Democracy

Democracy

Thomas Allen

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 131–132, 134, G. Manigault gives an accurate description of democracy. His description not only depicts the democracy of his day but also describes the democracy of today. His description follows:

But the ultimate control of government and of its officials is not now in the hands of those who have a direct and obvious interest in the economical, honest, and unperverted exercise of its powers. That class has but a very small voice in the matter, and no power to protect themselves or other people, except by bribing the multitude of needy and mercenary voters, and paying exorbitantly for their votes.

By the theory of the government, in the States and in the United States, all power is in the hands of the majority of voters on the basis of universal manhood suffrage; and nothing but some forms of an effete political organization, termed the “Constitution of the United States” stand between the sovereign majority and their absolute despotism. The minority are nothing. This sovereign majority consists chiefly of men who have no direct and obvious interest in the honest and economical administration of the powers of government. So far from its burdens apparently falling on them, they feel a direct and obvious interest in its expenditures being not only liberal but extravagant. It is their aim that it should multiply offices, undertake great public works, give out great contracts, embark in every kind of undertaking, assume every duty that can be forced into the sphere of government operations, to swell its patronage and multiply the paid dependants on its bounty. It is their government, and ought to be their servant, bound to do their work in securing to them prosperity in the shape of good employment at high wages at least, if not a fat office, or a profitable contract.

The vast majority of this sovereign people derive all their political notions from the harangues of the demagogues of the platform and the press, men seeking their favour and vote for office, or their support to some measure in which the orator has a direct but unseen interest. The vast majority of the sovereign people have most confused and false notions as to what the best and most powerful government can do, and cannot do for those who live under it. In commenting on the conduct of public affairs there are many unwelcome facts to be dealt with, many unpleasant truths to be told. But the telling of unpleasant truths is not the way to win the mass of voters. Those public men whose good sense, foresight and honesty lead them to raise a warning voice and utter unwelcome truth, to point out obstacles that obstruct the people’s wishes, or evil consequences that will follow their wilful course — these men, one after another are dropped out of public life. The more adroit courtiers of the people, those “flattering prophets who prophesy smooth things, prophesy deceits;” who pander to every passion, prejudice, and animosity, and every extravagant and groundless hope — nay the very jesters and buffoons that divert the crowd, become the chosen counsellors of the mob; and the mob is king.

The lower the stratum of population on which you lay the foundation of political power, the more mixed the ingredients of that stratum in race and character, the more completely you throw the government into the hands of demagogues, and the more unscrupulous these demagogues become.

This description fits today’s governments of the States and the United States. Only, today’s governments are far worse because they have had almost 150 years to develop further. During the Jacksonian era, White male suffrage became almost universal. Following Lincoln's War, the franchise was extended to Black males. Next, women gained the right to vote. Finally, a person was no longer required to pay taxes to vote, and the age for voting was lowered to 18. With each expansion of the franchise, governments grew and liberty shrank.

Continuing, Manigault notes that democracy prevents the best people from holding office. Except for Tyler, Cleveland, and Coolidge, nearly every US president since Monroe has been mediocre, roguish, or demagogic. The same is true of most US Senators and Representatives and most State officeholders. He writes:

It has already come to this, that the sovereign popular majority can never again be represented by any considerable number of decent and honest men. Men who respect truth, fair dealing, and themselves, cannot go through the training necessary to secure the favour and support of the local constituency of a section of this sovereign mob. And he, who has successfully gone through that training, is not fit to be trusted by any honest man, or in any honest transaction. The direct effect of this basis of government is to fill all offices with the most artful and unscrupulous demagogues. It is only by a rare combination of chances, or by the influence of very great abilities that an honest man can get into a post of importance; and then he is quite out of countenance, on looking into the faces of his brother officials around him.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Comments on Immigration

Some Comments on Immigration

Thomas Allen

Following are some random thoughts on immigration.

– Except for immigrants fleeing persecution, most immigrants have come to the United States to improve their economic well-being. Before 1970, these immigrants came with the intent of becoming productive members of the community. For the past several decades, most have come to live off the community; they are parasites. When they arrive, they receive free housing, free food, free medical care, and cash payments — especially if they enter illegally.

