Trump Related Issues

Trump Related Issues

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are Trump using the National Guard to assist local law enforcement, the attitude of many Trump supporters toward free speech, and Trump and many of his supporters becoming like Establishment Republicans.

Chicago

With some justification, the mayor of Chicago objects to Trump using the National Guard to assist in local law enforcement. However, his objection is neither philosophical nor based on the Constitution.

Would the mayor have objected to Eisenhower using the regular army to force White students at the point of bayonets to go to integrated schools? Probably not. Like all liberals and many conservatives, he is a hypocrite. When the military is used to enforce what he supports, he does not object. When the military is used to enforce what he does not support, he objects.

If Trump were following Eisenhower’s example and using the regular army to force integration, would this mayor or any other liberal object? If they could overcome their hatred of Trump long enough, they would not object to Trump’s action but would support it.

Thus, the mayor shows that he is a hypocrite. His objection to Trump using the military for law enforcement in his city is not philosophical or constitutional. It depends on which laws that the army is being used to enforce.

Obviously, the mayor and a majority of the people in Chicago prefer to live in a crime-ridden city. If they did not, they would replace their light-on-crime political leaders with tough-on-crime political leaders. Trump should let them have what they want: a crime-ridden city.

If Trump uses the National Guard in Chicago, Portland, or other cities, he is acting like the autocratic dictator that the anti-Trumpers assert that he is. Today, Trump uses the National Guard to fight crime. Tomorrow, Democrats will use the National Guard to round up MAGA people to save democracy by protecting the country from terrorists and criminals (they consider MAGA people to be terrorists and criminals). With his unconstitutional actions of using the National Guard to fight crime, Trump will be setting the precedent for Democrats to use it unconstitutionally to imprison MAGA people. (Washington, D.C., is a special situation. It is a city that is constitutionally completely under the control of Congress, and federal law authorizes the President to use the military to a limited degree to enforce the law in the District of Columbia.)

Hate Speech

Far too many Republicans, conservatives, and Trump supporters are acting like Democrats. Like Democrats, they want to penalize people for “hate speech.” The only difference between them and the Democrats is that they disagree on what is hate speech. Like Democrats, they support free speech for themselves, but they want to suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree. 

The Charlie Kirk murder reveals their true colors. It is their equivalent of the Democrats using COVID-19, transgenderism (transgender people consider this term derogatory), and homosexuality to suppress speech. (Most Republicans and many conservatives now find homosexuality acceptable.)

Much of the left’s comments about Kirk are puerile, disgusting, despicable, and derogatory, which proves that those making these comments are reprehensible reprobates. However, the government should not censor such speech. Nevertheless, an employer should have the right to fire any employee making such comments if he finds them inappropriate and inconsistent with the image of his company. Also, anyone threatening another person may be held accountable.

Establishment Republicans

Unfortunately, Trump and most of his supporters are becoming more like Establishment Republicans. Like Establishment Republicans, they do not want to dismantle the Deep State; they want to use it against their opposition just as the Democrats have done. Additionally, like the Establishment Republicans, Trump has become a warmonger, and most of his supporters approve of this endeavor, especially with respect to Israel.

Just as Democrats and Establishment Republicans cut spending by increasing spending, so has Trump. Like them, he believes that he can borrow the country into prosperity: Ever-growing debt brings ever-growing prosperity.

Although Trump has been somewhat disruptive and is doing an excellent job in dismantling the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) idiocy, it looks like the Establishment and the Deep State will last until the country collapses into chaos and splits asunder.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Carthage and the United States

Carthage and the United States

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1988 for the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party.]

[Since this article was written, the roles have been reversed. The United States are now Rome, and Russia is Carthage. Unlike disarmed Carthage, Russia possesses a large arsenal of nuclear weapons against which the United States seem to possess no defense. While Russia has a large-scale civil defense system to protect its civilians, the United States have none except for the oligarchs and high-ranking politicians and bureaucrats — it was abolished to appease the Soviet Union.]

As post-World War II history demonstrates, the United States are following the path that Carthage followed more than 2100 years ago. If the United States go the way of Carthage, the South will too, if it remains part of the present union.

