Robert Lewis Dabney was a noted Southern Presbyterian who served as both a minister of that faith and a professor of systematic theology. Before the Civil War he served as an intellectual advocate for the the Confederate position in support of slavery. In 1862 he joined the Confederate military as a chaplain and he soon became adjutant general to General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. After the war he authored the leading biography of his old commander.
The end of the war brought major changes to Virginia’s social structures. Slavery was ended and African Americans were working to establish themselves through free labor, legal marriage, the maintenance of families, the purchase of property, and their incorporation into the Christian religious life. Most former slaves had not had the chance to worship at free churches of their own before emancipation. Some white dominated denominations considered opening their doors to freedpeople, even while many white members strongly objected. The Southern Presbyterians took up the incorporation of Blacks into their congregations in 1867. One of the most prominent ministers to oppose elevating Blacks to the ministry was Robert Dabney. The theologian spoke at the November 1867 Virginia Synod of the denomination in opposition to a resolution to ordain qualified Black ministers.
Dabney opened by insisting that the assembled Presbyterians all thought along the same lines as he did, but that for reasons of what might now be called “political correctness” they were unwilling to express their true feelings regarding Black Christians. He then described his own feelings towards Southern Blacks:
I have had enough of declarations and manifestations of special interest in, and love for, the souls of “the freedmen,” under existing circumstances. When I see them almost universally banded to make themselves the eager tools of the remorseless enemies of my country, to assail my vital rights, and to threaten the very existence of civil society and the church, at once; I must beg leave to think the time rather mal appropos for demanding of me an expression of particular affection. If I gave it, I should not expect any one to credit it. Were you traveling in Mexico, assailed by bandits, wounded, dragged from your carriage, bound to a tree, and looking with a bleeding pate upon the rifling of your baggage, if you were called on to state, then and there, how exceedingly you desired the spiritual good of the yellow-skinned barbarians who were persecuting you, it is to be presumed that you would beg to be excused, under the circumstances. So I, for one, make no professions of special love for those who are, even now, attempting against me and mine the most loathsome outrages. If I can only practice the duty of forbearance successfully, and say, “Father, forgive them; they know not what they do,” I shall thank God for his assistance in the hour of cruel provocation.
Next he described the debate over the ordination of Black Southern Presbyterian ministers as worthless because he did not believe that Blacks wanted to serve as clergy in a non-“Yankee” denomination. He argued:
I oppose the agitation of this whole subject, because it is unpractical. The only appreciable effect it can have will be to agitate, and so to injure our existing churches. On the basis you profess, (that is, to exact impartially of the black man, as of the white, full compliance with the requirements of our standards,) the negro is not coming to you. He will none of you. He wholly prefers the Yankee to you. So that this whole zealous discussion presents us in the ridiculous light…of two school boys, who after a stiff fight over a bird’s nest, ascertain that it is too high for either of them to reach. Perhaps this is the very thought which prompts some to support this scheme; that they may disarm Abolitionist criticism by seeming to obey their imperious dictation, and to open the door of our ministry to negroes; while they rely on the negroes’ hostility, to protect us from their entrance; a result which they would no more accept than I do. Thus they hope to “save their manners and their meat” at once. Is this candid? Is it manly? Is it Christian honour?
But I warn these gentlemen, that they will be deceived by the result. While I greatly doubt whether a single Presbyterian negro will ever be found to come fully up to that high standard of learning, manners, sanctity, prudence, and moral weight and acceptability, which our constitution requires, and which this overture professes to honour so impartially; I clearly foresee that, no sooner will it be passed than it will be made the pretext for a partial and odious lowering of our standard, in favour of negroes.
