Friday, December 28, 2012

Ethnic Harmony

Ethnic Harmony
Thomas Allen

    In The Natural Law of Race Relations (1993), Laszlo Thomay presents his natural law of race relations. Based on ethnical relations in various multinational countries, he derives this law. (He uses race in the biological and national sense. Except when quoting from his book, “race” in this article refers to a biological race, such as the Negro race or Turanian race. “Nationality” means race in the national sense, such as Slovene, Basque, Sioux, or Zulu; all people of the same nationality are of the same biological race. “Ethnic” is used a broad sense to include both race and nationality.) He states the law as follows:
People of different races, nationalities, languages or cultures can not live peacefully and harmoniously within the confines of the same state if the minority exceeds a certain proportion of the total population. Exceptions may occur by virtue of reducing the effective size of the minority when the minority lives in a geographically separate area with full autonomy, and/or the minority is willing to be, and capable of being absorbed into the majority, and/or the minority is very small and avoids any action deemed to be provocative to the majority.
A shorter, but less exact, stating of this law is, “The larger and more noticeably different a minority is, the more relations between majority and minority deteriorate.”

    Maintaining good racial and ethnic relationships requires maintaining the minority below a certain percentage of the country’s population. The percentage varies, but it usually is below one to five percent. The more noticeable the minority, the more it threatens the majority; the lower the percentage is, the less it threatens the majority.

    The noticeability can be visual or audible. People of different races are visually different. They cannot overcome this difference. People who speak different languages are audibly different. If they are of the same race, they can overcome this difference, at least by the following generation, by the minority learning to speak fluently the language of the majority.

    The United States offer an example of where audible differences are overcome, but not visual differences. People from the many national groups of Europe have come to the United States. They are of the same primary race, so any visual differences are cultural, which they can change, and not biological, which they cannot change. Most of them learn to speak English. English becomes the primary language of most of their children. By the second or third generation, they are part of the majority.

    However, Blacks have been unable to fit in. Although most of the majority will deny it, the majority perceives Blacks as a threat. Audibly they are indistinguishable from the majority. Except for some recent immigrants, Blacks have spoken English for generations. However, their visual differences are highly noticeable. Being biological, these differences cannot be overcome.

    The recent onslaught of Mexican Indian and mestizo immigrants show even more striking differences from the majority. They display not only visual differences that are biological; they also display audible differences. Spanish is their primary, and for many only, language. Most have no desire to replace Spanish with English as their primary language.

    A few multiracial (or perhaps more correctly multiethnical or multinational) countries with good relationships do exist. The primary example is Switzerland. The four different nationalities are of the same race. They segregate themselves geographically. Whenever a person of one nationality moves to an area dominated by a different nationality, he is expected to adopt, and he usually does, the language of the area into which he moves.

    However, strife exists in most multiethnical countries even when the people are of the same race and segregate themselves geographically, essentially, according to their nationality. Examples of these countries are Canada, Belgium, the former Yugoslavia, the former Czechoslovakia, Nigeria, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and India.

    The way to reduce ethnic strife is to reduce the effective size of the minority. This reduction can be achieved by territorial separation, assimilation, or a cooperative attitude by the minority.

    Territorial separation within a country would require segregating minorities into definite geographical areas with definable political boundaries. Such areas should have full autonomy over domestic matters. Territorial separation explains in part the success of Switzerland. However, that the unusual conditions that account for Switzerland’s success exist else where is doubtful.

    The United States have tried internal territorial separation. The result, however, has been a failure. Indians were segregated to reservations. Instead of giving them independence on their reservations, the United States government reduced them to wards. Blacks have, in the North at least, been largely segregated to the inner parts of the large cities. They have been denied domestic autonomy. As it did the Indians, the United States government has made them wards. Furthermore, they are forced on the majority via various integrationist programs, thereby defeating the purpose of geographical separation.

    Assimilation can only work if the minority is biologically the same as the majority, i.e., of the same race, unless the majority wants to destroy itself. Assimilation has worked in the United States as far as European immigrants are concerned. Europeans are of the same race as the majority. Moreover, they are of the same basic Christian culture of Western Civilization. These immigrants desired to adopt the language and the way of life of the majority. However, the Negro differs biologically from the majority and has not been assimilated. Unless the majority, as well as the minority, are willing to destroy themselves, assimilation of different races cannot occur.