By the second century B. C., the primary foreign policy of Rome had become the annihilation of Carthage, for Rome envied the prosperity of Carthage. After Rome defeated Carthage in the Second Punic War, Carthage agreed not to engage in war with any ally of Rome. If a Roman ally attacked Carthage, Carthage was to appeal to Rome to settle the dispute. Numidia, which was an ally of Rome, took advantage of Carthage’s predicament and attacked her. Carthage appealed to Rome to end the conflict. Rome resolved the conflict unfairly in favor of Numidia. The next time Numidia attacked Carthage, Carthage defended herself instead of appealing to Rome. She knew that Rome would not provide any aid or justice. Carthage feared that Rome would use this conflict as a pretext for war, and events soon proved her right. Fearing reprisal from Rome, Carthage sought appeasement. She inquired of Rome about the conditions necessary to secure peace. Rome demanded and received three hundred children of noble birth to hold as hostages. With the hostages in hand, Rome then demanded that Carthage surrender all weapons of war. Hoping to win Rome to clemency, Carthage complied. After the weapons were surrendered, Rome then demanded the city itself. The inhabitants were told that they could march ten miles inland and build a new city, but Carthage had to be destroyed. With this demand, Carthage finally realized the perfidy and baseness of her enemy. Without weapons, she prepared for war. The Carthaginians were able to manufacture enough weapons to resist the Roman siege for four years. In 146 B. C., Carthage finally fell to the Roman army. Rome utterly destroyed her. The city was burned and leveled. Carthage was no more.

Just as Rome’s foreign policy was to destroy Carthage, so is the Soviet Union’s foreign policy to destroy the United States. Ever since the days of Lenin, the foreign policy of the Soviet Union has been the destruction of the United States. Just as Rome expanded and absorbed all those around her, so has the Soviet Union. Following the path of Carthage, the United States have met the Soviet threat with appeasement. They seek to appease their Rome, the envious Soviet Union. With rhetoric, the United States mildly object to Soviet expansion. With deeds, they restrain and hamper those who seek to defend themselves from Soviet imperialism. Whereas Carthage was forced to prostrate herself before Rome as a result of defeat in war and entered into a one-sided treaty that favored Rome, the United States have voluntarily entered into one treaty after another that favors their enemy, the Soviet Union. The United States have entered into several arms-control treaties with the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union abides by these treaties only as long as it suits its purposes and ignores them when convenient. The United States abide by these treaties even if they have never been ratified. Now, the United States are going down the road of disarmament with a known liar and deceiver. Whereas Rome held only three hundred Carthaginians hostage, the Soviet Union is rapidly approaching the point where she will hold 240,000,000 Americans hostage. The Soviet Union has an effective civil defense and antimissile system. Yet, the United States have neither and are determined to acquire neither. The day may soon come when the Soviet Union will demand that the United States disarm themselves completely or be destroyed. If the United States resist, most likely war will result. If they do as Carthage did and disarm, they will perish as Carthage did. (Envy is a powerfully destructive force.) However, the United States will not have the luxury of rearming and making a last stand as Carthage did. Just as an envious Rome achieved her objective of obliterating prosperous Carthage, so will an envious Soviet Union achieve hers of obliterating the prosperous United States.

If the Southern States wish to avoid the fate of Carthage, they must separate from the present union. To remain part of the United States is to die. The United States no longer have the will to defend themselves. They desire only to appease their enemy. Only in an independent South can Southerners ever hope to build a civil defense and antimissile system to protect themselves from Soviet blackmail. Only in an independent South can Southerners ever hope to live in peace. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of Southern States.

As paradoxical as it may appear, an independent South may be the only way that the United States can be saved from the Soviet Union. An independent South would seek to defend itself from Soviet aggression and thus retard that aggression. Not only that, but the trauma of losing their Southern colonies may destroy the lethargy of the United States, force them to recognize their vulnerability and cause them to defend themselves from Soviet aggression, which would totally thwart her potential threats and prevent war.

[Fortunately, under President Reagan’s leadership, the United States woke up and thwarted the Soviet threat so greatly that the Soviet Union collapsed. Now, the Marxist mantle of destroying the United States has passed to China. However, Marxists within the United States are giving China stiff competition, which is un-Marxist, to bring down America. Like good Marxists, these American Marxists are destroying the history of the country by starting with the removal of anything about the Confederacy or the antebellum era. They push disarmament of the people and other Marxist laws to enslave Americans — many in the name of the war on terrorism. Unlike the United States, at least, traitors within her gates did not control Carthage.]

