Retrieved from explorationfilms
At war’s beginning, Lee held a commission in the United States Army, and was offered command of a large force. Lee prayed for guidance, and finally was at peace in resigning his commission and defending Virginia. He accepted and sought God’s will. In the Pennsylvania Campaign, Lee ordered his army to behave as soldiers of honor. No civilian housing was burned, and the troops were well-behaved. A sharp contrast to Federal General Sherman’s “March to the Sea,” which was a deliberate war on the civilian population. Even during the waning days of the war, there was a great revival in Lee’s army, including 15,000 professions of faith after a day of fasting and repentance on Aug. 21, 1863.
After the war, Lee refused financial gifts and turned down a “showpiece” job in which the employer just wanted the use of his name. Instead, he served as President of Washington College and of the Rockbridge Bible Society.
Jackson was an ex-soldier, an artillery specialist, and an obscure professor at Virginia Military Institute. He disliked war, disliked slavery, and was responsible for starting a Sabbath school for blacks. But he believed that the Confederacy was a sacred cause (in other words, he believed that the Federal government was overstepping its Constitutional bounds), and he accepted a commission as a Colonel in what would become the Stonewall Brigade. He quickly rose in the ranks, and soon his name was a household word. He pushed his troops hard. But for him, they were willing to do whatever was asked of them. With a small army, he constantly harassed and occupied much larger Federal forces. Gen. Ewell at first thought Jackson was a little crazy. But when Ewell happened on Jackson in fervent prayer one day, his heart was touched, and he was soon converted.
At the Battle of Chancellorsville, Jackson was inspecting the terrain at night when a firefight broke out, and he was accidentally shot by his own men. He died of complications from the injuries, professing a strong faith and accepting God’s will.
The American Civil War was not fought over slavery; genuine slavery was never practiced in the American South; Confederate President Jefferson Davis adopted a black child during the War and planned on abolishing slavery nearly a year before the Union did; and U.S. President Abraham Lincoln intended the Emancipation Proclamation to be temporary and spent his entire adult life trying to deport blacks “back to Africa.” These and a thousand other well researched but little known facts are clearly presented in Everything You Were Taught About African-Americans and the Civil War is Wrong, Ask a Southerner! by award-winning author and Southern historian Lochlainn Seabrook.Why have you never heard of these facts before? Because the Liberal enemies of the traditional, conservative South have been carefully suppressing them for the last 150 years. For if the truth were to get out, their fake “race war” would be exposed and the countless illegalities and crimes perpetuated by the North during Lincoln’s unconstitutional assault on the American people and their inalienable rights would be revealed.Mr. Seabrook divides his book into three convenient sections: “African-Americans Before Lincoln’s War,”“African-Americans During Lincoln’s War,” and “African-Americans After Lincoln’s War,” touching on a host of fascinating topics ranging from indigenous African slavery, white American slavery, and the birth of black American slavery in the North, to black Confederate soldiers, black KKK members, and the birth of the American abolition movement in the South.The book includes hundreds of rare illustrations and photos, scores of eyewitness accounts, copious endnotes, a comprehensive index, and an exhaustive bibliography. The result of decades of study, this important historically accurate work, with its emphasis on racial unification, is a must-read. Not just for Civil War buffs and scholars, but for anyone seeking a deeper and more factual understanding of African-Americans and the Civil War without an anti-South bias. You will never look at this conflict and its black and white participants the same way again! Available in paperback and hardcover, with a foreword by African-American educator Gregory Newson. Destined to become an American classic.DETAILS AUTHOR: Lochlainn Seabrook, FOREWORD: Gregory Newson (African-American educator and author)
An authoritative and documented study of the mythology behind Civil War history, clearly exhibiting how the South was an independent country invaded, captured, and still occupied by a vicious aggressor.