    A cooperative attitude by the minority can go a long way toward creating ethnical harmony. The minority must make no special demands. It must not complain or seek a dominating role. So, the less noticeable the minority, the better the relationship. A cooperative attitude by the minority seldom occurs unless the minority is extremely small. Nearly all minorities in the United States abhor a cooperative attitude.

    Several actions can be taken to improve ethnical harmony not only in the United States, but also globally. These actions are territorial separation and independence (the break up of empires) with border adjustment where appropriate, repatriation, and restrictions on immigration. The objective is to reduce size of the minority until it no longer matters and the majority no longer considers the minority a threat to its existence.

    Where practical each nationality should have its own independent nation-state. (About 170 countries would be required to provide each nationality of the Aryan race of any significance its own country.) The division of empires into nation-states has recently occurred with Czechoslovakia, which divide into a state for Czechs and one for Slovaks. It has occurred to a limited degree with the break up of the old Soviet Union. (To finish this process, many more nationalities in Russia will have to receive independence, and many Russians will have to be repatriated to Russia from the new nation-states of the old Soviet Union.) This solution would eliminate strife in Canada between French Quebec and English Canada, South Africa among the Afrikaans, Zulus, Xhosas, etc., Belgium between the Flemish and Walloons, the multinational countries of Europe, and just about every country in Africa where political borders were drawn for the benefit of the imperial powers with little regard for the various African nationalities. Independence is the best solution, and the solution that should be used whenever possible. (The major difficulty with creating independent nation-states will be overcoming the lust for power and empire of the governing bodies of the empires of the world. An empire is a country containing more than one significant nationality.)

    In the United States Indian reservations should be granted complete independence — at least on domestic and economic issues, if not in foreign relations. Furthermore, the United States empire should be divided into several independent federations.

    A possible solution to the Negro problem would be to create independent states similar to Indian reservations for Blacks. Political boundaries could be drawn around areas inhabited predominately by Blacks. These areas would include a large fraction of the major cities and parts of the rural South.

    Once nation-states have been created for each nationality, some border adjustments may be necessary. Such adjustments are likely to be needed in Europe and Asia where historical provincial and regional boundaries often encompass minorities who are the majority in the adjacent state. The map of Africa would have to be completely redrawn. The objective is to create a separate, homogenous state for each nationality without any minority.

    Once each nationality has its own independent nation-state, it would have to take steps to prevent future minority problems. Severe restrictions would have to be placed on immigration. Immigration should be limited to nationalities that the receiving country can assimilate. The number of immigrants should be restricted so that they can be assimilated.

    Recent arrivals (any post World War II immigrants and their descendants) who have not been assimilated should be repatriated. Repatriation could be used on older unassimilated minorities who have identifiable homelands to which to return. Since World War II, several countries have resorted to repatriation to protect their majority. These include Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania expelling Asian Indians. In North America some Indian tribes have expelled from their reservations non-Indians who have been living there for years.

    Liberals, neo-conservatives, libertarians, shallow thinkers, and far too many theologians would object to restricting immigration. They would argue that people have a right to move to any country to which they desire, to retain their religion, language, and special culture, and to transmit these values to their offspring. Their objection to immigration restriction rests on a false premise that people have a right to go wherever they please. People have no such right. No one has the right to enter and occupy someone else’s territory unless he is invited and accepted. This principle is as true of a collective national domicile as it is of an individual private domicile. The people of the receiving country have the right to decide whom they will invite
.
    When immigration is not controlled, the majority risks losing its territory to a minority, who supplant them as the new majority. A classic example is the United States and Canada where Europeans supplanted the Indians. Albanians have replaced the Serbs as the majority in the former Serbian region of Kosova. Fijians are on the verge of losing their country to Asian Indians, who are now the majority. (Fiji presents an interesting situation where the minority would have to repatriate the majority to regain its country.) Uncontrolled immigration can destroy a people.