Copyright © 1988, 2025 by Thomas C. Allen.

More history articles.

Some Observations on Israel, Iran, Russia, Islam, and Christianity

Some Observations on Israel, Iran, Russia, Islam, and Christianity

Thomas Allen

The following are some comments on the Israel-Iran War, especially concerning Islam, Christianity, Zionism, Jews, and Russia.

1– Israel knows that it cannot defeat Iran on its own. It planned for the Jewish lobby, the Jewish-controlled media, neoconservative Zionists, and the Christian Zionists to draw the United States into its war with Iran. That plan has worked.

2– A major problem that Muslim countries have in the Middle East is that their religious disagreements prevent them from uniting against Israel. Israel has used these disagreements to its advantage.

On the other hand, Zionists have no such problem. Christian Zionists, Jewish Zionists, and atheist Zionists unite against the Muslims. They value Zionism above their religion. Indeed, for many of them, Zionism is their religion.

3– Zionists and other pro-Israel people rant endlessly about the vileness of Islam and Muslims. Other than their claim that such vileness is innate in Islam and the Koran, they never try to discover the cause of Muslim hostility toward and hatred of Jews and, particularly, Israel. To them, Muslim hostility and hatred have nothing to do with Jews terrorizing the Palestinians and stealing their land.

After the Balfour Declaration (1917), Jews began moving to Palestine and terrorizing the Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims, and taking their land. (In 1920, 500,000 Muslims, 70,000 Christians, and 60,000 Jews lived in Palestine. In 1940, the population was 948,000, 121,000, and 464,000, respectively.) Before the Balfour Declaration, Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived peacefully in Palestine. 

Moreover, Muslim hostility and hatred of Israel and Jews have nothing to do with the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians. Nor do they have anything to do with the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 or Israel’s attacks against its neighbors in 1967 (the Six-Day War), 1973 (the Yom Kippur War), 1982 (the 1982 Lebanon War), and 2006 (the Israel–Hezbollah War), and the almost continuous offensive assaults against its neighbors since 1948.

Furthermore, Muslim hostility and hatred of Israel, Jews, and the United States have nothing to do with Israel getting its vassal, the United States, to destroy Iraq and Syria for Greater Israel. Now, Israel is trying to get the United States to destroy Iran. (As a result of its subservient support of Israel, many Muslims consider America the Great Satan and chant, “Death to America.” Without the succor of its slave, the United States, Israel would collapse.)

All these ignored issues have much more to do with Muslims’ loathing Israel and the Jews than does the Koran or anything innate in Islam.

4– Many people who believe that Islam is an innately vile religion ignore many non-Christians viewing Christianity as an innately vile religion — and for many of the same reasons. Before Muslims arrived in the Middle East and North Africa, these regions were predominantly Christian, among whom Jews lived. After the arrival of Muslims, the population of Christians and Jews significantly declined over the years. The implication is that Muslims either killed them or drove them out of the Middle East and North Africa. What is often overlooked is that many converted to Islam to avoid paying the jizya, a tax levied on non-Muslims.

Islam is criticized for using the sword to force its religion on others. Once Christianity became the state religion under Constantine, Christians not only used the sword to convert others, but they also used it to settle theological disputes. The Catholic Church became notorious for using the sword against Christian sects that did not adhere to what the Catholic Church declared to be orthodoxy. An early example was the wars between the Trinitarians, who were usually the aggressors, and the Arians. Later, the Catholic Church used the sword to oppress Christian sects, such as the Waldensians, who refused to recognize the Pope’s authority. Perhaps the bloodiest conflict of Christian intolerance was the Thirty Years' War. 

Moreover, in Christendom, Jews were often persecuted. At various times, many European countries forbade Jews from living in them.

Before Bush the Younger destroyed Iraq for Israel, Iraq had a thriving Christian population. Now, the Christians who remain are struggling to survive.

Does this mean that the Bible and Christians are vile? (The Bible does contain stories where God orders his people to kill and genocide others.) If judged by the same standard that people who consider Islam innately vile, it seems to imply that Christianity is innately vile.

