Abolitionists

Abolitionists

Thomas Allen

For the most part, abolitionists did not care about Blacks or slavery. Many New Englanders grew rich off the slave trade. They wanted to free the slaves, not because they hated slavery; they hated Southerners and wanted to use free Blacks to destroy Southerners and their way of life. That was a primary objective of Reconstruction, and that objective was mostly achieved. What the First Reconstruction failed to accomplish, the Second Reconstruction has sought to achieve. 

Their hatred of Southerners led many abolitionists to advocate the genocide of Southerners. Theodore Dwight Weld declared that “every slaveholder has forfeited his right to live.” (Robert Penn Warren, The Legacy of the Civil War [New York, 1961], pp. 21-22). Southerners must be annihilated at all costs, even at the cost of the beloved Negro. Abolitionist James Redpath stated his willingness to sacrifice the Negro when he wrote the following, “if all slaves in the United States — men, women and helpless babes — were to fall on the field or become the victims of vengeance . . . if only one man survived to enjoy the freedom they had won, the liberty of that solitary negro . . . would be cheaply purchased by the universal slaughter of his people and their oppressors.” (Robert Penn Warren, The Legacy of the Civil War [New York, 1961], pp. 20-21). Despite all their platitudes about the virtues of the Negro, the abolitionists valued him so lowly that they were willing to sacrifice all living, breathing Negroes for the sake of one free Negro in the abstract. So much for their sophism.

The abolitionists saw equality as a means to punish Southerners. C. Vann Woodward described this hatred for Southerners:

Abolitionists had grounded their whole crusade against slavery on the proposition that it was a “sin.” It is not sufficient simply to abolish a sin; it has to be expiated, and the sinner purified. Purification and expiation involve penance and suffering. Equality had a punitive purpose: the infliction of a penance of humiliation upon the status of the sinner. For those with an uncomplicated interest in sheer vengeance upon a hated foe, equality had punitive uses of a simpler sort. (C. Vann Woodward, The Burden of Southern History [New York, 1960], p. 76.)

Abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens, who was arguably the most powerful man in the United States government from the death of Lincoln in 1865 until his own death in 1868, said that the United States should treat the Southern States “as conquered provinces and settle them with new men and exterminate or drive out the present rebels as exiles.” (Walter L. Fleming, The Sequel of Appomattox: A Chronicle of the Reunion of the States [New Haven, 1919], p. 59.)

According to Thomas Page, “the eight years of negro domination in the South cost the South more than the entire cost of the war, inclusive of the loss of values in slave property.” (Thomas Nelson Page, The Old South; Essays Social and Political [New York, 1911], p. 333.) In the end, what Reconstruction gave the South was, as Walter Fleming described, a “new generation of whites [that] was poor, bitter because of persecution, ill educated, overworked, without a bright future, and shadowed by the race problem.” (Walter L. Fleming, The Sequel of Appomattox: A Chronicle of the Reunion of the States [New Haven, 1919], p. 289.)  (For more quotations about Reconstruction destroying the South, see “The First Reconstruction” by Thomas Allen.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

The Trinitarian and Unitarian View of Jesus

The Trinitarian and Unitarian View of Jesus

Thomas Allen

Omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence are attributes of God. Did Jesus possess these attributes? While Trinitarians answer “yes,” Unitarians answer “no.”

According to Trinitarians, Jesus was God, but to Unitarians, God was in Jesus. While Trinitarians maintain that Jesus was divine, infinite, and absolute, Unitarians maintain that he was human, finite, and dependent.

Although both believe that Jesus had two natures, human and divine, they perceive the union of the two natures differently. However, both hold that Jesus was one person.

Since the consciousness of one person is a single consciousness, Jesus could not simultaneously be all-knowing and not all-knowing, all-powerful and not all-powerful, and everywhere and not everywhere. Moreover, he could not be dependent on God for all things and not dependent on Him for anything. Consequently, either Jesus was God united to a human soul as Trinitarians claim, or he was a human soul united with God as Unitarians claim.

If Jesus were God, when he spoke, he spoke as God. Thus, when he used the personal pronoun “I,” he spoke as God. The Council of Chalcedon, which proclaimed that Jesus had two independent natures and wills, declared that whenever Jesus spoke, he always spoke as God the Son and never as a mere human.