Called “A respite from Yankee history whose exclamation point in some typefaces is rather like a cannon being fired,” by The Tampa Tribune-Times, The South Was Right! is a book in its second printing after only three months. Ronald and Donald Kennedy have gotten to the root of post-Civil War dissent. Much of Civil War history is untrue because like most history, it is written by the victor. The story we hear is that hundreds of thousands of Southern men went to war over an issue that only affected six percent of the population. Read this book and learn the truth: there was no shining Northern force fighting a moral battle for the sake of ending slavery; there was no oppressive Southern force fighting to preserve it, either; and after the South declared its independence, the Union ruthlessly invaded, leaving Southerners no choice but to defend themselves. Unfortunately, the South lost the struggle and has suffered ever since. It has become an economic colony of the North, used and exploited like other colonies throughout the world. Politically, the North still controls the government and continues to impose its radical social agenda on the rest of the country at the expense of individual liberty. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, the first federal department to infringe upon the rights of sovereign states, continues to suppress any efforts to reclaim liberty for the individual from the federal government. Today, is a result of the war in which the South lost its right to be a free country, there is a continuing effort to obliterate all symbols dear to Southerners and make sure that the Southern states continue to have fewer rights under the constitution than other states. Furthermore, although home to one-third of the population, the South is represented by one out of nine justices of the Supreme Court, and that only after the greatest struggle. Sure to be one of the most controversial books of the decade, The South Was Right! is an attempt to set the record straight. Nearly a century and a half after the war, the Confederacy still exists and an order of New Unreconstructed Southerners is calling for its reunification. Brothers James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy represent the spirit of other patriots like Lech Walesa, Light Horse Harry Lee, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Mohandas Gandhi who inspired their people to regain their independence. This book, filled with documented evidence supporting all the Kennedys’ claims, issues forth a frighteningly realistic picture of a captured people, their struggle to preserve their heritage, and their right to exist as an independent country and as a distinct culture.
You’ve heard the phrase, American by Birth-Southern by the Grace of God. And now comes a book that reminds us of the glory of being Southern! Just when you thought the liberal press had succeeded in grinding us into the ground with their barrage of derogatory patter, a glimmer of hope emerges, and Southerners are once again discovering that being Southern is a good thing after all-just like it used to be! If you are proud of your Southern heritage, you’ll rejoice in Southern by the Grace of God. Many of us are proud to be Southern, but we don’t know just why. Since Southern history has been purged from the textbooks that children study today, our youth have little conception of a heritage. Even some of us that are older are not well grounded in it either. The author has gathered together the elements of our heritage and gives us a short course in our splendid legacy. It could be called a “handbook for Southerners.” The entire south is reflected in this work, from Oklahoma to Virginia, from Texas to Florida. There is no other book like it on the market today.
Tens of thousands of books have been written about the War Between the States, and I have read more of them than I can count – mostly written from a Northern perspective. When I discovered this volume, “Everything you were taught about the Civil War is wrong, ask a Southerner,” by Lochlainn Seabrook, it immediately went to the top of my list of favorites. Being an author myself, with six published books to my credit, I must admit that I envy the ability of Seabrook to express himself on the printed page in a way that is easy to understand, yet powerful and thought provoking. I had a very hard time putting it down, and I’ve found myself going back to read many passages again and again.
Actually, if your reading schedule demands that you put this book down before you finish reading it cover to cover, that’s okay too. Each of the chapters can stand alone, making it an excellent book for either browsing or for reading straight through.
In the introduction, historian and author Lochlainn Seabrook, makes this bold assertion: “… slavery started in the North, abolition began in the South, Abraham Lincoln was a rabid white racist, Jefferson Davis adopted a black child, 95 percent of Southern blacks supported the Confederacy, and the Yanks started the war, a conflict that was illegal from start to finish.” Then, in the next 22 chapters he makes his case in a manner which no intellectually honest person can easily refute. Seabrook states much more than just his personal opinions. He backs up every page with extensive notes and bibliography, quoting primary sources instead of just rehashing the words and prejudices of court historians.
The introduction to the book is written by the distinguished black educator from Memphis, Tennessee, Nelson W. Winbush, who said, “”I’m proud to be a real grandson, having in my possession the Confederate Battle Flag that draped my grandfather’s coffin, a reunion jacket and cap, numerous newspaper articles and reunion pictures. I was five when he passed and I still remember war stories as told me by my grandfather.” Another thing I liked about the book is that it closes with a very practical list, including contacts, entitled “How you can help preserve the South.” I found this very helpful.