Dabney then sought to use fear of Black control of the Presbyterian Church to motivate the synod to crush the movement for Black ordination. While the synod was only considering allowing some Blacks to become ministers, Dabney repeatedly referred to any people of African descent raised to the ministry as the church’s new “black rulers.” Here is one such reference [The bolding is mine]:
I oppose the entrusting of the destinies of our Church, in any degree whatever, to black rulers, because that race is not trustworthy for such position. There may be a few exceptions; (I do not believe I have ever seen one, though I have known negroes whom I both respected and loved, in their proper position) but I ask emphatically: Do legislatures frame general laws to meet the rare exceptions? or do they adjust them to the general average? Now, who that knows the negro, does not know that his is a subservient race; that he is made to follow, and not to lead; and his temperament, idiosyncrasy, and social relation, make him untrustworthy as a depositary of power? Especially will we weigh this fact now, unless we are madmen; now, when the whole management to which he is subjected is so exciting, so unhealthy, so intoxicating to him; and when the whole drift of the social, political, and religious influences which now sway him, bear him with an irresistible tide, towards a religious faction, which is the deadly and determined enemy of every principle we hold dear. Sir, the wisest masters in Israel, a John Newton, an Alexander, a Whitefield, have told us, that although grace may save a man’s soul, it does not destroy his natural idiosyncrasy, this side of heaven. If you trust any portion of power over your Church to black hands, you will rue it. Have they not done enough recently, to teach us how thoroughly they are untrustworthy? They have, in a body, deserted their true friends, and natural allies, and native land, to follow the beck of the most unmasked and unprincipled set of demagogues on earth, to the most atrocious ends. They have just, in a body, deserted the churches of their fathers. They have usually been prompt to do these things, just in proportion to their religious culture and to our trust in them. Is not this enough to teach us, that if we commit our power to that race, in these times of conflict and stern testimony, possibly of suffering for God’s truth, it will prove the “bruised reed, which when we lean upon it will break…”
Dabney also warned that lay Presbyterians were angry that their leaders were even considering ordaining Blacks both because they did not believe a Black man could be qualified, and because they understood that this novelty was only being considered because the Northern enemies of slavery were insisting on it. Dabney said that the attack on slavery had been used before the war by Northerners to try to control the power of Southern whites. He said it had been used to bring on the war, and that after Appomattox it continued to be a weapon against the Southern white social structure. Here is some of what Dabney said, in his own words:
For a generation, Southern Christians have seen the negro made the pretext of a malignant and wicked assault upon their fair fame, and their just rights. At length, he has been made the occasion of a frightful war, resulting in the conquest and ruin of the land, and the overthrow of all our civil rights. And now, our conquerors and oppressors, after committing the crime of murder against our noble old commonwealth, and treading us down with the armed heel, are practicing to add to every atrocious injury, the loathesome insult of placing the negro’s feet upon our necks.
The removal of discriminatory bars on Blacks would lead to racial equality. Dabney warned that this equality was in fact “negro supremacy.” He argued:
This day we are threatened with evils, through negro supremacy and spoliation, to whose atrocity the horrors of the late war were tender mercies. And these ebony pets of this romantic philanthropy, this day lend themselves in compact body, with an eager and almost universal willingness, to be the tools of this abhorred project; the scorpion—say rather the reptile lash in the hands of our ruthless tyrants. But our brethren, turning heartsore and indignant from their secular affairs, where nothing met their eye but a melancholy ruin, polluted by the intrusion of this inferior and hostile race, looked to their beloved Church for a little repose. There, at least, said they, is one pure, peaceful spot, not yet reached by this pollution and tyranny. There, at least, Virginians may meet and act, without the disgust of negro politics and the stain of negro domination. Will you, dare you say to them, no? There too, the hated subject and the foul intrusion shall be thrust upon you; thrust upon you by the folly of Southern men, of your own spiritual guides!
Northerners who worked for Black political equality hoped that once that was achieved it would make the former slave socially equal with the whites. The sexual “amalgamation” of the two races would then begin as whites and blacks formed interracial families. Dabney said:
when once political equality is confirmed to the blacks, every influence will tend towards that other consummation, social equality, which they will be so keen to demand, and their demagogues so ready to grant, as the price of their votes. Why, sir, the negroes recently elected in, my own section, to represent in the pretended convention, districts once graced by Henry and Randolph, are already impudently demanding it. He must be “innocent” indeed, who does not see whither all this tends, as it is designed by our oppressors to terminate. It is (shall I pronounce the abhorred word?) to amalgamation! Yes, sir, these tyrants know that if they can mix the race of Washington, and Lee, and Jackson, with this base herd which they brought from the pens of Africa; if they can taint the blood which hallowed the plains of Manassas, with this sordid stream, the adulterous current will never again swell a Virginian’s heart with a throb noble enough to make a despot tremble. But they will then have, for all time, a race supple and grovelling enough for all the purposes of oppression.
Once a white family worshipped under the spiritual direction of a Black man, how could the church insist that the daughters of that family not marry a person of the same race as the minister?