However, Unitarians claim that when Jesus spoke, he spoke as a finite man. Therefore, when he used the personal pronoun “I,” he spoke as a finite being and not as the infinite Being.

Unitarians view Jesus as a human who was intimately united with God and was in perfect union with the indwelling God. Jesus was a man like all other humans, yet he was at one with God and was filled with God. He was the image of the invisible God and the firstborn from the dead and, thus, the firstborn of the new creation.

To support their claim that Jesus is omnipresent, Trinitarians cite Matthew 18:20 (“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”) and Matthew 28:20 (“teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”). An omnipresent being is everywhere simultaneously and eternally. He fills every atom, particle, void, wave, graviton, photon, etc. — even in hell. No place, thing, entity, etc. exists where he is not. Thus, being everywhere and in everything all the time, an omnipresent being cannot move. To where can he move? He is already there. Moreover, if he moves, a place or whatever exists without his presence, and he ceases to be omnipresent. Jesus moved; therefore, he was not omnipresent. (According to Revaluation, even Jesus’s spiritual body moved.) If he were omnipresent, he would be with one who has gathered in his name and where no one gathered in his name. Just as a radio wave can be in many places simultaneously, so may Jesus be in many places at the same time, but such presence is not omnipresent. What Matthew 28:20 shows is that God gave Jesus the ability and power to be with his followers, his church. To be with them does not require him to be omnipresent.

To support their claim that Jesus is omniscient, Trinitarians cite Matthew 16:21 (“From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.”) Knowing his destiny and purpose does not make Jesus omniscient. Jesus acknowledged that he was not omniscient when he said, “But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.” (Matthew 24:36) According to Revelation, Jesus in his heavenly body did not know the timing of the events of the end time; God gave it to him (Rev. 1:1: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;”). Thus, Jesus was not “God in the flesh” as the Trinitarians assert, but he was a man approved of God or pointed out to us as Peter so stated in Acts 2:22 (“Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know;”).

(The Biblical quotations are from the American Standard Bible. The King James Version and some other translations omit the phrase “neither the Son” in Matthew 24:36. However, this phrase appears in the best manuscripts. Anyway, the parallel verse, Mark 13:32 [“But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”] contains this phrase. Moreover, all the translations listed at Bible Gateway, including the King James Version, contain this phrase. For some reason, Trinitarians do not cite Mark 13:32 as proof of Jesus’ omniscience.)

To support their claim that Jesus is omnipotent, Trinitarians cite John 11:38-44, which describes Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. If raising a person from the dead is proof of omnipotence, then Peter and Paul are omnipotent. Peter raised Tabitha from the dead (Acts 9:36-42), and Paul raised Eutychus from the dead (Acts 20:7–12). 

As shown above, Trinitarians and Unitarians have significantly different views of Jesus. While Trinitarians see him as omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God, Unitarians see him as the perfect, sinless man fully approved by God, his Father. 

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More religious articles.

Wilson on the Yankee

Wilson on the Yankee

Thomas Allen

In The Yankee Problem: An American Dilemma (Columbia: Stonewell Publishing, 2016), Clyde N. Wilson describes the Yankee and explains how and why Yankees are the cause of nearly all of America’s problems. What follows is a synopsis of his book.

Before 1850–1860, Southerners were considered the norm in America, and Yankees were considered abnormal and a peculiar people. Following Lincoln’s War, Yankees became the norm, and Southerners became abnormal and a peculiar people. Moreover, Yankee propaganda has been so effective that most Americans now believe that the Yankees are the real founders of America and its institutions.

Philosophically, Southerners followed, and many continue to follow, the Jeffersonian branch of the Founding Fathers, which was the majority, while Yankees followed, and continue to follow, the Hamiltonian branch, which was the minority. Jefferson and his followers advocated the dispersal and decentralization of political and economic power. Consequently, they promoted a small, limited government, free markets, and free trade. Thus, the Jeffersonians believed “that the federal government was one of specific and limited authority explicit in the Constitution.” (p. 78) On the other hand, Hamilton and his followers advocated the concentration and centralization of political and economic power. Consequently, they promoted a powerful central government and a mercantile economy with government-business partnerships. Accordingly, the Hamiltonians considered “the federal government as a tool, the powers and activities of which were to be stretched and expanded at every opportunity, and the Constitution as a spring-board of power that was to be reinterpreted at will.” (p. 79) (For more on the differences between Jefferson and Hamilton, see “Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen.)