I must admit that this book made me angry. Having been born in the Midwest, reared mostly in the South, and living much of my adult life in the North, I was taught, from elementary school through col
This is the book that made it happen: the nationwide revision concerning the man who they tried to tell us was a great liberator. Dictator and slayer of liberty is more like it. Lincoln was not the godlike figure of myth and legend but an unusually cruel political operator who exploited the moment for personal gain, just as we’ve come to expect of modern politicians.
In this blockbuster, Thomas DiLorenzo calls for a complete rethinking of a central icon of American historiography. He looks at the actions and legacy of Abe Lincoln from an economics point of view to show that Lincoln’s main interest was not in opposing slavery but in advancing mercantilism, inflationism, and government spending: the “American system” of Henry Clay.
Through extensive historical investigation, DiLorenzo shows that the high tariff pushed by Northern industries, at the expense of Southern agriculture, was the main cause of the sectional conflict. Further, Lincoln’s goal in preventing Southern secession was the consolidation of federal power and the collection of revenue, not the elimination of slavery.
Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized—as the Founding Fathers intended—to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states’ rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provacative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.
You will discover a side of Lincoln that you were probably never taught in school—a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody, and perhaps, unnecessary war.
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, who ignited a fierce debate about Lincoln’s legacy with his book The Real Lincoln, now presents a litany of stunning new revelations that explode the most enduring (and pernicious) myths about our sixteenth president. Marshaling an astonishing amount of new evidence, Lincoln Unmasked offers an alarming portrait of a political manipulator and opportunist who bears little resemblance to the heroic, stoic, and principled figure of mainstream history.
In addition to detailing Lincoln’s offenses against the principles of freedom, equality, and states’ rights, Lincoln Unmasked exposes the vast network of academics, historians, politicians, and other “gatekeepers” who have sanitized his true beliefs and willfully distorted his legacy. DiLorenzo reveals how the deification of Lincoln reflects a not-so-hidden agenda to expand the size and scope of the American state far beyond what the Founding Fathers envisioned—an expansion that Lincoln himself began.
What if you were told that the revered leader Abraham Lincoln was actually a political tyrant who stifled his opponents by suppressing their civil rights? What if you learned that the man so affectionately referred to as the “Great Emancipator” supported white supremacy and pledged not to interfere with slavery in the South? Would you suddenly start to question everything you thought you knew about Lincoln and his presidency?
As the most profound crisis in our young nation’s history unrolled, Wood, the mayor of New York, America’s most powerful city, made a stunning proposal: New York City should secede from the United States, too.
“With our aggrieved brethren of the Slave States, we have friendly relations and a common sympathy,” Wood told the New York Common Council in his State of the City message on January 7, 1861. “As a free city,” he said, New York “would have the whole and united support of the Southern States, as well as all other States to whose interests and rights under the constitution she has always been true.”
Although many in the city’s intelligentsia rolled their eyes, and the mayor was slammed in much of the New York press, Wood’s proposal made a certain kind of sense. The mayor was reacting to tensions with Albany, but there was far more behind his secession proposal, particularly if one understood that the lifeblood of New York City’s economy was cotton, the product most closely identified with the South and its defining system of labor: the slavery of millions of people of African descent.
Slave-grown cotton is, in large part, the root of New York’s wealth. Forty years before Fernando Wood suggested that New York join hands with the South and leave the Union, cotton had already become the nation’s number one exported product. And in the four intervening decades New York had
become a commercial and financial behemoth dwarfing any other U.S. city and most others in the world. Cotton was more than just a profitable crop. It was the national currency, the product most responsible for America’s explosive growth in the decades before the Civil War.
As much as it is linked to the barbaric system of slave labor that raised it, cotton created New York.
By the eve of the war, hundreds of businesses in New York, and countless more throughout the North, were connected to, and dependent upon, cotton. As New York became the fulcrum of the U.S. cotton trade, merchants, shippers, auctioneers, bankers, brokers, insurers, and thousands of others were drawn to the burgeoning urban center. They packed lower Manhattan, turning it into the nation’s emporium, in which products from all over the world were traded.