– Whitism is the most hideous disease ever to defile the universe and thoroughly contaminates the United States. It is worse than the most dreaded form of cancer. Moreover, Whitism is a disease for which no cure exists — not even the deaths of all Whites can rid the country of it. Even if all Whites were dead, Whitism would still infect the country forever.

Thus, the question is, why would nonwhites want to come to a country as thoroughly contaminated with Whitism as the United States? Why would nonwhites want to come to the United States and be contaminated with Whitism — a disease for which no cure exists?

– Unlike European immigrants, nonwhite immigrants cannot fully assimilate without genociding American Whites. Even if nonwhite immigrants speak perfect English, are perfect Christians, and believe and advocate all the precepts that neoconservatives claim make an American, they cannot fully assimilate without genociding American Whites. To be fully assimilated, nonwhites would have to intermarry and interbreed with American Whites, which results in the genocide of American Whites.

Moreover, nonwhites who participate in the miscegenetic genocide of American Whites show their disrespect for their ancestors and ancestry gene pool. These nonwhites dishonor their ancestors and violate the Fifth Commandment by polluting the gene pool that their ancestors gave them.

– Why would nonwhites want to live among Whites, who are subhuman? Furthermore, why would nonwhites want to degrade themselves by marrying or having sex with these White animals unless they are into bestiality?

– If diversity is wonderful and a sign of strength, why do its proponents strive to amalgamate the races? Why flood the country with people of various races and cultures and try to assimilate them and, by that, destroy diversity? Assimilation leads to miscegenation and homogenization, which destroy diversity.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social articles.

Critique of Achtenberg’s Speech on Fair Housing

Critique of Achtenberg’s Speech on Fair Housing

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1994 for the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. It has been slightly edited.]

A speech delivered by Roberta Achtenberg, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), illustrates how much the United States have deteriorated and how much deterioration will accelerate in the future. This speech illustrates the desperate need for the Southern States to secede and form a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Achtenberg delivered this speech at the first (and hopefully the last) National Fair Housing Summit. It was a gathering sponsored by the federal government to discuss the state of fair housing and to decry the lack thereof. “Fair housing” is a euphemism that means that a landlord or homeowner has no right to rent or sell or not to rent or sell his property to whomever he pleases for whatever reason he pleases. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways to take away even the few rights and freedoms remaining and to discuss how to finish destroying what remains of Western Civilization in the United States.

She points out, correctly so, that where a person lives is a most important factor in determining the quality of one’s life. Thus, she concludes that all neighborhoods should be thoroughly integrated with the lowest stratum of society. There should be equality in the quality of life. “[T]he right to choose where we live is as important as the right to equal educational and employment opportunity and the right to vote.” Just as the power of the federal government has been used to destroy public education, to weaken the economy, and to corrupt the political process, it will now be used to ruin neighborhoods — or more correctly, ruin neighborhoods at an accelerated rate.

Then, she complains about the government not being more tyrannical in destroying the rights of the people in their use of their property. She praises the “advocates for the disabled, advocates for woman and for families with children, and industry leaders” for leading the fight to destroy these rights. Ah! But, thanks to the Clinton administration, a new day has dawned. The federal government will now become an active partner in the destruction of these rights (as though it has not been an active partner in destroying these rights since before the “civil rights” movement).

Moreover, she and her cohorts will lead the charge to destroy what remains of these rights, for she claims what the government does best is to lead. (Unreconstructed Southerners know differently. They know that what the government does best is to destroy.) She promises severe penalties for homeowners and landlords who do not kowtow before the fair housing overlords. Woe unto him who stands up for his rights.

Furthermore, she promises accelerated growth in the power of the federal government in housing (which really means accelerated growth of the federal government in controlling people). Programs to destroy the rights of homeowners and landlords will be instituted by every means available. The death and utter destruction of these rights are the legacy that she promises that the Clinton administration will leave America.

Also, she advocates affirmative action in housing. Yet she denies that affirmative action will lead to quotas and reverse discrimination. As anyone who has even cursorily looked at other affirmative action programs knows that affirmative action has always led to quotas and reverse discrimination. No matter how much the advocates of such affirmative action programs have denied that quotas and reverse discrimination would not occur, they always have. She fails to explain why affirmative action in housing will not result in the same.