Yankees, who seek power and plunder, dominate the Northeast (New England, New York, and New Jersey), the Upper Midwest (Wisconsin, Michigan, northern Illinois, northern Indiana, and northern Ohio), Minnesota, and the Pacific Coast (California, Oregon, and Washington). However, many people in the North are not true Yankees, although many have been Yankeefied. (Unfortunately, many Southerners have also been Yankeefied.) True Yankees are descendants of the Puritan New Englanders (and the fugitives of the failed Revolution of 1848, who were easily grafted into Yankeedom).

(Fugitive socialists, communists, anarchists, and other radicals who fled Europe following the failed Revolution of 1848 reinforced the Yankees. Mostly, they settled in the Upper Midwest, where Yankees dominated. These fugitives wanted revolution and national unification — Yankee goals. Their ideology melded well with the Yankee ideology.

Likewise, most of the nineteenth-century immigrants settled in the North. As they knew nothing about American history, the political system, and the founding, they were easy victims of Yankee propaganda that persuaded them to support the Yankee agenda.)

According to Wilson, Yankees can be recognized by “their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around.” (p. 1) Additionally, Yankees are noted for their “fanaticism, and desire to lord it over the rest of us Americans — politically, economically, and culturally.” (p. 13) They are also known for their “pushiness, religious hypocrisy, and sharp trading.” (p. 19) “The Yankees are contemptuous of good manners, boastful, ever ready to cast away traditions for the newest idea, and see making money as the chief object of life. Equality and majority rule for them should determine everything — in society and culture as well as before the law.” (p. 20) If they can make money oppressing poorer citizens, they will oppress the poor. Making money is of utmost importance to Yankees. (One may notice the similarities between Yankees and stereotypical Jews.)

Yankees believe that their manners and customs are more enlightened and their intelligence and culture are superior. While extolling charity, they are parsimonious. Although they are (or were) religious fanatics, they are blackest-hearted hypocrites. “They are agitators and schemers, braggarts and deceivers, swindlers and extortions, and yet pretend to Godliness, truth, purity and humanity.” (p. 74) Before Anglo-Saxons became persona non grata, Yankees saw themselves as Anglo-Saxons, with all their virtues, and as superior to everyone else. All other Americans were lesser people. Southerners were the most depraved and had been corrupted and enervated by slavery — and even today, most still have this view of Southerners. Yankees consider themselves to be the only Americans who matter. Furthermore, they believe that they are the only real Americans.

Although Yankees have abandoned everything good in their religion, they are still convinced that “they are the chosen saints whose mission is to make America, and the world, into the perfection of their own image.” (pp. 1-2)

When the United States were formed under the Constitution of 1788, Yankees “regarded the new federal government: as an instrument to be used for their own purposes. “ (p. 5) However, Southerners saw the United States as a union of mutual cooperation.

Moreover, Yankees gave America the concept or doctrine of “the shining City upon the hill.” From a Christian perspective, this doctrine is heresy. Yet it has been the guiding force behind the bipartisan foreign policy of the United States. As a result, the United States seek to remake the world into the image of Yankeedom and to turn every human into a Yankee.

Throughout the decades, Yankees have sought to eradicate various evils from the United States. These evils include “liquor, tobacco, the Catholic Church, the Masonic order, meat-eating, [and] marriage.” (p. 10) Today, except for prohibition and possibly Masonry, they still want to rid America of these evils. Out of Yankeedom have come Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, John Humphrey Noyes free-love colony, the first feminist convention, prohibition, socialist experiments, abolitionism, and John Brown and his terrorism.

Yankees turned education “from creating good men and women to creating obedient tools.” (p. 26) Using the Republican Party, Yankees sought to create an educational “system on the statist, militarized models of Europe.” (p. 28) A “federally-controlled, universal, compulsory public schools were needed” (p. 39) to keep Blacks where they belonged — in the South.