In those prewar decades, hundreds of shrewd merchants and smart businessmen made their fortunes in ventures directly or indirectly tied to cotton. The names of some of them reverberate today.
But beyond identifying the individuals who prospered from the South’s most important product, it’s vital to understand the economic climate—the vast opportunities for wealth that the cotton trade created, and that linked New York City so tightly to the South. Before the Civil War, the city’s fortunes, its very future, were considered by many to be inseparable from those of the cotton-producing states.
Secession was not even an original thought with Wood, a tall, charming, three-term scoundrel of a mayor and multiterm congressman. For years, members of New York’s business community had mused privately, and occasionally in the pages of journals, that the city would be better off as a “free port,” independent of tariff-levying politicians in Albany and Washington. As America unraveled over the issue of slavery, many Northern politicians and businessmen became frantic to reach out to their most important constituency: Southern planters.
New York was not the only area in the North whose future was threatened by the growing secession crisis. In Massachusetts, birthplace of America, and the center of an increasingly troublesome movement called abolitionism, the Southern states’ frequent threats to secede had become an ongoing nightmare for the leaders of the powerful textile industry.
By 1860, New England was home to 472 cotton mills, built on rivers and streams throughout the region. The town of Thompson, Connecticut, alone, for example, had seven mills within its nine-square-mile area. Hundreds of other textile mills were scattered in New York State, New Jersey, and elsewhere in the North. Just between 1830 and 1840, Northern mills consumed more than 100 million pounds of Southern cotton. With shipping and manufacturing included, the economy of much of New England was connected to textiles.
For years, the national dispute over slavery had been growing more and more alarming to the powerful group of Massachusetts businessmen that historians refer to as the Boston Associates. When this handful of brilliant industrialists established America’s textile industry earlier in the nineteenth century, they also created America’s own industrial revolution. By the 1850s, their enormous profits had been poured into a complex network of banks, insurance companies, and railroads. But their wealth remained anchored to dozens of mammoth textile mills in Massachusetts, southern Maine, and New Hampshire. Some of these places were textile cities, really—like Lowell and Lawrence, Massachusetts, both named for Boston Associates founders.
Other American staples, such as corn, wheat, and tobacco, have a charged or even exalted status in our nation’s narrative. And other resources—whale oil, coal, and gold—were the main characters in defining chapters of American history.
But cotton was king.
On the cusp of the Civil War, the 10 major cotton states were producing 66 percent of the world’s cotton, and raw cotton accounted for more than half of all U.S. exports. The numbers are almost impossible to grasp: in the season that ended on August 31, 1860, the United States produced close to 5 million bales of cotton, or roughly 2.3 billion pounds. Of that amount, it exported about half—or more than 1 billion pounds—to Great Britain’s 2,650 cotton factories.
By then, the Industrial Revolution had spread throughout Europe. Although small compared with Great Britain’s, France’s textile industry, centered in Lille, was also fed almost entirely by U.S. cotton, 200 million pounds’ worth in 1858. And Southern cotton was important to textile industries in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Russia, Italy, Spain, and Belgium.
But most of the world’s cotton went through Liverpool, the port nearest Manchester in Lancashire, the heart of textile manufacturing. Up until the end of the 1700s, Great Britain had imported most of its cotton from the Mediterranean, its colonies in the West Indies, and India and Brazil. But in 1794 Eli Whitney, the son of a Massachusetts farmer, patented his cotton gin (invented the previous year), and it changed the world.
Growing cotton suddenly became hugely profitable. Farmers across the South switched over to cotton, and within only about 15 years they were supplying more than half of Great Britain’s demand for the product. Well before 1860, the relationship between Great Britain and the South had become ironclad.
A lot of cotton required a lot of slaves. In 1850, some 2.3 million people were enslaved in the 10 cotton states; of these, nearly 2 million were involved in some aspect of cotton production. And their numbers, and importance, just kept growing.
As early as 1836, the secretary of the treasury told Congress that with “less than 100,000 more field hands” and the conversion of just 500,000 more acres of rich Southern land, the United States could produce enough raw cotton for the entire world.