    When a minority race or nationality exceeds a certain fraction of the population of a country, ethnic strife erupts. Ethnic strife can be lessened by internal geographical separation, assimilation, and a cooperative attitude by the minority. Assimilation is not practical or possible when the majority and minority are of different races. Geographically separation does not work in countries that promote integration. Minorities abandon their cooperative attitudes once they exceed a certain fraction of the population. The only long-term solution to ethnical strife is for each nationality to have its own independent nation-state. To prevent future ethnic strife, these nation-states need to restrict immigration to those nationalities that they can assimilate and to such number as can be assimilated. Keeping minorities to a very small number will eliminate ethnic strife.

Copyright © 1996, 2011 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Slavery Not the Reason

Slavery Not the Reason
Thomas Allen

    The protection of slavery was not and could not have been the primary reason for the Southern States seceding. Slavery was protected in the United States and would have continued been protected had they not seceded. Even if their secession were successful, slavery would have been less protected in a free South than if the Southern States had remained part of the United States. The preservation of slavery must have been a minor reason for secession.

    If the Southern States remained in the Union, Southerners could emigrate to the territories of the United States and settle there with their slaves. The Compromise of 1850 allowed slaveholders to settle with their slaves in the territories of Utah and New Mexico. (These territories along with California were taken from Mexico in 1848 as a result of the Mexican War.) The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowed slaveholders to settle with their slaves in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. Congress would not decree whether these territories would enter the Union as slave States or nonslave States. The people of each territory would decide that when they applied for statehood. This act also repealed the restrictions of the Missouri Compromise; thus it opened the northern territories (Colorado, Dakota, Montana, and Idaho) up to slavery. In 1857 the Supreme Court ruled in the Dread Scott case that slaveholders had the constitutional right to carry their slaves into the territories and that Congress could not deprive them of this right. Thus, by 1860 Southerners had won their right to emigrate to the territories and settle with their slaves.

    Outside the Union, however, Southerners would not have this right. If the Southern States were an independent country, a Southerner carrying his slaves into a State (even a slave State) or territory of the United States would have been in violation of the law. The importation of slaves into the United States was illegal. If, as often claimed, slavery needed to expand into the territories in order to survive, then secession would have surely destroyed slavery without war. With the Southern States outside the Union, slavery would have been practically nonexistent in the territories. If slavery needed to expand to survive, then slavery would have died with an independent South. For there would have been no place for slavery to expand.

    If the Southern States remained in the Union, the federal government would apprehend runaway slaves and return them to their owners. The federal government had enacted fugitive slave laws with efficient provisions for their enforcement by federal officials. If the Southern States were an independent country, slaveholders would lack this guarantee. That the United States would have entered into a treaty with the Confederacy to return runaway slaves was doubtful.

    The remarks made by the Republican Party leaders between the election and the outbreak of the War indicated that the Republicans were not going to abolish slavery.

    The platform of the Republican Party stated that the Republican Party did not intend to abolish slavery. The platform declared:
The maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially of each State, to order and control its own domestic institutions, according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to the balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend.
    Emancipation was a decision that each State should be free to make for itself.

The platform did state a desire to prohibit slavery in the territories, which was contrary the Supreme Court’s ruling. However, Southerners gave up their right to emigrate to the territories with their slaves when they seceded. With secession this plank became a nonissue.

(On December 20, South Carolina seceded.)

    In correspondence to Alexander Stephens dated December 22, 1860, Lincoln wrote:
Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with the slaves, or with them about the slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and I still hope not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.
(On January 9, Mississippi seceded. On January 10, Florida seceded. On January 11, Alabama seceded.)

    In January of 1861, Congress adopted a resolution declaring that it recognized:
Slavery as now existing in fifteen of the United States, by the usage and laws of those states, and we recognize no authority, legal or otherwise, outside of a state where it exists, to interfere with slaves or slavery in such states.
(On January 19, Georgia seceded. On January 26, Louisiana seceded. On February 1, Texas seceded.)

    In February the House of Representatives adopted a resolution declaring:
that neither the Federal Government, nor the people, have a purpose or a constitutional right to legislate upon or interfere with slavery in any of the states of the Union.
and
that those persons in the North who do not subscribe to the foregoing propositions are too insignificant in numbers and influence to excite the serious attention or alarm of any portion of the people of the Republic.
This resolution was passed by a Republican controlled House.