Dabney demanded that the Presbyterians not follow the fashion of the years since the start of the Civil War and grant equal rights to Black congregants. Instead he urged the church to uphold its conservative principle of racial inequality that had undergirded it for more than two hundred years. He argued:
Now I ask emphatically, what change has taken place in the black race, to make them more fit for ruling over white churches than they then were? Are they any wiser, any more religious, any purer, any more enlightened now? Nay; the only change is a violent revolution, made by the sword, by which, as every intelligent Virginian knows, they have been only injured in character, as in destiny. Hence, I cannot see why an ecclesiastical policy towards them which was wise, and right, and scriptural then, is not at least as much so now. But it is said: “Then they were by law slaves; now they are by law free.” I reply, does Christ’s kingdom wait on the politicians and conquerors of the world, to be told by them how she must administer her sacred charge? Where now is that fastidiousness which a little while ago said so softly, that the church was a spiritual commonwealth, and had no concern, pro or con, with seculars? I invoke it here: this is the place for it to assert itself, where I demand for the church the right to carry out still her own scriptural polity towards the Africans, as she has practiced it for 150 years, justified by all sound Presbyterians, North and South; and to pursue the even tenour of her way, regardless of the decision of the sword and faction…
Dabney ended by insisting that if there were sufficient Black Presbyterians to support Black ministers, they should be encouraged to separate from the Southern Presbyterians, and form their own churches in their new denomination. He ended his address by saying:
But I would make no black man a member of a white Session, or Presbytery, or Synod, or Assembly; nor would I give them any share in the government of our own church, nor any representation in it. “It is confusion.”
Follow Reconstruction Blog on Social Media:
Awful…completely embarrassing. Thanks for bringing Dabney’s erroneous teachings to light. I have been aware of them, but it’s still bracing to read them. FYI, a typo near the end of the second paragraph…the article says *James Dabney* and I believe it should have said *Robert Dabney.* Maybe the author slipped into thinking about James Henry Thornwell for a moment 😉
Thanks, I made the correction.
This should put to rest any notions that General Thomas Jackson was anything other that an abject racist.
Your argument can not be taken in serious light.
This article pertains to Rev. Dabney Lewis’ views about Black Americans, not Stonewall Jackson’s.
That’s like saying writing about Jubal Early’s views of slavery and Black Americans are to inherently understand Robert E. Lee’s on same subjects, or to accept Andrew Jackson’s views on Aboriginals is to understand Davy Crockett’s.
If you don’t like Stonewall Jackson, that’s one thing. But your argument above about him can’t be successfully defended.
It’s amazing to see the diversity and ‘layeredness’ of the reaction in American society after the war between its peoples.
So much error from this author. Mr. Young. And such sciolist diatribes are entirely representative of the intellectual laziness typical of the age and this subject. No refutation whatever. Just the assumed agreement with all the communist filth of the age sufficiently brainwashed to just nod when qued. And judging by the comments he will not be disappointed. You all are the proof of everything Dabney warned of.
Since this post is about 80% direct and extended quotations from Dabney in which he is quite clear about his position on Black Presbyterians, I would appreciate some clue as to what you consider a “diatribe” from me.
Diatribe: a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.
So …. if you quote someone extensively this means your not attacking them?
But thats a diversion. Dabney has failed the litmus test of Christianity: Marx.
There you have the assumptions of the article.
Sir-
If you don’t mind me joining in in the chat here, it’s clear that you disagree with the arguments Patrick Young has put forward.
Righto. Allow me to suggest that you set out some evidence that challenges these assertions of the Rev. Dabney.
Now, I don’t know here; is there a history article you’re aware of that shows him saying/acting in a progressive manner towards Black American members of the Presbyterian Church?
Are you aware of some church records he signed?
I’m completely open to anything you can posit and I’d enjoy having a look at them.
Cheers
Hi Hugh. I’m disagreeing with Mr. Young. I agree with Dr. Dabney.
You act like a Christian and despise the bible. To quote from a former post that you understandably evaded …..
“There’s another thing you might endeavor to familiarize yourself with ….. the bible. For most the cultural marxist screed on their tv supercedes the bible, but for the sake of any not thus given over to a reprobate mind…..
1 Timothy 6:1,1-5 KJV
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. [1] Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. [2] And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. [3] If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; [4] He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, [5] Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
Or dozens more. When the 10 commandments instruct you how to care for your slave …… I guess you make the assumption its teaching on the proper way to sin.”
Perhaps stop being a moral coward and reply to this.
I reread the article and can’t find a mention of anyone named Marx.