Then, she says that “it’s time for government to act affirmatively to guarantee every American’s right to choose freely where they live.” To guarantee this so-called right means more than denying landlords the right to rent their property to whomever they please and denying homeowners the right to sell their houses to whomever they please. It also means providing people money to buy or rent in neighborhoods that they cannot afford. As a result, the politically powerful will compel the many serfs to support the privileged few. She hints that such a subsidy program is envisioned. Moreover, she equates separation by income with separation by race or ethnicity.

Next, she proceeds to inform her audience that the fair housing laws will be used to end segregated neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are to be integrated in spite of what the people in those neighborhoods think or want. Integration for integration’s sake! (As always, this integration flows only in one direction. White neighborhoods will be forcibly integrated. Black neighborhoods will not.)

Continuing, she informs her audience that integrated housing and neighborhoods are the last great unconquered frontiers for the civil rights movement. She is determined to conquer this frontier and bring it to ruin just as the civil rights movement has ruined all else that it has conquered. Yet, she fails to inform her audience of the results of the fair housing laws if they are as fully and forcibly implemented as she desires. The results are deteriorating neighborhoods, poorer housing, greater racial tension and hatred, ever-higher taxes, the loss of freedom, and a bigger government.

Her agency, HUD, is already attacking the banking industry. Banks are not to place the interest of their stockholders, owners, and depositors first. They are to place the social programs of the federal government first. They are to lend to whomever the federal government tells them to lend to — no matter how risky the loan.

Furthermore, the weight of the federal government is to be used against States and locales to coerce, extort, and bribe them into adopting analogous fair housing laws and enforcement programs. The federal government will make State and local governments coconspirators in the destruction of housing in the United States.

Finally, she comments on affordable housing and bemoans the lack of affordable housing. She claims that “there is [not] enough affordable housing, in enough neighborhoods and communities to enable people to actually make free choices about where they will live.” She does not identify the principal cause of the lack of affordable housing, which is governmental intervention, manipulation, and control of the housing market. On the contrary, she advocates more governmental intervention, manipulation, and control of the housing market. What she fails (or perhaps refuses) to realize is that her agency, HUD, and other agencies of the federal government are the cause of much of the housing problem about which she is carping.

Throughout her speech, she brags about the enforcement activities of her agency. She brags that the enforcement activities of her agency need to be increased and expanded. She brags about how the extent, domain, and coverage of her agency are to be increased and expanded. She brags about how much more intrusive into business and private affairs of all Americans her agency is to become. Never does she mention the constitutionality of what she advocates — probably because everything she advocates is unconstitutional.

The time has come for all good Southerners to free themselves from the despotism and tyranny of the megalomaniacs of HUD. They are only one example, and a small one at that, of the despotic and tyrannical rule of the United States over the Southern States. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Copyright © 1995, 2025 by Thomas C. Allen.

More social issues articles.

Analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”

Analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”

Thomas Allen

The following is an analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”, chapter 18. Unfortunately, I do not know who the author is or the title of the book from which this chapter comes.

The author is a racial nihilist who preaches the new morality and has no qualms about sacrificing the races on the altar of humanity. Although he claims to be a creationist, he is really a creationist evolutionist. Like orthodox creationists, he is a monogenist and claims that all humans come from a common origin, Adam and Eve, and, consequently, rejects polygenism, i.e., the various human races are descended from a different set of parents. Like all monogenist creationists, he resorts to using evolutionary principles to prove his theory, and, thus, he is really a creationist evolutionist. (For the difference between monogenism and polygenism, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen; also, see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Coley Allen.)

Moreover, the author rejects the term “race” and prefers to use the term “people group”; most orthodox evolutionists prefer “geographical population.” Species is a more accurate term (see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen). Whether the Negro is called a people group, a geographical population, or a race is irrelevant. The essences and traits of the Negro do not change regardless of the name.

The author claims that “all humans descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve” (p. 223). He is wrong. Since the Nephilim existed before and after the Noachian Flood, they could not be descendants of Noah. (Their existence before and after the Flood proves that the Flood was not global.) No indication is given in the Bible of Noah taking them on the ark; on the contrary, the Bible indicates that they were not on the ark since God sent the Flood to destroy them. The Nephilim were of the giant people group, Homo gigantus.