Also, the United States have had two modes of warfare: the Southern mode of Washington and Lee and the Yankee mode of Grant and Sherman. The Southern mode “emphasizes skill, enterprise, and courage in achieving objectives with an economy of force and strives to keep warfare as honourable [sic] as possible.” (p. 27) In contrast, the Yankee mode “relies on marshalling [sic] overwhelming materiel to crush a weak opponent, heedless of the cost in life and taxes, and rewards its commanders appropriately.” The Yankee mode is “self-righteous and recognizes no ends except boastful triumph.” (p. 27)

Yankees are notorious for spewing slander and hatred toward Southerners because Southerners are the greatest obstacle to Yankee domination. They hate Southerners because Southerners oppose the pride and profits of the Yankees. Southerners, led by Jeffersonian and Jacksonian republicans, defeated the New England leadership and mostly thwarted the advancement of the Yankee agenda of controlling the United States until 1860, after which they gained control of the country and still control it.

Moreover, the South stood in the way of the Yankee vision of the American Union, i.e., “powerful unified ‘nation’ with a unique holy mission.” (p. 86) Therefore, the South had to be conquered and turned into subservient provinces, preferably without Southerners.

Furthermore, Yankees cannot tolerate contented people. That is another reason that Yankees hate Southerners, who are generally contented. This has been a primary reason that Yankees tried to genocide Southerners with Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction (both the First Reconstruction and the Second Reconstruction).

Another reason that they hate the South is that “Yankees have no civilization — only money and ideology.” (p. 15) However, the South has a real culture about which books, poems, and songs are written. Yankeedom does not.

Nevertheless, Yankees need the South and Southerners. Without them, Yankees would wither away for the want of someone to abuse and to feel superior to (see “Yankees Need the South” by Thomas Allen).

Since the ratification of the Constitution, and even before, Yankees have caused most of America’s problems. They are descendants of New England Puritans. Puritans settled in New England and began erecting “a shining City upon the hill.” This City would be an example for all mankind of a superior society. After they abandoned Christianity, the Puritan Yankees not only kept their overdeveloped righteousness, but they also exaggerated it.

With Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction, “[t]he North sought to convert a Union made for brotherhood and mutual benefit into a ‘nation’ which they would dominate in their own interest.” (p. 59) This goal they accomplished. From the beginning of the union formed by the Constitution of 1788, Yankees have been working to achieve this goal. From the beginning, Yankees “opposed every good measure under the U.S. government and clamoured [sic] for special privileges for themselves.” (p. 59). Until recent decades, Yankees have been proponents of high tariffs on imports to force Americans to buy Yankee-manufactured products. Thus, they increased their wealth by reducing everyone else’s standard of living.

The South was preventing Yankees from perfecting the American people, i.e., forming them into the image of a Yankee. Therefore, the South had to be conquered and Southerners genocided.  By the 1830s, “many Yankees were discontented people looking for something or someone to blame for the uneasiness they felt as their society suffered through religious breakdown, industrialisation [sic] with its accompanying dislocation and periodic unemployment, and a flood of non-Anglo-Saxon, non-Protestant immigrants.” (p. 70) Consequently, they blamed the South and slavery for their problems. After all, Yankees knew that “Southerners were an alien, lazy, violent people, lacking the sober virtues of Northerners.” (p. 70)

(For more on Yankees, see “The Yankee,” “The Puritan Yankee,” and “Cusson’s Description of the Yankee” by Thomas Allen.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social articles.

A Comparison of Two Factions

A Comparison of Two Factions

Thomas Allen

Below, two major factions in America are compared. Do you relate more to Faction X or Faction Y? To find out, take the following test.

1 X: Adheres to the idea that the Constitution is an agreement among the people of the several States that means what it says (strict constructionism).

Y: Believes that the Constitution is an instrument that the people who control the federal government use and manipulate to achieve their goals; a living Constitution.

2 X: Adheres to federalism and constitutionalism — States’ rights and the constitutional separation of powers.

Y: Adheres to consolidation and centralization — consolidating all power in the federal government.

3 X: Maintains that “we the people” of each State, acting independently, are the final judges of the limits of the federal government.

Y: Maintains that the federal government, via the Supreme Court, is the final judge of the limits of the federal government.

4 X: Believes that the country should be a federation of independent republics.

 Y: Believes that the country should be a consolidated national empire.

5 X: Considers the United States as a means for mutual cooperation.

Y: Considers the United States as a means for their own prosperity.