    Congress, with both Houses controlled by the Republican Party, adopted and sent to the States for ratification the following as an amendment to the United States Constitution:
Article 13. No amendment shall be made to the constitution which shall authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish, or to interfere within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said state.
    The House of Representatives passed this amendment on February 28, 1861. The Senate passed it on March 2, 1861. Lincoln expressed his approval of the amendment.

    On March 4, 1861, in his inaugural address Lincoln declared:
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
    On April 12, 1861, South Carolina fired on Fort Sumpter in response to Lincoln’s provocation to re-enforce the fort. On April 15, 1861, Lincoln called for troops from the States. Following Lincoln’s call for troops was when the Upper South seceded.

(On April 17, Virginia seceded. On May 6, Arkansas seceded. On May 20, North Carolina seceded. On June 24, Tennessee seceded.)

    For the Upper South, the immediate cause of the War was Lincoln’s calling for troops to carry out his illegal act of suppressing the right of the Southern States to secede and form a new government.

    The protection of slavery could not have been much of a reason for the Upper South — or the Lower South, for that matter — seceding. Slavery was a protected institution in the United States. Base on the remarks and actions of the Republican leadership in the months preceding the War, it would have continued to be protected.

    In a resolution adopted on July 22, 1861, the United States Congress expressed its purpose for waging the War. The resolution read:
This war is not waged, on our part, in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states; but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the constitution, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; that, as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease.

    Not only was the abolition of slavery not even considered at issue, but Congress stressed that it would be preserved.

(On October 31, Missouri seceded. On November 20, Kentucky seceded.)

    So much for slavery as the reason for secession and the cause of the War.

Appendix 1
    In an address to the Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861, President Davis summarized the reason for secession and the ensuring war as follows:
By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as majority to govern the minority. Without control, they learn to listen with impatience to the suggestion of any constitutional impediment to the exercise of their will, and so utterly have the principles of the Constitution been corrupted in the Northern mind that, in the inaugural address delivered by President Lincoln in March last, he asserts a maxim which he plainly deems to be undeniable, that the theory of the Constitution requires, in all cases, that the majority shall govern. And in another memorable instance the same Chief Magistrate did not hesitate to liken the relations between States and the United States to those which exist between the county and the State in which it is situated, and by which it was created.
This is the lamentable and fundamental error in which rests the policy that has culminated in his declaration of war against these Confederate States.
Appendix 2
    The following is an excerpt from an editorial appearing in the January 15, 1861, issue of The Daily Picayune commenting on the absurdity and hypocrisy of a war to save the Federal Union:
The favorite form of expression in which these resolves are clothed is that, it is the first and highest duty “to maintain the Union.” But a Union upheld by a war, which is made necessary by the revolting of many large and powerful States from an unfriendly and oppressive Government[,] is condemned at once by the act. When armies and fleets are employed to keep a confederation of States together, it is a mockery to send them forth as messengers of union. It is for the subjugation of the minority section to the will of the majority, and every element which makes it a circle of consenting States in a harmonious Union disappears under the crushing process. To talk of war, therefore, as the means of perpetuating a Union is a mockery. It might perpetuate a Government, but that Government will cease to be a federative one, and will contain within itself essential traits of a military despotism — the retention, by superior force, of an unwilling people in political bondage, to a Government which they had unanimously risen to throw off. The Government so established, if such a monstrous thing could ever be established, would have no principles remaining in common with those which make the true theory of the constitution of the present Government, a departure from which has brought on the present convulsion. A war to “maintain the Union” is simply, therefore, a war to extinguish the Union, and to maintain a Government such as was never contemplated by any of the States which compose it, and which would not be tolerated by any State now, if there were a question of creating or restoring a Government.
Appendix 3
    Commenting on the Gettysburg Address and the battle of Gettysburg, H. L. Mencken wrote the following:
Think of the argument in it [the Gettysburg Address]. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States: The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country — and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in-the penitentiary.
Copyright © 1988 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on the South. 


