by Al Benson Jr.
Those who have studied some world history will recognize the name of Robespierre, a French socialist revolutionary during the days of the French Revolution--that epoch of the Enlightenment. Nesta Webster, an English historian, commented on Robespierre when she said: "Robespierre regarded anarchy simply as a means to an end--the reconstruction of society according to the plan he had evolved with the co-operation of Saint Just, which was simply an embryonic form of the system known later as state socialism." So, history testifies that Robespierre was a socialist, out to transform society into what he thought it should be--and naturally, it was all to be for the "good" of mankind. That seems to be what socialists do best. The fact that, in their quest for the "betterment" of mankind they end up killing thousands or hundreds of thousands never seems to bother them or their adherents all that much. They did it all for our "good" even if we have to be dead to appreciate it.
He was willing to justify whatever methods he used to accomplish his desired ends, anarchy, terror, or whatever. He felt that if any of these helped to accomplish his agenda (state socialism) then they must automatically be good. For socialists the ends always justify the means. That is a cardinal point of their theology--and it is a theology, make no mistake.
In our own history we have an updated 1860s version of Robespierre--Abraham Lincoln. The "great emancipator" of abolitionist myth and legend has been compared to Robespierre by some historians and writers.
E. A. Pollard, editor of the Richmond Examiner during the War of Northern Aggression, has written much about how the North prosecuted the war. His 750 page book The Lost Cause is worthwhile reading for serious students of that period of our history. Pollard didn't always agree with the Davis administration, but even for that, you can still get a lot out of what he wrote.
In writing of the prevailing climate in the North during the early days of the War, Pollard noted that: "Much of the apparent unanimity which prevailed in favor of the war was the result of terror. The people of the North seem to have a peculiar dread of public opinion." In writing of the actions of the Yankee/Marxist government Pollard said: "But very effective measures were taken by the Government in aid of this spontaneous instinct of terror. They revived the system of espionage and arrests which had been employed in France by Robespierre and Fouche. At first it was pretended that the arrested persons held secret correspondence with the Southern authorities; but soon all disguise and hypocrisy were thrown off, and arrests were made on charges, even suspicion, of mere disloyalty." In other words, just disagreeing with the Lincoln administration, without even doing anything, was enough to get you thrown in the slammer.
Pollard noted, quite accurately, that, in the North, there was really no need of arbitrary arrests, as the war was far distant and the country was not really invaded--excepting Maryland and Pennsylvania later in the war.
However, Pollard stated: "Yet a system of terror was established, which could only have been warrantable at the South...Yet in the first weeks of the war, a system of arbitrary and despotic seizure and imprisonment was inaugurated, which continued even after the surrenders of Lee and Johnston. The number of arbitrary arrests that were made in the whole period of the war is variously estimated at from ten to thirty thousand, the great mass of arrested persons never had a trial, and knew nothing of the charges, if any at all, on which they were being imprisoned."
Some were even informed that, should they request legal counsel, such an action would be "distasteful to the Government, and would prejudice their applications for trial and release." But, then, the quest for simple justice has, and continues to be, "distasteful" to tyrants!