6 X: Supports a small, weak central government.

Y: Supports a large, strong central government.

7 X: Adheres to the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave the country.

Y: Adheres to the Constitution that Lincoln gave the country. (For the difference, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

8 X: Places individual liberty above the government.

Y: Places the government above individual liberty.

9 X: Values liberty more than equality.

Y: Values equality more than liberty.

10 X: Opposes federal intervention in local affairs.

Y: Supports federal intervention in local affairs.

11 X: Supports freedom of speech and favors open discussion even for people with whom he disagrees.

Y: Opposes freedom of speech and open discussion for people with whom he disagrees.

12 X: Adheres to the United States being a genetic country (a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country).

Y: Adheres to the United States being an exceptional, propositional, creedal country (unlike many countries today and historical countries that believed that they are or were exceptional, i.e., God’s gift to humanity, the United States really is God’s gift to humanity)

13 X: Sees the history of the United States as much more than the history of New England.

Y: Sees the history of New England as the history of the United States.

14 X: Promotes ruralism (rural areas and small towns are superior to cities and can exist and prosper independently of cities).

Y: Promotes urbanism (cities are superior to rural areas and small towns, which exist to provide resources to cities).

15 X: Adheres to localism and States’ rights.

Y: Adheres to nationalism.

16 X: Is skeptical of progress in the urbanized Puritan form.

Y: Admires and promotes progress in its urbanized Puritan form.

17 X: Holds to agrarianism and commercial capitalism.

Y: Holds to financial and industrial capitalism.

18 X: Maintains that social interactions are more important than economics.

Y: Maintains that economics (acquiring as much wealth as possible by any legal means, even if they are unethical) is more important than social interactions.

19 X: Prefers paternalism with leaders who devote themselves to selflessly promoting the welfare of the people: noblesse oblige.

Y: Prefers modern capitalism derived from Puritanism, i.e., rationalism, equality, and material productivity.

20 X: Supports aristocracy in the original sense of the word: “rule of the best,” i.e., a government led by the most virtuous or capable citizens.

Y: Supports democracy with its concomitant mediocre and demagogic leaders.

21 X: Supports free trade.

Y: Supports protective tariffs (a form of corporate welfare).

22 X: Advocates free markets and opposes corporate welfare.

Y: Advocates subsidization of business, agriculture, etc., and other forms of corporate welfare.

23 X: Favors decentralized banking.

Y: Favors centralized banking and currency manipulation.

24 X: Supports low taxes and little or no debt.

Y: Supports high taxes and high debt.

25 X: Favors little or no standing army.

Y: Favors a large standing army.

26 X: Personalizes war: People cause death and destruction; therefore, justifying war as a self-respecting response to a threat.

Y: Abstracts war: War, not people, causes death and destruction; therefore, rationalizes war as a noble crusade and vilifies the enemy. 

27 X: Finds the killing of women and children abhorrent and reprehensible.

Y: Accepts the killing of women and children if it is done in the name of human rights, democracy, equality, American righteousness, or something else that he considers noble.

28 X: Promotes a foreign policy of neutrality and nonintervention.

Y: Promotes a foreign policy of empire-building and meddling in the affairs of other countries.

29 X: Practices true diversity by leaving countries alone to develop themselves.

Y: Wants to make the world in the image of the Puritan Yankee.

30 X: Adheres to traditionalism.

Y: Adheres to progressivism.

31 X: Promotes a monoracial society.

Y: Promotes a multiracial society.

32 X: Favors morality, ethics, honor, and the idea of the gentleman.

Y: Favors abstract moralism and Puritanism.

33 X: Sees himself as guided by self-interest, vanity, lust for power and wealth, fear, and fickleness.

Y: Sees himself as governed by the highest motivations rather than the flaws of lesser humans.

34 X: Views and accepts society as it really is.

Y: Views society as it should be and proceeds to try to change it to meet the ideal (his opinion of what the ideal society ought to be).

35 X: Wants to be himself.

Y: Needs to feel superior to others.

36 X: Lets people live the life that they want to live if they do not trespass against others or common decency; wants to be left alone; believes in live and let live.

Y: Has a compulsion to force people to live the way that he (Y) wants them to live, which is usually in the image of Y, i.e., to manage other people’s lives — for their own good, of course.