Furthermore, Islam has a much higher opinion of Jesus, who is the central figure of Christianity, than does Judaism. According to Islam’s holy book, the Koran, Jesus is a great prophet, second only to Mohammad. According to the Jewish holy book, the Talmud, Jesses is a blasphemer, a bastard, and a sorcerer. 

5– Iran is as much of a threat to the United States as Iraq was in 2001 — none. Like Iraq, Iran is mostly a threat posed by the propaganda of the Jewish and Zionist-controlled media, federal bureaucrats, and politicians of both parties. 

6– If Iran falls, Russia and China are in great danger. Iran serves as a buffer to Russia because it prevents the CIA from sending jihadists into Russia’s Muslim provinces. Also, if the United States gain control of Iran’s oilfields, China could lose a major supplier of its energy. How long will Russia and China stand by and let Israel and the United States have their way in Iran?

Russia and China may have prevented this war if they had a public defense pact with Iran and had placed it under their nuclear umbrella. However, it is unlikely that this action would have stopped Israel, but it may have slowed, if not prevented, the United States’ entry into the war. Now, Russia and China may have to enter the war directly.

7– Some wonder why Putin signaled his approval of an Israeli attack on Iran by announcing that Russia’s treaty with Iran did not include military support. 

What happened to Iran’s air defense? Russia had provided Iran with antiaircraft missiles. Did Russia prevent Iran from using them? Were they faulty, or were they inadequate for the job?

Putin and Russia seem to be continuing the extinct Soviet Union’s policy of aiding Israel surreptitiously by undermining its ostensible Muslim allies when they warred against Israel. President Sadat of Egypt realized this betrayal when he expelled Soviet agents from his country in 1972, several months before the Yom Kippur War.

The Soviet Union, which Jews founded, aided Jews in Palestine before 1948 and in Israel afterward. During the Zionists’ struggle to drive the British and later the Palestinians from Palestine, the Soviet Union, through Czechoslovakia, was a major supplier of arms to the Jews in Palestine. 

Furthermore, it joined the United States in partitioning Palestine and giving a large portion of it to the Jews. With Soviet-supplied weapons and aircraft, Israel won its war for independence. Later, Ben Gurion would thank the Soviet Union for providing Israel with the arms that it needed to win independence and for its support of Zionism in the United Nations.

President Truman gave Israel de facto recognition on May 15, 1948, the day that Great Britain’s mandate in Palestine expired. However, the Soviet Union extended de jure recognition to Israel on May 17, 1948, and, thus, became the first state to recognize Israel fully and officially. 

To win favor and influence over Israel’s Arab neighbors, the Soviet government instituted a campaign to suppress some petty Jews in the Soviet bloc. Also, it openly denounced Israel and supplied weaponry to Israel’s Arab neighbors. Later, the Soviet Union would use its influence over Egypt, Syria, and other Arab countries to aid Israel.

8– Iran is one of the seven Muslim countries that Israel and the Zionists have identified for destruction. Five have been destroyed: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Sudan. Iran and Saudi Arabia remain. Israel’s updated list now includes Pakistan. Turkey may soon be added; a small part of it falls in Greater Israel. Destroying Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and possibly Turkey for Israel will be an extremely expensive chore for the United States. Additionally, Egypt must be included since all of Egypt east of the Nile belongs to Greater Israel. Likewise, Jordan will need to be destroyed because it is also part of Greater Israel. China will be the real winner of such an undertaking because America will be so exhausted from these wars that it will fall into China’s hands as easily as an overripe plum.

9– In “US State Department Spokeswoman Says Israel Is Greater Than America,” Caitlin Johnstone makes some interesting and informative remarks about the Israel-Iran War (https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2025/06/23/us-state-department-spokeswoman-says-israel-is-greater-than-america/):

Top Ten dumbest things we’re being asked to believe about Iran:

1. That the Iranians want to be bombed.

2. That the guy bombing Iran wants peace.

3. That regime change interventionism is a swell idea this time.

4. That anyone who doesn’t want war with Iran hates Jews.

5. That this time the government and the media are telling us the truth about an American war.

6. That this time the neocons are smart and correct.

7. That bombing Iran makes it LESS likely to try to obtain nukes.

8. That Iran is trying to assassinate the US president when all US presidents have the same foreign policy.

9. That Iran (a country that never starts wars) cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, but Israel (a country that starts wars constantly) can.