If you don’t know what CRT is by now….. its probably because you don’t want to know.
There’s another thing you might endeavor to familiarize yourself with ….. the bible. For most the cultural marxist screed on their tv supercedes the bible, but for the sake of any not thus given over to a reprobate mind…..
1 Timothy 6:1,1-5 KJV
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. [1] Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. [2] And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. [3] If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; [4] He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, [5] Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
Or dozens more. When the 10 commandments instruct you how to care for your slave …… I guess you make the assumption its teaching on the proper way to sin. Smh
You referenced Marx, not I.
You referenced the author of the article not having mentioned Marx. My reply was obviating your inability to recognize Marxism even when it’s waving its critical race theory flag in your face. Perhaps you could go learn what that is, and then decide if you want to take up the burden of demonstrating that Mr. Young’s position was not defending the CRT position.
The article does not mention Marx, the Frankfurt School, or Critical Race Theory. It quotes extensively and accurately from Dabney.
So ….. If you assume and advocate the tenets of a theory, but don’t name it ….. You’re safe from all exposure.
Or not.
Most Marxists dont wave a flag about it.
Basically you are admitting that you have no evidence.
I’m claiming you’re ignorant of the evidence staring you in the face. Those who actually know WHAT cultural Marxism is need no proof of WHERE it is. And that’s why you think I have no evidence.
Charles, you wrote:
“Those who actually know WHAT cultural Marxism is need no proof of WHERE it is.”
Sounds like you are claiming that since you “actually know” what cultural Marxism is, you don’t need to offer any evidence that a passage on this site embeds cultural Marxism before making that accusation.
Further…. here is a link from Marxists dot org with the text of their 1864 letter (drafted by Marx) congratulating Lincoln (your mutual hero) on his electoral victory.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
…. birds of a feather ….
I don’t think the 1864 letter actually came from “Marxists dot org.”
Another red pill for you ….
COMMUNISTS APPOINTED BY LINCOLN
IMPORTANT REPUBLICAN POLICY- INSTIGATORS, ‘”FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES,” –APPOINTED THERE BY ABE LINCOLN —
1. Brigadier General Joseph WEYDEMEYER of Lincoln’s army was a close friend of Karl MARX and Fredrick Engels in the London Communist League. Marx wrote Weydemeyer’s letter of introduction to Charles A. DANA—an editor of New York Times Tribune. Weydemeyer was an escapist from the Socialist/Communist Revolution. He fled to the U.S. and became very active in the just-beginning Republican Party. He supported Freeman in the Republican Party’s first election and Lincoln in its second. He was described in a Communist publication as a “PIONEER AMERICAN MARXIST.’ He wrote for and edited several radical socialist journals in the U.S. (p. 200)
2. . Assistant Secretary of War Charles A. DANA —close friend of Marx, published with Joseph Weydemyer a number of Communist Journals and, also “The Communist Manifesto,” commissioned by Karl Marx. As a member of the Communist/Socialist Fourier Society in America, Dana was well acquainted with Marx and Marx’s colleague in Communism, Fredrick Engels. Dana, also, was a friend of all Marxists in Lincoln’s Republican Party, offering assistance to them almost upon their arrival on the American continent. This happened often after receiving introductory letters from Karl MARX, himself. (p. 196).
“Prior to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, no other American did more to promote the cause of communism in the United States than did Dana.” (p. 141). It was due to Dana’s close friendship and work with the New York Tribune editor, Horace Greeley, another dedicated socialist, that Greeley employed Marx as a correspondent/contributor to the U.S. newspaper. Dana became the first high-level communist in an American administration—which was the FIRST REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION in the United States of America.
