and Engels affected the nineteenth century United States. According to the authors, the European revolutions of 1848 didn't merely involve the early liberals (root word: liberty), they also involved socialists (communists; the two terms were then interchangeable). And when the revolts failed, many of the socialists were forced to flee their home countries and emmigrate to the United States. Already proven activists, they began attempting to push America toward socialism. But since many Americans, North and South, disagreed with their ideals, they had to be satisfied with gradual victories, resulting in their overwhelming support for the early Republican party and the Union war effort.

Few of us were taught in school that the first presidential administration to give a post to a socialist was Lincoln's; and the parts of the book which trace the activities of particular socialist immigrants are perhaps the most educational. They knock down many idols that modern Americans are unfortunately given to worship.

Kennedy and Benson start out by comparing how Lincoln's views, though neither communist nor fascist, agreed with Marx's and Hitler's where support for big government is concerned. Though their statements are correct, clearly backed by primary sources, they sometimes sound overly partisan, to the extent of seeming less scholarly: a definite weakness. Their writing also lacks smoothness in places; the book's title itself is somewhat cumbersome. The problems in the writing (along with numerous type errors) suggest the need for a second edition--one a good editor has spent some time working on. However, the careful research and challenging viewpoint presented make this book valuable to anyone who wants to learn about the real history of Marxism in America, especially as it relates to the War Between the States.

Most of us, when confronted with the idea of communism or marxism or socialism in the United States automatically think of the Cold War or Joseph McCarthy or the 1960s. Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War is a book that shows how these flawed philosophies began to infect America a hundred years (or more) before the Cold War.
Diligent research by the authors shows the spotlight not only on the marxist/socialists who entered the United States after the failed Revolutions of 1848 in Europe, but also digs up evidence of home-grown experiments in American socialism in the early 1800s.
Readers may be surprised to find out that just how many connections existed between the Republican Party of the Civil War era and the failed revolutionaries (the "48ers") who came to the United States either by choice or by exile. And while the authors do not label Lincoln himself as an avowed marxist, he certainly enjoyed the support of the vast majority of socialist exiles, both politically and militarily.
Especially interesting is the connection between these revolutionaries and the author of the Pledge of Allegiance. Read the book to find out more.
Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War, is a work likely to provoke second thoughts about the preconceived historical beliefs about the origins of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln and the War Between the States.

This book is a good start to understanding when and how the confederated republic of the founding fathers became fundamentally changed. Read this book first but then read Abraham Lincoln and America's Communist Revolution which shows how the 1860 Republican platform was not only written by Communists such as Carl Schurz, but that the Republican party campaign banner used the Jacobin Flag on it. That book shows as well how Lincoln, from a state whose motto was State Sovereignty First, National Union second, worked to overthrow that and was , like the Jacobins who set up Jacobin clubs across France to obtain political power was having Pinkerton (whose eye and we never sleep logo was used on Republican Campaign banners and as part of the similar to jacobin secret society for war Wide Awake Republican Clubs set up by Pinkerton and Ellsworth. Ellsworth was Lincoln's choice to head a proposed Bureau of National Militia to do away with State Militias once he overturned State Sovereignty to National Sovereignty.

As an author, it is refreshing to come across a book that addresses the topic of socialist involved in the War Between the States. In researching for my other books, I had often come across mentions of Union Generals and staff that had socialists connections. This book sheds light on those connections and elaborates on how influential those socialist leaders were. Many Americans are unaware of how the events of 1848 Europe have impacted their nation.

Kennedy and Benson have written a long needed volume that exposes who these socialists were and what impact they had on America and events taking place during that time. In my history of Terry's Texas Rangers, I had come across August Willich and his socialist leanings. On reading this book, I realized that the communist ideas of Willich was miniscule compared to the impact of the many socialist generals who were recruited for the Union war effort. Their ideas and policies were a large part of the war and the execution of the war.

If want an eye-opening account that will change your views of the war, then consider this book.

This is one of the worst-written works purporting to be history I've ever read. The author knows less than nothing about Marxism, Lincoln, or the generation of European revolutionaries (the '48ers) that is supposed to be the subject of this book.
The book is peppered with illogical asides like "typical of such" (socialists, communists, abolitionists, feminists, or whoever he doesn't care for) which get repeated later with "as we've seen". The index is useless: I ran across a statement that Karl Marx invented the word "capitalism" to denigrate capitalists, and tried to find it later. No Marx entries in the index. (For the author's edification, the word predates Adam Smith.)
And just how, in a chapter about the German '48ers, does any historian manage to omit the capture of the secessionist military force at Camp Jackson by (mostly) '48ers, which action secured St. Louis, and with it Missouri, for the Union?
This book is a pro-Confederate, anti-"big" government, pro-"Christian," rant; it is poorly written and documented and cannot at all be taken seriously.