10. That attacking Iran benefits Americans.

10– Paul Craig Roberts writes, “Iran has done nothing to America. It has not attacked us, sanctioned us, frozen our bank reserves, forbidden trade with us, assassinated any of our leaders. These are things that Washington has done to Iran. Why? Because Netanyahu told us to.” (https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2025/06/19/is-trumps-constituency-netanyahu-or-maga-america/)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles. 

Unicorns and Satyrs

Unicorns and Satyrs

Thomas Allen

Two mythical creatures, the unicorn and satyr, are mentioned in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. A unicorn is a mythical animal that has the body of a horse with one horn on its forehead. A satyr is a mythical animal that is half man and half goat.

In nine verses, the KJV translates the Hebrew word rah-ame’ as “unicorn.” According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, number 7214, rah-ame’ or rame means “a wild bull (from its conspicuousness) — unicorn.” According to Hebrew Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar), the word probably means “the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.”  Fausset’s Bible Dictionary notes that “unicorn” was not intended to refer to the classic one-horned animal but to the wild oxen or urus, which is also known as the aurochs (Bos primigenius). (Since every edition of the KJV since 1611 has used “unicorn,” the common understanding of which is the classic one-horned horse-like animal, one must assume that the translators meant the classic one-horned animal, or else they would have changed it.) Because the Hebrew word referred to an animal with which the original translators were not familiar, they assumed that it was a unicorn.

Some translations, e.g., KJ21, follow the KJV and translate rah-ame’ as “unicorn.” Most, e.g., NIV, translate it as “wild oxen.” DARBY translates it as “buffaloes,” and YLT transliterates it as “reems.”

In two verses, the KJV translates the Hebrew word sa`iyr as satyrs or satyr. According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, number 8163, sa`iyr or sabir means “shaggy; as noun, a he-goat; by analogy, a faun:–devil, goat, hairy, kid, rough, satyr.” The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary notes that sa`iyr typically refers to a “he-goat,” but at times, it also signifies a “goat demon.” The Fausset’s Bible Dictionary states that sa`iyr is literally a shaggy goat and is sometimes used for a demon dwelling in the desert or an object of heathen worship. As with rah-ame’, the KJV translators did not know what the Hebrew word sa`iyr meant, so they used “satyrs.” 

Some translations, e.g., KJ21 and RSV, follow the KJV and translate sa`iyr as satyrs. Many, e.g., NIV, translate it as “wild goat.” The CEB, NRSVA, and TLV translate it as “goat demons” while TLB and OJB translate it as “demons.” The LSB, MEV, and NASB translate it as “shaggy goats” while RGT translates it as “hairy goat.” The DRA and ISV translate it as “hairy ones.” (For definitions of these Bible abbreviations, see https://www.biblegateway.com.)

Since King-James-only adherents believe that the KJV is 100 percent correct without error — inerrant (without error or misstatement in all matters), they must believe that unicorns and satyrs actually existed and must defend their existence. Any translation that translates rah-ame’ and sa`iyr as anything other than unicorn or satyr is an incorrect and deceptive translation. They are deliberately distorting the word of God. Therefore, they are satanic translations.

Furthermore, not only is the KJV 100 percent accurate in expounding doctrine on faith and morals, but it is also 100 percent accurate and without error on all scientific matters. Since the inerrant KJV presents unicorns and satyrs as real creatures that really existed, they must be real and actually physically existed. They are not merely mythical creatures.

Proponents of biblical infallibility (the Bible is trustworthy and incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith and morals, but not necessarily so on scientific or historical matters) do not have to argue that unicorns and satyrs were once real creatures roaming the earth. Although they believe that the Bible is without error on theological matters, they do not believe that it is without error on all scientific matters — unlike the adherents of inerrancy. Thus, they can accept including mythological creatures in the Bible without having to claim that they once existed.

(Interesting, almost no proponent of biblical inerrancy believes that the Earth is flat and the solar system is geocentric. With rare exceptions, they believe that the Earth is spherical and the solar system is heliocentric. Yet, the Bible clearly describes the Earth as flat and the solar system as geocentric. [See “A Response to ‘What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?’” by Thomas Allen.] Thus, they are inconsistent in their belief in biblical inerrancy.)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles. 