To support his claim to a common origin of all humans, he uses the evolutionary principle of the Mitochondrial Eve, which claims “to show that all people today trace back to a single mother” (p. 224 fn). His main disagreement with most orthodox evolutionists is the rate of mutation of mitochondrial DNA. He has the mutation occurring at a much higher rate than orthodox evolutionists originally thought. However, more recent studies show that the mutation rate is high enough to place it in the biblical time frame. On the other hand, he and other creationist evolutionists reject mutations as proof of evolution because most mutations are degenerative, and the remaining mutations are neutral. What never occurs to him is that God may have used a common mitochondrial DNA for all people groups instead of giving each people group a different mitochondrial DNA. Or he gave the original parents of each people group the mitochondrial DNA that the people groups have today.

Unlike orthodox evolutionists, who believe that the various people groups evolved over tens of thousands of years, creationist evolutionists like this author believe that they evolved (or developed as they prefer to say) over a few generations. If the creationist evolutionists are correct, then the North American Indians, White Europeans, and Black Africans should be virtually indistinguishable in the United States since they have been living in the same environment and, to some extent, interbreeding, for 400 years, which is about 10 to 13 generations. Yet, after 10 to 13 generations, these people groups are still distinguishable.

The author notes that all human people groups can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Although true, it does not prove that all humans are the same species (see “Christians and Creationism” by Thomas Allen). Also, he notes that the DNA differences of the various people groups are slight. Thus, he rejects the notion that God would use mostly the same DNA in His creation of the various human species. (Evidence shows that the genetic difference between a male and female human is one gene.)

As do nearly all creationist evolutionists, the author has a fixation on skin color that exceeds that of any stereotypical racist. Except for distinguishing between Aryans and Melanochroi, skin color is of secondary importance in distinguishing one people group from another. An albino Turanian (East Asians, Southeast Asians, and Turks) can be easily distinguished from an albino Negro (sub-Saharan Africans). (For more on skin color, see “Skin Color” by Thomas Allen.)

The author adheres to the young earth (God created the earth about 6000 to 8000 years ago) global flood model (the Noachian Flood occurred about 4400 years ago), although God’s geology refutes such a model (see “Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth” by Thomas Allen).

According to the author, Adam and Eve were mongrels and possessed all the genetic material necessary to form all the extant and extinct people groups (the identities of the extant and extinct people groups are given below). Yet, the Bible describes Adam as White (Aryan) — see “What Race Was Adam?” by Thomas Allen. Since Eve was made from Adam, she would also have been an Aryan. Moreover, God forbids mongrels in His assembly (see “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2” by Thomas Allen).

A characteristic of mongrels is that they do not breed true. As the author notes, the descendants of mongrel humans can range from extreme dark to extreme light and can have all sorts of mixtures of racial attributes. Yet, today’s people groups breed true. Their offspring possess the same racial attributes and traits as their parents. (The author describes Adam and Eve as looking like Melanochroi. However, as the author notes, they would have had to be mongrels if they possessed all the genes of today’s people groups.)

Also, according to the author, Noah and his sons and their wives were mongrels. Since all the people spoke the same language and lived in the same area, they would have continued to interbreed — mongrels producing mongrels. Yet, the Bible says nothing about the skin color of the people who built the Tower of Babel.

Like all creationist evolutionists, the author asserts that the various people groups resulted from the confusion of languages while the people were building the Tower of Babel — thus, proving that God is a segregationist (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Amazingly, all the people of the people group that possessed the traits and attributes of the Negro (Black, Homo niger) spoke the identical language and, consequently, segregated and separated themselves from the other extant people groups (Turanians [Mongolians, H. luridus], Aryan (Whites, White Caucasians, H. albus), Melanochroi [Brown Caucasians, H. brunus], Indo-Australian (Australian aborigines, H. australis), and Khoisan [Hottentots, H. khoisanii] and the extinct people groups (Neanderthal [H. neandertalensis], H. erectus, giants [H. gigantus], Denisovan man [H. denisova], and Florisbad man [H. heidelbergensis]). Likewise, each of these people groups coincidentally spoke the same language and consequently segregated and separated themselves from all other people groups. Such segregation and separation of human people groups should prove to creationist evolutionists like this author that God wants the people groups to be separated and not to integrate and amalgamate. But, sadly, it does not.