3. Brigadier General Louis BLENKER, Lincoln’s army—radical socialist/Communist from Germany—was remarkably successful in encouraging German immigrants to join Lincoln’s army and the Republican party. He promised Lincoln that he could get “. . . thousands of Germans ready to fight for the preservation of the Union.”(p. xiv). He was a leader in the Revolution in Germany and fought in several battles there. When the Revolution failed, he went to Switzerland where, along with other Marxists, he was ordered to leave the country. His life in the U.S. was markedly grander than it had been previously—on a much higher social level. As a General, he offered a refuge to all Marxists. If unable to obtain a commission for them, he made a place for them as “aide-de-camp.” Great food, great drinks, great entertainment and servants were available for one and all obtained, largely by looting defenseless civilians. This practice was so flagrant, civilians who were looted, were considered “Blenkered.” Later, Blenker, under accusations of graft, resigned his commission. (p. 118)
4. Major General August WILLICH—often called “The Reddest of the Red ‘48ers” was a member of the London Communist League with Karl MARX and Fredrick ENGLES. (p. xiv) Before seeking refuge in the U.S. Willich was a personal acquaintance of Karl MARX. In fact, Marx referred to Willich as “A communist with a heart.” Willich was a Captain in the Prussian army when he met Karl Marx and became a Socialist/Communist. The Prussian Army court martialed Willich and kicked him out of the army. He, then, participated in the Socialist Revolution in Germany. He fled the nation when the revolt was crushed, and eventually wound up in the U.S. and became an editor of a newspaper in Cincinnati written in the German language. He raised volunteers from the Germans in his area and became their Captain. Eventually he became a general and was, actually, a competent commander. He never ceased indoctrinating his troops with the Socialism message. He did not like Lincoln’s ties with big business, but supported him, nevertheless. (p. 200) In Germany, he was involved with fellow radicals, Gustav Struve, Frederic Hecker, and Franz Siegel in presenting demands for the creation of a socialist government to the Frankfurt Parliament, and in Socialist Revolutionary efforts.
5. Major Robert ROSA, of Lincoln’s Army, was a proud member of the New York Communist Club. (p. xiv)
6. Colonel Richard HINTON, of Lincoln’s army was one of the Charterist Socialists who fled England. The British police raided several London places of known Chartist connections and discovered ammunition and weapons. Some Chartist followers were arrested and tried. Others made it to America where, as radical socialist/Communists they were supporters of Lincoln and involved in propaganda via writing for newspapers and other publications. Hinton was an associate of the terrorist, John Brown and after the war was a correspondent for a Boston newspaper. (p. 106)
7. Spy chief Allan PINKERTON, head of the Republican Ohio Department “spy service” under General George B. McClellan. Pinkerton was the most famous of the Charterists, a radical socialist group pursued by British agents. Pinkerton fled to the U.S., settled in Illinois where he became an operator of the Underground Railroad conveying escaped slaves to Canada. (Illinois citizens would not allow free blacks to live in their state.) Pinkerton was one of the big backers and among the financiers of John Brown and Brown’s fellow terrorists. Later Pinkerton served as Lincoln’s guard. Lincoln and Pinkerton became acquainted while Pinkerton was a detective for the Illinois Central Railroad, when Lincoln was its lawyer. It has been reported that Pinkerton’s inept intelligence gathering during the war was responsible for General McClellan always considering himself outnumbered by Confederates when he was not. (pp. 107-109)
8. Brigadier General Carl SCHURZ –as a young socialist, was noted for helping Gottfried Kinkel of Bonn escape from Spandau while imprisoned there for his socialist activities in the ’48 Revolts. Schurz came to America in 1848. He was a forty-eighter who became very active in the development of the Republican Party and in politics. He was given a high position by Lincoln in the Republican army. A great admirer of Karl Marx, Schurz was cognizant of Marx’s abrasive personality and made an effort to avoid imitation of that. He was an unsuccessful candidate for Lt. Governor in Wisconsin, and became a member of the Wisconsin bar in 1859. In 1860, he became he became a friend of Abraham Lincoln and a delegate to the Republican National Convention. Lincoln appointed him Minister to Spain in 1861. Schurz became a brigadier general in the Union Army in 1862, and was assigned to a command under John C. FREMONT and then under Franz SIEGEL. Schurz‘s Republican career continued under Rutherford B. Hayes who appointed him as Secretary of the Interior. It is believed that Schulz was a competent soldier. (p. 11). He, also, served as U.S. Senator from Missouri. (p. 198)
9. . Brigadier General Alexander Von Schimmelfenning, like most of the other MARXISTS /Socialist/Communists who came to the U.S. after their failed uprising in 1848, fled Germany, and escaped retribution for his part in the attempted overthrow. Schimmelfenning’s history as a Socialist Revolutionary was no secret in Pittsburg when the Committee, headed by Republican J. Siebnick, recommended Schimmelfenning for Colonel of the new regiment of Pittsburgh German volunteers for Lincoln’s army. Schimmelfennig was well known in the German community because of a letter of his appearing in a well known socialist- abolitionist U.S. newspaper. Schimmelfennig recruited two former Prussian Army officers to help him recruit more Germans, especially Revolutionary Socialists. Schimmelfenning was effective as a commanding officer and became a brigadier general after Carl Schurz interceded for him by contacting the Pennsylvania congressional delegation which then lobbied Edwin M. Stanton and Stanton spoke to Lincoln. Schimmelfenning will always be remembered for hiding in a ditch under a makeshift culvert during the early part of the most pivotal battle of the war, the Battle of Gettysburg.