Rothbard on Lincoln

Rothbard on Lincoln

Thomas Allen

In “Just War,” which is based on a talk given in May 1994 and posted in March 2012 (https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/whats-a-just-war/), Murray Rothbard gives an excellent description of Abraham Lincoln (Rothbard [1926-1995] was a libertarian economist of the Austrian School, economic historian, and political theorist. He was a proponent of  anarcho-capitalism and part of the post-World War II Old Right.)

The War for Southern Independence (Lincoln’s War) gave Lincoln the opportunity to invoke statist tyranny of reform liberalism — and he fervently took advantage of the opportunity. He overthrew States’ rights, which was the foundation of the Constitution of 1789, and the ownership of slaves (by making all Americans slaves of the oligarchs, although only a few realize that they are slaves). 

Lincoln’s “major emphasis was on Whig economic statism: high tariffs, huge subsidies to railroads, [and] public works.” Being a leading lawyer for the big railroads, he was the candidate of the big railroads.

Granville Dodge, an Iowa railroad entrepreneur, delivered the Iowa delegation to Lincoln at the Republican convention. As a reward, “Lincoln appointed Dodge to army general.” Dodge’s job was to drive the Indians from the path of the Union Pacific, “the country’s first heavily subsidized federally chartered transcontinental railroad.” Thus, “conscripted Union troops and hapless taxpayers were coerced into socializing the costs on constructing and operating the Union Pacific.”

Nevertheless, Lincoln’s chief focus was raising taxes — especially tariffs. During his administration, tariff rates greatly increased (consequently, he embargoed the importation of iron and steel). At the beginning of his administration, he was placatory about not interfering with slavery. However, he insisted on collecting tariffs at Southern ports.

“Lincoln was a master politician, which means that he was a consummate conniver, manipulator, and liar.” He deceived the South and maneuvered it into firing the first shot.  Thus, he made the South appear to be the aggressor. (He who causes the first shot starts the war, which is often not the one who fires the first shot.)

The Lincoln administration and the Republican-controlled Congress enacted most of the Whig economic programs. At least 10 tariff bills were enacted. Alcohol and tobacco were heavily taxed — “sin” taxes. An “income tax was levied for the first time in American history.” Also,  transcontinental railroads received large land grants and monetary subsidies. Moreover, “the government went off the gold standard and virtually nationalized the banking system to establish a machine for printing new money and to provide cheap credit for the business elite.”

Furthermore, Lincoln conscripted a huge army, jailed dissenters and peace advocates, and abolished habeas corpus.

Although Lincoln was not religious, “he adopted all the attitudes and temperament of his evangelical allies.” Personally, he opposed using alcohol and tobacco. Also, he “opposed the private carrying of guns.”

Moreover, he abandoned his fiancee, who came from a humble family, to marry Mary Todd, who was wealthy and whose family was friends of Henry Clay (shades of Newt Gingrich, who divorced his first wife when she was dying of cancer, but who fortunately survived, and divorced his second wife because she objected to sharing him with his mistress, who became his third wife). Further, he “refused to attend his dying father or his father’s funeral.”

Rothbard concludes his discussion of Lincoln by stating:

Lincoln, too, was a typical example of a humanitarian with the guillotine in another dimension: a familiar modern “reform liberal” type whose heart bleeds for and yearns to “uplift” remote mankind, while he lies to and treats abominably actual people whom he knew. And so Abraham Lincoln, in a phrase prefiguring our own beloved Mario Cuomo, declared that the Union was really “a family, bound indissolubly together by the most intimate organic bonds.” Kick your own family, and then transmute familial spiritual feelings toward a hypostatized and mythical entity, “The Union,” which then must be kept intact regardless of concrete human cost or sacrifice.

How can any self-respecting conservative idolize such a despicable charlatan as Lincoln? Nevertheless, they do. It makes one wonder if these Lincoln idolizers are really conservatives. They certainly are not constitutionalists, i.e., advocates of the Constitution of 1789 that the founding fathers gave us.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

Rothbard on Lincoln’s War

Rothbard on Lincoln’s War

Thomas Allen

In “Just War,” which is based on a talk given in May 1994 and posted in March 2012 (https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/whats-a-just-war/), Murray Rothbard explains that the War for Southern Independence (Lincoln’s War) was a just war on the part of the South and an unjust war on the part of the North. (Rothbard [1926-1995] was a libertarian economist of the Austrian School, economic historian, and political theorist. He was a proponent of anarcho-capitalism and part of the post-World War II Old Right.)