Furthermore, the way that the author describes the formation of the people groups following the confusion of languages seems to conflict with “the Hardy-Weinburg theorem, which states that genetic diversity cannot be bred out, i.e., the population will not grow more nearly uniform over successive generations. A group that separates from one race will not acquire the characteristics of another race. It will not lose its racial characteristics. At most, various racial characteristics will occur with a different frequency in the new group than occurred in the parent group. According to the great anthropologist Carlton Coon, ‘selection alone cannot produce changes of race or species; new genes must appear from which the selection can be made.’ One race of man cannot produce another race of man without the introduction of new genes. Genetic mutation is required to produce a new race.”[1] Thus, a mongrel people group will always produce mongrels even if divided into small separate people groups. For a people group, e.g., the Negro, to be formed from a mongrelized people group, a beneficial genetic mutation must occur. Creationist evolutionists reject the notion of beneficial genetic mutation.

According to the author, the evolutionary principle of natural selection produced the people groups of today after they left Babel. Oddly, natural selection seems to have stopped forming people groups millennia ago. The lack of new people groups being formed over the last thousand years is strange since as the author states, only a few generations are needed to change one people group into another people group, that is to have a new people group spin off an existing people group. Yet, for thousands of years, no new people group has been formed although some have become extinct.

Perhaps the author and other creationist evolutionists err because they reject the Biblical principle of “kind after its kind.” He asserts that a mongrel people group can produce different kinds (Negro people group, Turanian people group, etc.)

Also, like other creationist evolutionists, the author rejects the notion of immutable people groups. Consequently, he disagrees with Jeremiah, who declared that people groups are immutable (see “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” by Thomas Allen). Like orthodox evolutionists, the author believes that people groups are mutable and that a large people group can change into several different smaller people groups.

He describes natural selection leading to lighter-skinned people inhabiting higher latitudes and darker-skinned people inhabiting lower latitudes. However, he identifies some exceptions, such as Eskimos and Pygmies. Apparently, it does not occur to him that genetics determines people groups and not the environment.

The author concludes by stating that a large interbreeding people group of mongrels at Babel became the extant people groups of the Negro, Turanian, Aryan, Melanochroi, Indo-Australian, and Khoisan and the extinct people groups of the Neanderthal, Homo erectus, giant, Denisovan man, and Florisbad man within a few generations after the confusion of languages. Natural selection instead of God formed these people groups. Furthermore, no new genetic material was needed to form these people groups. Whatever gene mutations that did occur had a degenerative effect.

Then, he states that (1) if God did not create the world in six literal 24-hour days, (2) if all humans are not descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah and his sons and their wives, (3) and if the Noachian Flood was not global, then the remainder of the Bible is not trustworthy. (For arguments to the contrary, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen; also, see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Coley Allen.) Yet, I would be surprised if he believes the geocentric flat earth model although the Bible clearly describes the earth as flat and geocentric (see “A Response to ‘What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?’) According to his logic, if the earth is spherical and the solar system is heliocentric, then the Bible is untrustworthy.

Also, he claims, “One of the biggest justifications for racial discrimination in modern times is the belief that people groups have evolved separately.” (P. 235.) Yet, people discriminated against other people groups and even within their own people group millennia before the theory of evolution came into being. Could racial discrimination result from people obeying God’s law not to produce mongrels (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen)? 

Further, he cites Acts 17:26, but like all creationist evolutionists, he focuses on the first part of the verse. The first part reads, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” Thus, since the verse says that God made of one blood all humans, all humans descended from a common pair, Adam and Eve. Whatever “blood” means in this passage, it does not mean that all people have the same blood. A person’s people group can be determined with a high degree of accuracy from his blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen.)

He ignores the implications of the second part of the verse because it leads to the notion that God created the various people groups (species of humans) at different times and at different locations. The second part reads, “and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.”

Moreover, the author errs when he claims that Rahab the Canaanite was an ancestor of Jesus (see “Rahab” by Thomas Allen). Also, he errs when he claims that Ruth, an ancestor of Jesus, was a Moabite. Being a pious man, Boaz would have followed the law, which prohibited marrying Moabites (Deuteronomy 23:3), and would not have married Ruth if she were a Moabite. He knew that she was an Israelite. 