37 X: Prefers honor to utility.

Y: Prefers utility to honor.

38 X: Values patriotism (love of one’s land and people) and places it above nationalism.

Y: Values nationalism (love of power and the desire for empire) and places it above patriotism.

39 X: Believes in deontology (actions based on duty, obligation, and universal moral rules; individual-centered [focusing on individual rights and duties]).

Y: Believes in utilitarianism (actions based on their consequences [the greatest good for the greatest number]; society-centered [focus on resource allocation and outcomes]).

40 X: Sees Yankees as the country’s, even the world’s, biggest problem.

Y: Sees Southerners as the country’s, even the world’s, biggest problem.

If you agree with “Faction X” 32 or more, then you relate to traditional, unreconstructed Southerners, the Jefferson-Calhoun philosophy, and the typical Democrat before the populists captured the Democratic Party in the 1890s. If you agree with “Faction Y” 32 or more, then you relate to the typical Northerner, especially the Yankee, the Hamilton-Lincoln philosophy, and the typical Republican ever since 1854, and the typical Democrat since the end of Cleveland’s presidency. However, if you agree with “Faction X” less than 32 times and with “Faction Y” less than 32 times, you may suffer from dissociative disorder — at the very least, you are inconsistent.

This test is probably best applied to others than oneself. Although they may act or think like Y, many will select X for themselves because they like to see themselves as possessing the more noble characteristics of X.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Francis’s Solution to the Race Problem

Francis’s Solution to the Race Problem

Thomas Allen

In “Prospects for Racial and Cultural Survival,” American Renaissance, March 1995, Samuel Francis presents his proposal for the survival of the White race in the United States. He rejects the “restoration of white supremacy in the political and legal sense that obtained under slavery or segregation.” Nonwhites residing in the United States should have equality of legal rights. However, Whites should be supreme in a cultural sense.

Francis identifies three things that Whites must do to regain their country and culture. First, “Whites must formulate a white racial consciousness that identifies racial and biological endowments as important and relevant to social behavior, and their own racial endowments as essential to the continuing existence of Euro-American civilization.” This formulation does not exclude other ethnic, religious, regional, or other identities, or require individuals to “yield to the collective category of race.” It means recognizing racial realities and racial-biological endowments necessary for certain kinds of human behaviors. That is, Whites possess innate political and civil characteristics necessary to make Europe and America economically and socially successful, and connate intellectual characteristics necessary for science and scholarship. Other races lack these characteristics.

Francis writes, “Racial consciousness means that we add recognition of biological and racial factors to our traditional concepts of human nature and modify both our biological and non-biological conceptions of what man is, as evidence and reason dictate. . . . But the formation of white racial consciousness does mean that whites would recognize themselves as a race and their racially based behavior as legitimate, and hence it would mean the end of tolerance for nonwhite assaults on white people and the norms of white civilization.” Thus, the norms of American society before the Civil Rights Era would be the legitimate and dominant norms. Racial guilt would end.

Second, “whites must counter the demographic threat they face from immigration and nonwhite fertility and whites’ own infertility.” Consequently, nonwhite legal immigration must be halted, and all illegal immigrants must be deported. Also, many recent legal immigrants should be repatriated. Moreover, subsidizing the birth of nonwhites through welfare programs needs to stop. Furthermore, Whites should be encouraged to bear more children.

Third, “Whites must correct the political and legal order to end the political power of nonwhite minorities and their white anti-white allies.” Therefore, all affirmative action and civil rights legislation need to be abolished. Moreover, “the federal governmental superstructure that entrenches minority power” needs to be dismantled. Furthermore, States and local governments should be allowed to govern without interference from the federal government. Additionally, private institutions should be allowed to function independently of the government.

Francis concludes:

Whites and nonwhites would enjoy equality of legal rights in the sense of those fundamental rights listed in the very first Civil Rights Act of 1866: “the inhabitants of every race . . . shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property, and shall be subject to like punishment . . . and no others.” . . . [E]quality of legal rights, equality before the law, does not mean political equality, the right to vote, or the right to hold political office, let alone social and economic equality, nor the “right” to attend the same schools, to serve on juries, to marry across racial lines, to serve in the armed forces, to eat at lunch counters, to ride on buses, to buy a house or rent a room or hold a job, to receive welfare, to be admitted to colleges and universities, to take academic degrees or to be promoted.