Rothbard states that “a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them.” He identifies two just wars that Americans fought: the American Revolution and the War for Southern Independence.

The South was trying to free itself from the North’s oppressive domination — therefore, a just war on the part of the South. On the other hand, the North was trying to maintain its dominance over the South — therefore, an unjust war on the part of the North.

Before Lincoln’s War, a chief principle of war was not to target civilians. Sherman, Sheridan, and other Northern generals targeted civilians. The Union army often looted and deliberately destroyed civilian property that had no military value. When Lee’s army invaded the North, he ordered his troops not to molest civilians.

Like Americans during the American Revolution, Southerners believed that sovereignty resided in the people. They delegated certain sovereign powers to the governing authority, and their delegation was voluntary and contractual. As such, they could withdraw that sovereignty anytime that the governing authority had violated its trust. Thus, government was a contractual arrangement — “consent of the governed.” Some divine hand from above did not impose it. When the 13 States, whose governments had been created by the people thereof, ratified the Constitution of 1789, they did not bind themselves perpetually to it or the Union formed under it. Being sovereign republics, they reserved the right to withdraw from the Union if they found that the government created by the Constitution continuously violated it.

After years of the federal government threatening and assaulting Southern institutions, the Southern States “exercise their natural, contractual, and constitutional right to withdraw, to ‘secede’ from that Union.” Then, as sovereign republics, they contracted with other Southern States to form the Confederate States of America. Thus, just as the American Revolution was just, so was the War for Southern Independence. For the same reasons that the American colonies seceded from the British Empire, so did the Southern States secede from the Union formed under the Constitution of 1789.

Just as the American colonies rebelled against “the taxing power: the systematic plunder of their property by the British government,” so did the Southern States rebel against the systematic plunder of their property by the federal government. A principal grievance of the South was the protective tariffs that the North had imposed. These tariffs were used to protect inefficient Northern industries. Consequently, they forced Southerners to pay higher prices for manufactured goods. Also, these tariffs threaten to reduce Southern exports. Moreover, the South paid most of the tariffs, and the North received most of the appropriations and monopolistic Northern industries.

Not only did most Northerners want to continue plundering the South via tariffs, but others, the Yankees, also wanted to purge the South and remake it in the Yankee image. Yankees had a Puritan mentality and were driven by postmillennialism. (Before Christ returns, “man must set up a thousand-year Kingdom of God on Earth.”) Consequently, Yankees must cleanse society of sin and create a perfect society. “Moreover, if you didn’t try your darndest to stamp out sin by force you yourself would not be saved.” Further, the coercive power of government was an essential tool in cleansing the world of sin. For these Yankees, sin was anything “which might interfere with a person’s free will to embrace salvation.” They were abolitionists and prohibitionists and opposed Catholicism. Governments must stamp out the evils of slavery, alcohol and tobacco, gambling, most entertainment, and Catholicism.[1] Thus, they promoted paternalistic government at the federal, State, and local levels.

Like most Northerners, Yankees promoted governmental paternalism in economic affairs. They supported “the Whig program of statism and big government: protective tariffs, subsidies to big business, strong central government, large-scale public works, and cheap credit spurred by government.”

Also, Yankees opposed personal liberties, States’ rights, minimal government, free markets, and free trade — the basic principles of the Democratic Party at that time. Consequently, they supported the Republican Party, which was the “party of great moral ideas,” i.e., the stamping-out of sin.

To the delight of the Yankees, “The Northern war against slavery partook of fanatical millennialist fervor, of a cheerful willingness to uproot institutions, to commit mayhem and mass murder, to plunder and loot and destroy, all in the name of high moral principle and the birth of a perfect world.” Thus, the North fought “to maintain their coercive and unwanted rule over” the South.