Saturday, November 3, 2012

A Tribute to My Deb

A Tribute to My Deb
Thomas Allen

    It has been a year since my Deb past away. When she died, the best part of me died with her. Deb, I miss you, need you, and love you more than ever.
    The following are some random thoughts about Deb. There is some repetition. You will notice I often contrast Deb with me: She is an angel who walks on water, and I am less than nothing.

‒ These are the words that began the only years of real happiness and joy I have ever known: "Country lady, 27, wildlife artist, seeks loving lifemate to share adventures. Marigold." Deb, why you picked me out of the 100+ who wrote you, I may never know. But I am glad that you did.

‒ Deb, I don’t know how you put up with me for 30 years. But I am glad that you did. You gave me 30 years of happiness and joy — the only years of happiness and joy that I ever had. You must have had an enormous amount of love for me to put up with me for all those years with hardly a complaint. More than once did you tell me that it was a good thing you you loved me after I did something to upset you. You are the only woman who not only could tolerate my existence for more than a few hours or weeks, you actually wanted to be with me. You wanted to be with me year after year. No other woman ever made it beyond a few weeks; most could not tolerate being around me for more than a few hours.

‒ Deb, these are some of the things that I liked about you; they are in no particular order of importance. You tolerated my existence. Moreover, most of the time you wanted to be with me or at least have me around. You came to love me so much that you could put up with me for 30 years. You accepted me mostly as I am and never really tried to change me. (Because of you, I did change some and polished my rough edges.) You were a great motivator but never nagged. For me your presence was enough to motivate me. You gave me purpose and direction. You surrendered yourself to me about as completely as a woman could. You were great in bed, in the yard, and everywhere else. You were not much of a complainer. You were easygoing, cheerful, optimistic, compassionate, understanding, loyal, and faithful. Also, you were an attractive, frugal, low-maintenance woman who had discernment and intelligence and a good deal of common sense. Not only were you a great wife, you were a great mother. You cared about me and for me. Even when I was wrong, you stood by me. Even when I embarrassed you, you stood by me although you would let me know that I had embarrassed you. (You did a better job of standing by me than I did you.) You trusted me to support you and the children.
    Although I feel as though I failed you at the end, I always tried to take care of you. I tried to free you up so that you could concentrate on the two things that you valued most: your family and art. I devoted myself to you and was loyal and faithful to you. Although I fantasied about other women, I never seriously sought out anyone else or even wanted to. I never looked for temptation (I don’t know if temptation ever really looked for me. If it did, I was not paying attention.) I only wanted you; I desiderated you. When I retired, and even before, I tried to set up our finances so that you would be taken care of financially as I expected you to out live me by many years. (As you were 7 years younger than I, you should have out lived me by at least 15 years.) I considered supporting you and taking care of you a privilege and an honor. I love you dearly. Somewhere along the way, I came to love you so much that your flaws and shortcomings not only became irrelevant, they became an essential part of you to be loved and cherished along with the rest of you. (You must have reached that point with me to live with me for 30 years.)

‒ Deb, when I had you as my copilot, I never had to concern myself with hyper drivers getting to me. As my copilot, you took care of that for me. You would be the one to get irritated at their stupidity and do the yelling, not very loud, and making the sarcastic remarks.

‒ I missed not having you as my navigator. You were not a good navigator, but you were better than no navigator.

‒ In Dune there is a place that terrorizes women, a place that they fear even to look. I am that place. Only you, Deb, ever drank the water of life and went there. I doubt anyone else will ever follow you. Deb, you are unique among womankind.

‒ I don’t recall what we were talking about, but I do remember telling you that I liked taking you places. I wanted people to see me with you. I wanted to show you off.

‒ After we came back from our trip to the mountains last April (2011), you said that you wanted to clean up the trailer so that you could work on your large paintings. So, I repacked and rearranged the things that our youngest son left behind when he went to Philadelphia to make more room and cleaned the trailer for you. Unfortunately, you never got to work on another large painting. (Except for her ACEOs and the few paintings that she did when she was part of the gallery in Wake Forest, she did nearly all her paintings in the trailer.)

‒ Once I get our youngest son’s things and inheritance out of the trailer, I want to clean it up and do some rearranging. Then I can display your gourds. My heart breaks then and now as I think about your effort and hard work to do those gourds — and almost no one wanted to buy your beautiful and often humorous gourds. I know you were also disappointed.