Then, he asserts that God discourages (forbids) interfaith marriages but does not forbid interracial marriages. The stories of Dinah and Ezra requiring the Israelite men to send their foreign (strange) wives and children away refute this assertion.

To marry Dinah, the Hivites converted to her religion. Nevertheless, her brothers killed them — not because of their religion as they were of the same religion as Dinah, but because of their people group, which differed from hers.

Ezra’s separation was based on people groups and not on religion. The Israelite men had ceased following the Israelite religion, or else they would not have married strange women. They expelled their strange wives and children regardless of whether they followed the Israelite religion. The division was based on people groups instead of religion.

(For more on Ruth, Diana, Ezra, and similar stories, see “A Response to Bibleinfo's Justification of Miscegenation,” “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?,” and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen.)

Like all creationist evolutionists, the author resorts to evolutionary principles to support his explanation of the origins of the human races or people groups, which is his preferred terminology. Natural selection is the primary evolutionary principle that he uses. Also, when he can use genetic mutations to his advantage, he uses them. Otherwise, he rejects mutations because they are usually degenerative or, at best, neutral. However, while claiming that he is a creationist, he refuses to give God credit for creating the various human races (people groups).

The author abandons the basic principles of zoology in classifying man. To support his dogma, he must abandon these zoological principles and adopt new methodologies. Thus, he rejects the principle of Straus-Durckheim: “In treating this subject [human races or people groups], as it ought to be, simply as a question of pure zoology, and upon applying to it the same principles as to the determination of other species of animals belonging to one genus, one arrives, in fact, at really recognizing many very distinct human species. . . .”[2]

Endnotes

1. Thomas Coley Allen, False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages (TC Allen Company, Franklinton, North Carolina, 2001), p. 7.

2. J. C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, Indigenous Races of the Earth; or New Chapters of Ethnological Inquiry (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1857) p. 613.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

The US Constitution as Americans Once Understood It

The US Constitution as Americans Once Understood It

Thomas Allen

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 22–24, G. Manigault explains how Americans once understood the US Constitution. Rare is a politician who swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution knows what he is supposed to support and defend. Calvin Coolidge was the last president who even made an attempt to follow the Constitution. No Congress since the early 1930s has attempted to follow the Constitution. The following is Manigault’s explanation of how Americans once understood the Constitution.

The better to carry on the war begun in 1776 for the establishment of their independence of the mother country, the thirteen colonies had united themselves into a confederacy by a treaty called “The Articles of Confederation,” which by express agreement were to be perpetual. They continued united under this treaty through the greater part of the war, and seven years after. Becoming then dissatisfied with this treaty, the States, acting as States, set aside “The Articles of Confederation,” which were to have been perpetual, and made with each other another treaty called “The Constitution of the United States,” more precise in terms and more stringent in conditions, which created, under the form of a federal government, a common agent for each and all the States for certain specified purposes. The States endowed this common agent with certain specified powers and with no others; for the powers not granted were expressly reserved to the individual States. A year or two elapsed after this treaty went into operation between most of the states, before all acceded to it.

The purposes to be served by this agent of all the states, and which they named “The Government of the United States,” were essentially these: To secure the friendly union and intercourse between the states, and the people of the states; and to present them as one united hody, in peace and in war. to all foreign powers.

The States however did not cease to be each a sovereign body politic within its own limits, in all matters not expressly delegated to the common agent. The forming of the Union did not generate an allegiance to a government or to a country. Each citizen of each State owed allegiance to his own State. On the formation of the Union, at first under the “Articles of Confederation,” afterwards under the “Constitution of the United States,” he, as well as his State, assumed a new obligation: that of observing in good faith the terms of the treaty of Union. Not even the officials of the new government ever took any oath of allegiance to it, as a government, or to the country within its jurisdiction. The only oath taken was, to observe faithfully the terms of the treaty of union between the States. As to the perpetuity of the Union, nothing is expressly said of it in the “Constitution of the United States.” Doubtless it was meant to be as perpetual as the good faith in observing the conditions on which the States had entered into the Union, and no longer. To assume that the parties that made the compact of union on certain specified conditions, meant these conditions to be temporary, but the union leased upon them perpetual — that gross and persistent violation of the terms of the agreement, by some parties to it, would not release the others from their obligation — would be putting the most absurd and illogical construction on the contract.