By the eve of the Civil War, Great Britain was largely clothing the Western world, using Southern-grown, slave-picked cotton.
In 1850, the South was home to about 75,000 cotton plantations. Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia each had over 14,500. The cotton states produced a staggering 2 million bales that year. Even people who saw the trade in action struggled to describe it.
In December 1848, Solon Robinson, a farmer and writer from Connecticut who became agriculture editor for the New York Tribune, visited the nation’s largest cotton port. “It must be seen to be believed,” Robinson wrote of the “acres of cotton bales” standing on the docks of New Orleans. “Boats are constantly arriving, so piled up with cotton, that the lower tier of bales on deck are in the water; and as the boat is approaching, it looks like a huge raft of cotton bales, with the chimneys and steam pipe of an engine sticking up out of the centre.”
From New Orleans and the other major cotton ports—Savannah, Georgia; Charleston, South Carolina; and Mobile, Alabama—most of the cotton was shipped to Liverpool. If it did not go directly to Liverpool, it was sent to the North: to Boston for use in the domestic textile industry, or to New York City. From New York, it generally went to Liverpool, or elsewhere in Europe.
But this gives only the slightest hint of the role New York City and the rest of the North played in the cotton trade, or of the lengths the New York business community was forced to go to protect its franchise..
After slavery was abolished in New England, white citizens seemed to forget that it had ever existed there. Drawing on a wide array of primary sources – from slaveowners’ diaries to children’s daybooks to racist broadsides – Joanne Pope Melish reveals not only how northern society changed but how its perceptions changed as well. Melish explores the origins of racial thinking and practices to show how ill prepared the region was to accept a population of free people of color in its midst. Because emancipation was gradual, whites transferred prejudices shaped by slavery to their relations with free people of color, and their attitudes were buttressed by abolitionist rhetoric that seemed to promise riddance of slaves as much as slavery
(Originally published in 1906 by Myrta Lockett Avary) Based on eyewitness accounts, this book fully and graphically portrays the social conditions which existed in the South during the twelve year Reconstruction period following the downfall of the Confederate States of America. The author deals with such subjects as the oppressive military dictatorship to which the Southern people were subjected, the intrigue of the Loyal (Union) League, the tyranny of the Freedman’s Bureau, the corruption of the Carpetbagger Governments, and the rise of Southern secret societies such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Knights of the White Camelia.
My favorite way of shattering ideological attachment to an exaggerated vision of slavery as the all-important cause of the war is quotation. Quotes make history more real and help people understand past and present culture. Moreover, they force people to think. This is particularly important in unbinding the chains of political correctness, which presently shackle so much of history and often obscure essential truth.
President Woodrow Wilson, in his multi-volume History of the American People, offered this explanation as to why the issue of slavery was so exaggerated during and after the war:
“It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery.”
Other quotes follow.
Charles Dickens, beloved British author:
“The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”
London Times, November 7, 1861:
“The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces.”
Lyander Spooner, New England lawyer and abolitionist, five years after the war:
“All these cries of having abolished slavery, of having saved the country, of having preserved the union, of establishing a government of consent, and of maintaining the national honor are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats—so transparent that they ought to deceive no one.”
Gen. Cleburne’s prediction was accurate. Two decades after the end of the war, prominent theologian Robert L. Dabney, speaking to graduates of Hampton Sidney College told them that northern interests were making extreme efforts to falsify and misrepresent history in order to justify the war and sustain Northern dominance.
With a gigantic sweep of mendacity, this literature aims to falsify or misrepresent everything; the very facts of history, the principles of the former Constitution as admitted in the days of freedom by all statesmen of all parties.
Scruggs explained that, “Union propaganda generally served up a self-justifying misrepresentation of the war as a morality play in which a noble Union Army marched forth to battle for the glorious purpose of emancipating downtrodden slaves from evil Southerners.”
The mendacity noted by Rev. Dabney continues. Scruggs states emphatically that “no serious student of the “Civil War” believes that the Union invaded the South to emancipate slaves.
