by Al Benson Jr.
Back a few years ago when establishment historian James M. McPherson, in his book Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution, was bragging about how Abraham Lincoln championed the cause of the socialist and Marxist Forty-Eighters in Europe, he gave us one of Karl Marx’s quotes in regard to the sainted Mr. Lincoln. In 1865 Marx praised the great rail-splitter as "the single-minded son of the working class" who led his "country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world."
Most people never get to see such quotes, and many who do are totally unaware of the significance of them. Our "historians" (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense) routinely leave such quotes out of our "history" books because to include them might raise questions they’d rather not have to deal with and so, in their great wisdom, they have deemed it better for us, the "great unwashed" if we are not exposed to such political trivia. After all, do we really need to know that Abraham Lincoln and Karl Marx supported each other’s causes? Well, yes, as a matter of fact we do need to know, because knowing that and grasping the importance of it would change our perspective on what the War of Northern Aggression was really all about (Marxist revolution in America). You don’t suppose this comment by Marx had anything to do with the attempted cultural "reconstruction" that took place in the Southern states after the shooting phase of the War was over, do you? Our current crop of court historians would quickly pooh-pooh that idea, but it is interesting that both Karl Marx and the Yankee government settled on the term "reconstruction" to describe what happened in the South after the shooting stopped.
In the book Russian Radicals Look to America by David Hecht, the Russian radical Bakunin, is quoted. Interestingly, Bakunin recognized the War of Northern Aggression as a revolution, but he really didn’t feel it went far enough. He said for "popular self-government" really to become "a reality…another revolution…far more profound…" would be necessary. Bakunin strongly favoured the program the Radical Republicans had laid out for the South ("reconstruction").And he recognized it as "another revolution," a cultural revolution. His thinking, and that of Marx both lurched along the same convoluted leftist cow path.
Communist writer James Allen (an alias) noted of "reconstruction" that: "With the defeat of the South on the battlefield and the emancipation of the slaves the revolution had completed only its first cycle…A new phase, involving the complete transformation of southern society, now opened." This is what "reconstruction" really was–the Yankee/Marxist transformation of Southern society. Reconstruction was (and is) Marxism! Let that comforting little thought begin to settle in your mind. Communist writer Allen’s comments were made in his book Reconstruction The Battle for Democracy, which was published by International Publishers, a Communist publishing house in New York.
Thankfully, although it has done major damage, it didn’t go over all that well in much of the South. Its measures were resisted, as people in various parts of the South were able to resist. It was one of the most shameful periods of American history. The Republican Party, the supposed "party of small government" should hang its head in shame that it ever perpetrated such an outrage on the people of the South, but it won’t, because, when push comes to shove, the Republican Party leadership was, and is, Marxist at heart. To grasp the full truth of that statement you need to study the history of the Republican Party and its foundations, which Donnie Kennedy and I discuss at some length in our book Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists (iUniverse, Bloomington, Indiana 47403).
Back in 1929 Claude Bowers wrote an excellent book called The Tragic Era. It dealt, state by state, with exactly what the reconstructionist carpetbaggers did to the South during the reconstruction years. Folks, it’s not an enjoyable read, particularly if you’re a moral person, let me tell you. There are times when you want to take the book and throw it at the wall. Interestingly enough, Claude Bowers was a Northerner who just tried to tell the truth about "reconstruction." For years his book was out of print. Someone recently told me it had been reprinted back in 1991 or thereabouts. Check out Amazon.com and see if you can locate it.
Naturally, a book telling the truth about "reconstruction" could not be permitted to stand unchallenged. That paragon of Marxist virtue, W. E. B. DuBois published Black Reconstruction in America. It has been described in radical leftist circles as a "monumental study" which portrayed "reconstruction" as "an idealistic effort to construct a democratic, interracial political order from the ashes of slavery, as well as a phase in a prolonged struggle between capital and labor for control of the South’s economic resources." (Foner). Folks, I submit that is a Marxist mouthful if ever there was one!
To be continued.
Copyright © 2006-2009 Al Benson, Jr.
On The Web: www.albensonjr.com/marxistreconstruction.shtml