Individually, States could decide which of these rights to grant nonwhites, but the federal government would not. “[T]he only legal rights that either the U.S. or state governments would be required to recognize and enforce equally would be those Blackstonean rights of personal security, personal liberty, and property mentioned above.” 

Then Francis gives a brief discussion of what is needed to achieve these goals.

If the United States fail to implement Francis’s recommendations or something similar to them, they will go the way of South Africa, where Whites are open game for nonwhites because Whites are no longer humans.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues.

Clarence Thomas

Clarence Thomas

Thomas Allen

Mark Paoletta writes an excellent article about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: “What Makes Clarence Thomas Great,”  Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture,  June 2026, pages 12–15 (https://chroniclesmagazine.org/view/what-makes-clarence-thomas-great/#comment-63457). He presents Thomas as a strict constructionist, i.e., he interprets the Constitution literally and narrowly, limits the federal government’s powers to those explicitly and clearly granted in the text, and declares that all powers not expressly enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people unless the Constitution expressly denies such powers.

According to the article, Thomas claims that the Constitution is color-blind. He errs; it is not. White men wrote it for Whites and only for Whites. The Preamble tells us so.  (“We the People of the United States . . . to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Who are “ourselves” and “our posterity”? They are the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and their descendants, all of whom are Whites.) Also, the author, Charles Pinckney, of Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the US Constitution (“the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States”),  said, “At the time I drew that Constitution, I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could ever have existed. . . .” (For proof that the Constitution was written for Whites, see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?,” “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’,” and “The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People” by Thomas Allen.)

If the Constitution were color blind, the Fourteenth Amendment, which was illegally and unlawfully ratified, would not be needed except to disenfranchise Southerners. Moreover, the Congress that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment also adopted a segregated school system for the District of Columbia. Obviously, this amendment was not intended to require school integration. That is why the Supreme Court based its school desegregation decision more on sociology and foreign policy than on the Constitution. (For more on the Fourteenth Amendment, see “Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States,” “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’,” and “Before and After” by Thomas Allen.)  The constitutional rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) and Brown v. Board of Education (school desegregation) should have held that education is a State matter; the Constitution grants the federal government no authority over public education, except in the District of Columbia and the territories.

Moreover, if Thomas were a strict constructionist, he would not apply the first nine amendments, the Bill of Rights, of the Constitution to the States. Through the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court applies most of the Bill of Rights to the States via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the incorporation doctrine was not discovered until about a generation and a half after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, obviously, the drafters and ratifiers of this amendment did not intend for it to be used to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. (The constitutions of each State have their own bill of rights.) Since Thomas applies the incorporation doctrine, he is an inconsistent strict constructionist. 

In District of Columbia v. Heller (the Second Amendment confers an individual right),  Thomas, who supported the ruling, acted as a strict constructionist because the ruling applied to an agency of Congress but not to the States. However, in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, Thomas, who supported the ruling, applied the Second Amendment to the States, which was contrary to strict construction. These rulings illustrate Thomas’ inconsistency as a strict constructionist.

Furthermore, when he rules against federal laws that discriminate against Whites, he is a strict constructionist. When he rules against State laws on segregation, integration, or discrimination, he is not a strict constructionist. Such issues are reserved for the States or the people thereof under the Tenth Amendment. For the most part, Thomas, unlike most other Supreme Court Justices, is a strict constructionist.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More political articles.

Four Members of Lincoln’s Cabinet

Four Members of Lincoln’s Cabinet

Thoms Allen 

In To the Victor Go the Myths & Monuments: The History of the First 100 Years of the War Against God and the Constitution, 1776 - 1876, and Its Modern Impact (Appleton, Wisconsin: American Opinion Foundation Publishing, 2016), Arthur R. Thompson provides some interesting information about four members of Lincoln’s cabinet: William Seward, Montgomery Blair, Salmon Chase, and Edwin Stanton.

William Seward

William Seward (1801–1872) was Lincoln’s Secretary of State from 1861 to 1865. He remained President Andrew Johnson’s Secretary of State until 1869.

As part of the anti-Masonic movement, Seward helped form the Anti-Masonic Party in 1828. Later, he became a Whig, and as a Whig Senator, he wanted the United States to annex Canada.