Then, Rothbard compares the British during the American Revolution to the North during Lincoln’s War. “The British, at least, were fighting on behalf of a cause which, even if wrong and unjust, was coherent and intelligible: that is, the sovereignty of a hereditary monarch.” What was the North’s excuse? It had no allegiance to a real, actual person like a king. Its allegiance was “to a nonexistent, mystical, quasi-divine alleged entity, ‘the Union.’” Unlike a king, one cannot evaluate a Union’s deeds, and the Union is accountable to no one. Thus, Northerners replaced the Union formed under the Constitution of 1789, which was “a contractual institution that can either be cleaved to or scrapped,” with “a divinized entity, which must be worshipped, and which must be permanent, unquestioned, all-powerful.”

Using the cause of “human rights,” modern-day supporters of Lincoln’s War support and glorify his war. Lincoln “goes forth and rights the wrong of slavery, doing so through mass murder, the destruction of institutions and property, and the wreaking of havoc which has still not disappeared.” Yet, all other countries ended slavery without war.

Endnote

1. Most of the sins on which Yankees focused were vices. (Vice sins are sins that injure the sinner and his family but do not generally injure others.) For the most part, they not only ignored but also often supported sins that injured others, such as homicide (offensive wars), looting the public treasury (subsidies), and forcing the common people to pay higher prices (tariffs), often for lower quality goods. Many frequently supported business dealings where merchants took advantage of ignorant customers. Most did not object to debtors cheating creditors with depreciating fiat money — then the two largest debtors were banks and governments. As for slavery, they objected to the ownership of slaves. However, they had little issue with transporting and selling slaves, as many Yankees became rich trafficking slaves. Moreover, when the Northern States emancipated slaves, most Yankees sold their slaves instead of freeing them.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

The King James Only

The King James Only

Thomas Allen

The King-James-only adherents claim that the King James Version is the only true translation of the Bible. It is the inerrant word of God and is 100 percent accurate without error. A few adherents go as far as to suggest that God sat King James on His lap and dictated the Bible to him word for word. Some even imply that translations of the Bible to other languages need to be made from the King James Version instead of from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Moreover, they believe that any translation or version that is not identical to the King James Version is heresy and the work of Satan.

Which inerrant edition of the King James Version do these adherents use? There are many editions (revisions):  1613, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1629, 1630, 1633, 1634, 1637, 1638, 1640, 1642, 1653, 1659, 1675, 1679, 1833, 1896, and 1904. Do they use the:

– 1611 (“Judas” Bible) where Matthew 26:36 reads, “Then cometh Judas [instead of Jesus] with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.”

– 1631 (“Wicked” Bible) where Exodus 20:14 reads, “Thou shalt [“not” is omitted] commit adultery.”

– 1653 (“Unrighteous” or “Field’s” Bible) where 1 Corinthians 6:9 reads, “Know ye not that the righteous [instead of unrighteous] shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,”

- 1711 (“Profit” Bible) where Isaiah 57:12 reads, “I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall [“not” is omitted] profit thee.”

– 1716 (“Sin On” Bible) where John 5:14 reads, “Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin on [instead of “no”] more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”

– 1792 (“Denial” Bible) where Luke 22:34 reads, “And he said, I tell thee, Philip [instead of “Peter”], the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.”

–  1801, (“Murderers” Bible) where Jude 1:16 reads, “These are murderers [instead of “murmurers”], complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.”

– 1802 (“Discharge” Bible) where 1 Timothy  5:21 reads, “I discharge [instead of “charge”] thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.”

– 1806 (“Standing Fishes” Bible) where Ezekiel  47:10 reads, “And it shall come to pass, that the fishes [instead of “fishers”] shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.”

– 1810 (“Wife-Hater” Bible) where Luke 14:26 reads, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own wife [instead of life] also, he cannot be my disciple.”

– 1829 (“Large Family” Bible) where Isaiah 66:9 reads, “Shall I bring to the birth, and not cease [instead of “cause”] to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.”

– undated (“Fool” Bible) where Psalm 14:1 reads, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is a [“a” is substituted for “no”] God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”

Thus, the translation of the Bible that King-James-only adherents believe is the only “inerrant” and unchangeable translation has undergone more changes and revisions than any English translation on today’s market.  Over the years, this inerrant Bible has contained many errors. Further, some of the best Greek manuscripts were not used.

If the King-James-only adherent’s Bible contains the letter “J,” it is not an original copy of the 1611 edition. “J” was not used in the Bible until the 1629 edition.

Reference

Amirault, Gary. “The King James Bible is ‘Inerrant?’”

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.