10. Major General Franz SIEGEL, thought to be one of Lincoln’s most controversial and the poorest of his generals, was deeply involved in the German 1848 revolts as a commander of socialist troops in the failed 1849 German Revolution. A graduate of the German Military Academy, he served in the German army and the Socialist efforts to overthrow the German government. For a brief period while the overthrow was temporarily successful, he served the new Germany as minister of war. After the fall of the revolutionary government, he fled to Switzerland and on to England, then to New York and on to St. Louis, Missouri, where he became the superintendent of the public school system. One might correctly say that when socialists gain power, “the three Rs become: Red, Radical and Revolution.” (work cited p. 112) Republican “…General Hallek stated: ‘It seems little better than murder to give important commands to men such as Siegel.’”(p. 113)
11. Commander Friedrich Karl Franz HECKER, (exact military title not known) known as “Red” and “Flagrant Friedrich.” (work cited, p. 113) Educated in Germany, received his doctor of law degree in Munich. He was expelled from Prussia. Arriving in the U.S., he took part in the creation of the Republican Party, encouraged the proliferation of German newspapers carrying the Socialist propaganda, aided in the election of Lincoln, and propagandized heavily among German immigrants for volunteers for the Republican Army. He was named Commander of a regiment he raised of Germans.
12. Captain Gustav von STRUVE was born in Germany to a woman of nobility and her Russian diplomat mate. Struve was one of the leaders, along with HECKER in the uprising in Germany in 1848. After the uprising Struve tried to succeed in a second uprising, but was arrested, found guilty of high treason, and awarded solitary confinement for five years, but was freed by fellow revolutionaries from prison, went to Switzerland where authorities there expelled him. After time in France and England, he arrived in New York with his radical wife. He became a Captain in Lincoln’s New York Infantry. Resigned his commission at the urging of Louis BLENKER and not long after, returned to Germany when a general amnesty became available.
13. General John C. FREMONT was noted for his close association with all of the socialist/communists whom Lincoln placed in positions of command in his army. Fremont was the first Republican candidate for president. He was considered to be the “darling” of the most radical socialists. His chief of staff, early in the war, was a Hungarian socialist revolutionary,
14. Chief of Staff (rank not identified) Alexander ASBOTH, Socialist revolutionary born in Hungary.
15. Brevet Major General Frederick Charles SALOMON, one of a group of four radical socialist brothers, with highly similar names– three of whom were in the group of Socialist 1848ers. Frederick began his career in Lincoln’s army as a Captain in MO, wound up as a Colonel in the Ninth Wisconsin Volunteer Regiment, then a brigadier general and a brevet major general.
16. Brevetted Brigadier General Charles E. Salomon, also started his American military career with a bunch of MO volunteers. Born in Prussia, he, also, was one of the radical socialists arriving in the U.S. after the 1848 Socialist uprising failure and was a brother to Frederick Charles.
17. Governor Edward Salomon, a third Salomon brother, also born in Prussia, did not do military service, but ran for political office in Wisconsin, was elected lieutenant governor, becoming Governor of Wisconsin when the elected Governor drowned.
18. Sergeant Herman Salomon, the fourth Salomon brother, was markedly younger than the other three Salomon, but it is thought that he, besides sharing their surname, shared their family- devotion to Communism – not confirmed.
19. Colonel Fritz ANNEKE/ANNECKE was a Forty-eighter, with a strong leftward tilt. He was a Communist League member and a Baden Revolt veteran. He and wife, Mathilde Franziska Anneke, were a team of European communists. Fritz was a highly skilled artillery officer in the Prussian army where his equal skill as a socialist ideologue caused him to lose his commission and to be confined in jail. He was later tried and condemned to death “in contumaciam” for his leadership in the Baden rebellion. One of Anneke’s adjutants during that rebellion was Carl Schurz. Both of the Fritzs wrote for newspapers and journals. Both were strong abolitionists and supporters of Lincoln’s Union. Colonel Fritz received and then lost his U.S. military commission due to his difficult Prussian personality. He and his wife went their own separate ways later with his wife, Mathilde starting her own school for girls, continuing to preachy the glories of socialism, joining with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in their feminist cause—even lobbied in Washington D.C. for the feminist cause. She was a bird of the same feathers with that particular group of women because most of them were apostates from various division of the Christian religion, while she, a “free thinker” was a fallen away Catholic –converted to Communism by her husband Fritz Anneke.