Following Lincoln's War, people changed their primary allegiance from their State to the United States as a whole and often to the federal government. Allegiance to their State was a distant second. Most federal employees, especially federal judges, Congressmen, and high-ranking members of the federal executive branch, insist that the primary allegiance is to the federal government — especially when their party wields power.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Commentary on Philippians 2:6

Commentary on Philippians 2:6

Thomas Allen

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. (King James Version)

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, (Revised Standard Version)

For Trinitarians, the phrase “in the form of God” proves the preexistent equality of the Father and Jesus. It refers to Jesus’ nature before his birth. This verse along with the adjacent verses (Philippians 2: 3–11) proves inconvertibly that Jesus disrobed himself of his divinity and dressed himself in the form of a human. That is, Jesus visibly represented the essence of God the Father. Also, Trinitarians use these verses to support the Incarnation.

In his nature, Jesus is God; therefore, being fully God, Jesus did not need to grasp for equality. Thus, although he was “in the form of God,” i.e., of the same substance or essence, and, therefore, had the right to be equal to God, Jesus sought to conceal this fact by not appearing to be equal to God. Moreover, since Jesus was not inferior to God the Father, Jesus could claim the right to be treated as His equal, yet he chose to humble himself and become a man. Although Jesus was equal to God, he decided not to assert his equality — “thought it not robbery” or “a thing to be grasped.”

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary translates Philippians 2:6 as follows: “Though in his pre-incarnate state he possessed the essential qualities of Cod, he did not consider his status of divine equality a prize to be selfishly hoarded (taking harpagmos [plunder, robbery] passively).” Other biased Trinitarian translations are given in the appendix.

Unitarians contend that Philippians 2:6 does not prove the preexistent equality of Jesus and the Father. This verse is part of a passage where Paul compares the attitude and achievements of Adam to those of Jesus. Adam succumbed to his pride and sought, in a sense, to be equal to God. Contrariwise, although Jesus was the perfect expression of God’s character, he humbled himself and, unlike Adam, considered equality with God as something not to be sought or grasped. Instead, Jesus waited for God to exalt him.

This verse is part of a passage where Paul is teaching the virtue of humility by following Jesus’ example of humility. Paul is urging the Philippians to act with humility toward each other. Instead of teaching the Trinity Doctrine, this passage urges believers to be humble.

Unitarians and Trinitarians disagree about the idea that “form” conveys. While Trinitarians contend that it conveys the notion of “essential nature or essence,” i.e. the essence of God, Unitarians contend that it refers to outward appearance because the word translated as “form” was commonly used in the sense of outward appearance during and before the time that Paul wrote. Whereas Trinitarians claim that it refers to an internal quality, Unitarians claim that it refers to an external quality. Jesus was “in the form of God” in the sense that he perfectly expressed the character of the Father. It does not suggest that Jesus was of the same substance or essence as God and, therefore, possesses God’s nature.

Further, Trinitarians assert that the phrase “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” proves that in the Godhead, Jesus is equal to the Father. Namely, because Jesus was preexistent God, he could claim equality of the Godhead. On the other hand, Unitarians claim that phrase means the opposite of the Trinitarian claim. Instead of claiming Jesus’ equality with God, it means that Jesus rejected pursuing equality with God. Jesus refusing to seek equality with God is consistent with Paul urging believers to copy Jesus’ humility.

Moreover, the phrase does not mean that Jesus maintained equality with God as Trinitarians contend. It means that he did not try to become equal with God. Furthermore, if Jesus were God, to say that he “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” is absurd; being God, he already had equality with God.

If the Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2:5-11 is correct, then it refutes the origin of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Unitarians maintain that Matthew and Luke are correct and the Trinitarians are wrong. Moreover, Unitarians reject the notion that Paul is teaching the Trinity Doctrine in this and the following verses because he clearly rejects the Trinity Doctrine elsewhere. Paul taught that only the Father was God and that Jesus was a man (emphasis added):

1 Corinthians 8:6: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

Ephesians 4:5-6: 5 “One Lord [Jesus], one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” (In his exalted state, Jesus is still a man.)