“Such ignorance, however is commonplace. This propagandistic version of the war is commonly taught in public schools, and, in ignorance, even in many Christian schools, yet it has little basis in fact.” Slavery was an issue, but not the issue causing the war. Scruggs documents the factual causes in his book, using sources from the North, South and England.
The North and South had fundamentally different interpretations of the Bible and the Constitution. The South was more conservative. Southern Baptists are one carryover from that differing interpretation of the Bible. But the overriding issue was tariffs imposed on the South to benefit Northern industry that virtually compelled the cotton producing states to secede from the Union.
Scruggs concluded that, “The immediate cause of armed conflict beyond the bloodless Fort Sumter confrontation was, however, Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops on April 15 to put down the “rebellion” of seceding states and assure the tariff was collected.”
Scruggs writes in the Foreword to his book, that the primary purpose is to “rescue the South from decades of slanderous propaganda.”
He goes about doing this by exposing the historical errors and myths about the War for Southern Independence “that have been imposed on a public largely unaware that historical truth has been considerably obscured by modern political correctness.
“Fortunately this can be done without using a single Southern source. However, I have made it a point to use Northern, Southern, and British sources to get a three-line navigational fix on the truth… Truth is the surest foundation for liberty.”
“The victors get to write the history” is the premise of The Un-Civil War. Author Leonard M. Scruggs maintains that the history of our national conflict is inaccurately favorable to the North and grossly unfair to the South. Most school children, including those in the South, were taught that the North fought a gallant battle to free the slaves from the evil southern plantation owners, but this book paints an entirely different picture. Based on exhaustive research, Scruggs tells the reader that the South had been given a very bad deal from a northern controlled Congress, wherein very high tariffs made it nearly impossible for the South to sell its goods overseas, leaving northern industry as the only viable outlet. With the North having cornered the market on southern cotton and other goods, the price of those goods went down. In addition, what little tariff the South realized from overseas trade went through Congress who used it primarily to build northern infrastructure. Thus, fiscal policy was the primary reason for secession, according to this book. The South was being bled dry by the North.
On the conduct of the war itself, Scruggs gives the reader numerous examples of the scorched earth policy or total war practiced by the North, especially General Sherman. In his ravaging of Atlanta, Colombia, and Savannah, Sherman ordered his men to burn civilian buildings, including churches and homes, and destroy any crops his men could not use themselves. Scruggs provides numerous examples where southern leaders did not retaliate in kind, focusing their efforts on strictly military objectives.
Abraham Lincold is one of the more revered presidents in our history, but The Un-Civil War paints him in a very bad light, showing him encouraging Sherman and other generals like him to wage total war, and relieving other generals, like McClellan, who just didn’t seem to have that killer instinct. The book maintains that slavery was a very minor issue in the war, that Lincoln had no real opinion on the subject. His main goal was to reunite the seceeding states with the North and re-establish the fiscal ravaging of the South to the benefit of the North.
When the badly outnumbered and out-resourced South finally succombed, the horror of Reconstruction began. With no viable alternative, the South had to bow down to the sadistic dictates placed on them by the North-controlled Congress. For example, former slaves could vote but Confederate veterans could not. The South only thought they had a bad deal before the war; post-war was much worse. General Lee is quoted as saying, “Had I known that this would happen, I never would have surrendered. I would have fought to the death and would have encouraged every southern patriot to do the same.”
Was Abraham Lincoln influenced by communism when the Union condemned the rights of Southern states to express their independence? It’s shocking to think so. But that’s precisely what Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson Jr. assert in Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists. The pair completely reassess this tumultuous time in American history, exposing the “politically correct” view of the War for Southern Independence as nothing less than the same observation announced by Marx himself. During the American Civil War, Marx wrote about his support of the Union Army, the Republican Party, and Lincoln himself. In fact, he named the president as “the single-minded son of the working class.”In addition to shedding light on this little-known part of our history, Kennedy and Benson also ask pertinent questions about the validity of today’s federal government and why its role seems so much larger than the liberty found in the states it represents. Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists is a bold undertaking, but it’s one that needs our immediate and absolute attention.