Recent Posts

Search this site

Loading

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Secret Police and Military Prisons-Edwin Stanton Sets the Precedent-Part Two

By Al Benson Jr., 11.27.13
Author Nathaniel Weyl has agreed with Otto Eisenschiml’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 believe that, if the ends didn’t justify the means, nothing else could.” To have your country’s security forces compared to the Soviet Secret Police, the infamous KGB—what a complement! So very appropriate for the Yankee/Marxist worldview that was prevalent in Washington for the Obama—oops, pardon me, I meant the Lincoln administration.

That bastion of moral integrity, Colonel Lafayette 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.” 

This 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.” Makes you wonder if those were his good points. But, again, they were sterling qualities for a Lincoln administration member. In mentioning the Lincoln assassins, (at least the ones 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. William Tecumseh Sherman would have loved it!

In regard to the conspirators Weyl has told us that Eisenschiml pointed out that the government used torture on them, not to obtain confessions, but rather to keep them quiet. The conclusion Eisenschiml drew from that was that “…War Secretary Stanton not only knew of the murder plans and allowed them to mature, but may have been in guilty communication with Booth…Certainly as far as the radicals were concerned, Lincoln’s political usefulness ceased the moment the war was won. His clashes with Stanton on policy matters were becoming more and more frequent. Since he had the support of the people, there was no legal means of removing him.” Weyl also noted that there were some problems with this theory, and even today, it is still argued, quite vehemently in some circles.

Stanton was more than anxious to lay the blame for the assassination upon Richmond. Yet his only two links there were Booth, who we have been told was killed (there’s another whole story involved with that), and John Surrat, who had gotten to Canada, and eventually to Europe. It was felt that those arrested for the assassination would have denied any conspiratorial connections with the Confederacy—should they have been allowed to talk freely. So Weyl stated: “It
was therefore essential to the grand political design that they be silenced—by torture if necessary. To prove the great conspiracy, Stanton relied on his crony, Judge Advocate General Holt, and on his creature, General Lafayette Baker. 

The latter bustled off to Canada where he collected the most preposterous herd of witnesses ever for a political trial…Meanwhile Judge Holt ran a school for perjury in Washington.”

No way was Stanton going to do this on the up and up—so he did it down and dirty. So much for “justice” in Amerika in 1865. Is it any better now? 

Had he been alive back then, Eric Holder would have been Stanton’s kissin’ cousin. Their minds wallowed in the same convoluted legal chicanery. Stanton would have loved “fast and furious” too!

Even establishment historians have had to admit that there was a torture policy in Yankeedom (though Lincoln’s administration officially denied it and hid behind the Lieber Code). In mentioning torture, Mark Neely Jr., in The Fate of Liberty–Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties  has told us that the likeliest torture victims were not even Southerners, rather, “They were Northerners suspected of deserting from the United States Army.” Neely also noted that military authorities often arrested some suspects who turned out not to be deserters, but were, in fact, innocent of anything. He noted six men who were arrested as Union Army deserters in 1864 who, were in fact, innocent because they were British subjects. And he said: “In 1864 the complaints of these prisoners to British authorities in the United States began to include descriptions of torture.” When even establishment historians have to fess up to the fact that torture was employed by the Yankees, you have to realize it was probably a lot worse than they have told you it was. They are showing you the merest tip of the iceberg and fervently hoping you don’t check to see how big the whole thing really is.

In updating what is essentially the identical situation, columnist Charlie Reese said, several years ago: “Who could have guessed that George W. Bush, who seemed to be a genial good old boy, would turn out to be a tyrant, launching wars of aggression, arresting and confining people without charges or access to a lawyer, condoning torture and lying to the American people? A government that can without trial destroy you by simply putting your name on a list, or the name of an organization with which you are associated, is a tyranny.” How different is this from what Stanton did in 1865? As with Lincoln, so with Bush, Cheney, and Obama—after all, they all work for the same people. Truly there is nothing new under the sun.

Making these comparisons would, hopefully, make some people begin to sit up and wonder what the deal is. Unfortunately, it probably won’t. Too many generations of public school indoctrination have finally paid off with Orwell’s 1984. We have become a nation of proles.