Appendix

Some modern translations show an obvious Trinitarian bias in their translation of the phrase “being in the form of God”:

Christian Standard Bible: “who, existing in the form of God,”

Contemporary English Version: “Christ was truly God.”

Easy English Bible: “Christ had the same nature as God.”

Evangelical Heritage Version: “Though he was by nature God,”

Good News Translation: “He always had the nature of God,”

Living Bible: “who, though he was God,”

New International Reader's Version: “In his very nature he was God.”

New International Version: “Who, being in very nature God,”

New Life Version: “Though he was God,”

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Three Facts About the South

Three Facts About the South

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are the States’ right of secession, music, and the South was right.

States’ Right of Secession

Nowhere does the Constitution deny a State the right to secede. Secession is not expressly stated in the Constitution because the States reserved that right in the Tenth Amendment. 

Each of the original 13 States had seceded twice when they ratified the Constitution of 1787. First, they had seceded from Great Britain, and then they seceded from the Union formed by the Articles of Confederation. That the States would deny themselves the right to secede from the Union formed by the Constitution of 1787 is absurd — especially since the Constitution did not expressly deny them this right. Even New York and Virginia declared in their ratification that they retained the right to secede. Further, the New England States claimed that they had the right to secede. Moreover, the Declaration of Independence asserted that the States (the colonies) had the right to secede. Thus, the Southern States had the right to secede in 1861.

Besides, when the States drafted the Constitution of 1787 and joined the federation created by that Constitution, they retained their sovereignty. (Because the States were republics and the Constitution guaranteed each State a republican form of government, the States could not surrender their sovereignty and still remain republics. [See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.]) Sovereigns have the power to secede from any union or federation to which they have acceded.

When the Southern States seceded, they were merely exercising their right as sovereigns to leave the Union peacefully as the States did from the Union created by the Articles of Confederation. The Tenth Amendment guaranteed the right of secession.

For a more detailed discussion of a State’s right to secede, see Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States: Its Causes, Character, Conduct, and Results, volume 1, by Alexander H. Stephens, 1868.

Music

How long will it be before American music is outlawed? Why should American music be outlawed? Because, with rare exception, all neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians are Dixiephobes. They loathe the South and Southerners. Therefore, they disdain everything Southern.

What does this have to do with music? All significant genres or styles of American music of any significance originated in the South. Thus, American music is the product of slavocracy, Jim Crow, White supremacy, and their descendants. Rock ‘n roll, jazz (including ragtime, boogie-woogie, Dixieland, and swing), blues, country, bluegrass, rhythm and blues, soul, funk, Tejano, Cajun, zydeco, gospel, spiritual, sacred harp, barbershop, and more are Southern. All of them came out of the South.

Because of their hatred of the South, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians seek to destroy everything that is Southern. Consequently, American music, which is really Southern music, must be destroyed. They have to destroy Southern music before it completely contaminates the virtues of Yankeedom.

(Reference: Daniel, Tom. “Academy of Southern Music.” Abbeville Institute: The Abbeville Blog, June 1, 2021. https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/bthe log/academy-of-southern-music/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d073b88d-f677-448c-9c41-191b5e0c631f accessed June 2, 2021.)

The South Was Right

In “The Power of the Powerless” (November 4, 2020), James Rutledge Roesch provides an excellent description of the Puritan Yankee mentality that wars against the South, which proves that the South was right (https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/the-power-of-the-powerless/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c24f9d1b-a791-4b69-be6a-ca8b5d96ed4b):

In the meantime, however, we can take some bittersweet solace in the fact that despite the sadistic iconoclasm against the symbols of the American South, the polarisation/radicalisation of American politics, the dysfunction of the American system of government, the corruption of the American party system, the degeneracy of American culture, and the disintegration of American society represents the ultimate vindication of the Southern critique of American millenarianism (i.e. “The City Upon A Hill” and “The Last, Best Hope for Mankind”), American gnosticism (i.e. “The More Perfect Union” and “The Indissoluble Union”), American teleocracy (i.e. “The Proposition Nation” and “The Redeemer Nation”), American hubris (i.e. “The Exceptional Nation” and “The Indispensable Nation”), and other Hebraic-Puritan “isms” and “ologies” from the Left and the Right to which our compatriots up north have proven so susceptible throughout our country’s very young life.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.