20. General William Tecumseh SHERMAN. A list of “approved” socialist’ communists published by the press of the Communist Party of the United States included General Sherman’s name among other leading socialists/communists. “The editor of this communist book noted that Sherman was an “outstanding” general of the Union Army.” It should be noted that the co-founder of modern-day communism, Fredrick Engels, also saw Sherman as one of theirs. Both Gen. William Sherman and Sen. John Sherman, his brother, believed in a strong indivisible central government (p. 199) with every bit as much passion as did the announced Marxists and the still-in-the-closet Communists who, also, viewed it as a necessity for Communism (Marxism) to achieve its goal, so one can draw one’s own conclusions about the Shermans’ philosophy of government and of life.
[Although the Marxists added abolition as one of the new arrows for their bow, their true goal was not a humanitarian one, but to use slaves as a means of destroying the Christian South, which was resistant to their own religion—Communism.]
{The following is from William Tecumseh Sherman’s formal dispatches; see reference at end of quote.} “the Government of the United States has ….any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war—to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything….[W]ar is simply power unrestrained by Constitution . . . . To the persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better.” (p. 54). (William Sherman in official Records War of the Rebellion Vol. XXXII, pt. II, pp. 280-81].
p. 54: “There is a class of people [Southerners], men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order. (141; Sherman, ibid.)
http://dixieoutfitters.com/p/communist-s-effect-in-america
If you’re doubting if the link really comes from marxists.org you could always….. CLICK ON IT. facepalm (hint: just because it exposes you doesn’t mean it isn’t there)
Further here is a brief (albeit truncated) summary of frankfurt school crt stuff…. since you manifestly don’t know what it is….
https://youtu.be/EjaBpVzOohs
If you’re wondering is this is really youtube…. try clicking on it. 😀
Sir-
May I make a comment?
You have made your views that you are adverse to Marxism quite clear.
Likewise, you have made as clear you do not see Abraham Lincoln’s legacy in a favourable light. You have provided a good deal of heuristic evidence to this, and that you find strong elements of Marxism in Lincoln’s historical record.
Back to the point of the post; can you produce an opinion or evidence regarding the Reverend’s stated views about Black Americans within the church?
Thank you for abandoning the indefensible claim that Lincoln wasn’t a Marxist.
Dabney claimed that blacks had proven to be and would continue to be, as a people, adverse to the principles of American liberty, which alone Southerners had (unsuccessfully) defended, and that they would prove inimical to the prosperity and continuance of those principles in the Southern Presbyterian Church. You don’t disagree with that. You are just no better yourself. You’re a Marxist also. But you don’t disagree with Dabneys conclusion. You rejoice in Satan’s triumph over the truth and think you do God service.
Ok … so I must apologize. I was hasty and assumed that I was still conversing with the admin guy. So …. I don’t really know if you (Hugh) are a Marxist. I’d alter the post if I knew how.
The point I was making was that Dabney was right by anyone’s account. It’s just that most applaud rather than lament the destruction blacks have supported (disproportionately to whites, despite plenty of Caucasian Marxists like Lincoln) and support it equally themselves being alike Marxists in their ideology.
Admin-
I got this one!
(Strides up to the scratch line…!)
You get this straight, you get it straight NOW, Wild Wright!
I am going to sweep your entire commentary about Lincoln and Marxists 100% off the table. Along with all your other desperate and inflammatory ‘throw away fires’.
That’s a decoy and it’s intended to re-frame the discussion.
You don’t get to do that; not here, now!
I say Dabney was wrong in his views! His views may have been commonplace in his time, that’s only fair before history to note.
But if YOU side with Dabney, I side with this-
Who was it whom opined from his sick bed that Black American ministers and delegates be openly seated and received on equal terms with their White counterparts at an Episcopal meeting in the post-war?!
The Gray Fox, General Robert E. Lee.
I will honour and respect the General and live the example he set and his lived heroism!
And that’s that, Mister!
‘My fate was in God’s Hands-
He’d Placed common sense in mine.’
-A Robert E. Lee inspired maxim