Although he knew about John Brown’s raid on Harper's Ferry beforehand, he lied and claimed he did not learn about it until after it happened.

Though the first choice of the abolitionists for the president of the Radical Republicans at the 1860 Republican Convention was Salmon Chase, they also supported Seward, who was the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president.

Further, he opposed the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson.

Montgomery Blair

Montgomery Blair (1813–1883) was Lincoln’s Postmaster-General from 1861 to 1864. Among Lincoln’s cabinet, he was the most adamant in supporting resupplying Fort Sumter, which precipitated Lincoln’s War.

Also, Blair raised money for John Brown’s defense after his failed raid on Harper’s Ferry.

After Lincoln’s War began, Blair urged Lincoln to confiscate the estates of slave owners loyal to the South and to use the money from the sale of these estates to pay slave owners loyal to the North for their manumitted slaves. (Congress later enacted a law authorizing the confiscation of slave owners’ estates, but without compensating slave owners who emancipated their slaves. This law followed the fourth plank of the Communist Manifesto.)

Salmon Chase

Salmon Chase (1808–1873) was Secretary of the Treasury in President Lincoln's cabinet from 1861 to 1864. As Secretary of the Treasury, he supported and implemented the National Banking Act (for more about this act, see “National Banking System” by Thomas Allen) and the issuance of greenbacks (for more about greenbacks, see “The U.S. Note, 1862 – 1879" by Thomas Allen).

Chase began his political career as a radical. He was a leader of the Liberty Party and the Anti-Slavery Society. (The Liberty Party was an abolitionist party. As its name implies, the Anti-Slavery Society promoted the abolition of slavery.) Also, he helped form the Free Soil Party in 1848 and became a Senator for Ohio the following year, serving until 1855. (The Free Soil Party opposed expanding slavery into the western territories and supported preserving them for White settlers). Later, the Free Soil Party merged into the Republican Party, and Chase became the Republican Governor of Ohio from 1856 to 1860. As the governor of Ohio, Chase embraced John Brown and expressed his support for Brown. 

Additionally, Chase was part of the conspiracy to submerge the Know-Nothing Party into the Republican Party. (The Know-Nothing Party opposed immigration, especially Roman Catholic immigrants. It officially became known as the American Party.)

In 1860, the Radical Republicans promoted him as the Republican presidential candidate until he declared his support for Lincoln. In 1868, he sought unsuccessfully the presidential nomination for the Democratic Party.

After Lincoln’s War, he wanted to keep the Southern States from returning to the Union with full voting power to prevent the Radical Republicans from losing power. However, since this plan failed (it was replaced with disenfranchising many Southerners), he toured the South soliciting the Negro vote for the Radical Republicans.

In 1864, Lincoln appointed Chase as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, where he served until 1873. As Chief Justice, he ruled against the greenback, which he had promoted when he was Secretary of the Treasury. The Court ruled that the greenback was constitutional, i.e., the US government can lawfully issue legal tender paper notes, which was contrary to the understanding of the drafters of the Constitution (see “Constitutional Money” by Thomas Allen).

Edwin Stanton

Edwin Stanton (1814–1869) was Lincoln’s Secretary of War from 1861 to 1865. When Johnson succeeded Lincoln as President, Johnson fired Stanton.

Stanton was a member of President Buchanan’s Southern Rights Cabinet. Some accused him of supporting the secessionists before he joined the Radical Republicans and became Lincoln’s Secretary of War.

Like many abolitionists, Stanton supported secession until the Southern States seceded. Then, he became a Unionist. Blair and others noted Stanton’s complete lack of character.

Stanton was a close friend of Adam Gurowski. Gurowski was a student of Hegel and participated in the Polish rebellion against Russia. Also, he was a Fourierist and promoted Fourierist socialism. (As defined by Merriam-Webster, Fourierism is “a system for reorganizing society into cooperative communities of small self-sustaining groups.”) Later, he became a Russophile and promoted Russia as the head of a Pan-Slavic empire. Stanton was well aware of Gurowski’s background. Moreover, Lincoln feared Gurowski would assassinate him. 

These four men could easily be part of any post-World War II cabinet. Little philosophical differences exist between them and most other post-World War II cabinet officers.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More historical articles.