‒ Deb, one of the multitude of things that I liked about you was that you were quick to forgive me. Whenever I disappointed or displeased you, you quickly forgave me if you ever condemned me. Unlike nearly every other woman whom I disappointed and displeased, you never carried a grudge against me. Most others have been unforgiving and would carry the grudge to the grave with them.

‒ Deb, you are the only woman who never let me down. You were always there and always stood by me even when I was wrong. You are the only woman to value me enough to give herself up to me. I doubt that another will ever come into my life.

‒ Deb, you were a great motivator. I am amazed at how much I was able to accomplish when you were with me — especially compared to how little I accomplish without you. All you had to do to motivate me was to be there. (Another one of your many virtues was that you did not nag.)

‒ I used to tell Deb that I was glad that I met her later in life instead of earlier. By meeting her later, I appreciated her much more. After enduring the misery of the 1970s, I realized what a precious, priceless treasure I had in Deb.

‒ In my relationship with you, Deb, I certainly came out ahead. I got a high quality woman with an enormous amount of virtue and very few flaws and shortcomings. You got a highly flawed low quality man with a huge amount of shortcomings. What you saw in me, I do not know and may never know. But you saw something in me that no one ever did, ever has, or ever will. You are the only woman who ever really wanted to be with and probably will be the only one whoever does. When I consider all my flaws and shortcomings, which far, far outweigh anything positive about me, I am amazed that you gave me a second look much less stayed with me for 30 years.

‒ Several months before Deb became ill, she made a comment about dying. I told her that she would break my heart. I did not realize how severely she would break it. Her death totally shattered my heart.

‒ Deb, the love that I had for you on January 1, 1982, when I married you was nothing compared to the love that I had for you on November 3, 2011, or even today. Forgive me Deb for not treating you as good as I should have and for not doing the things for you that I should have done.

‒ I have been going through Deb's files and putting her drawings, sketches, writings, etc. in notebooks and posting some on the internet. I have rediscovered some of her dreams that she never fulfilled. She wanted to draw and published a child’s book, but never did. She did draw and print several Tempus puzzle booklets for children, but I do not recall her ever selling any. She did send it to some publishers, but was rejected. She wanted to illustrate and published her mother’s book. I found a number of drawings of seagulls, which I assume that she wanted to use some of them to illustrate her mother’s book. Also, she wanted to be a cartoonist. So far as I know, none of her cartoons were ever published although some were great. She also drew and wrote several small cartoon books, but I don't think that she ever sold any.

‒ In one folder, I found work that Deb had done for the church and school where our children went. She was a volunteer art teacher at that school for a few years until the school discontinued its art program. (I found a protest cartoon that she did about that decision.) A  year later, the school reestablished an art program and hired a teacher. It never even considered Deb for the job, which sadden her and angered me.

‒ I found sketches and pictures of the scenery that she painted for Neuse Baptist Church Christmas show. For the art work that she did for the church and school excluding the teaching, they would have to have spent thousands of dollars. Also, I found letters that I wrote to the school leaders protesting them calling my wife a liar and my daughter a homicidal slut. Then they cast my wife aside and basically drove us from the school unless we kowtowed to their dictates. They seemed to be glad that we left. There were many good people there, and the pastor was kind and compassionate (although he appears to have done nothing to resolve the conflict between the school leaders and my wife and later me and my daughter), but the leadership that established itself around the pastor, church, and school was autocratic and unyielding. In their minds, they knew everything. (At least some justice was done. The girl who was causing problems for my daughter and getting her in trouble at the school ended up in prison. Proof that a “Dr.” in front of a name or “PhD” after a name is no evidence of discernment, wisdom, or common sense as all three of the school leaders who attacked Deb and my daughter had doctoral degrees.)

‒ As I have told several people that I am one of the few people for whom the greatest artist of the last 50 years drew or painted a portage. Deb did an ink drawing of me in a Confederate uniform on a horse. She did one of the pastor of our church standing with lions. This same wonderful artist also did several self-portraits. Seeing Deb’s drawings in her files only reenforce my conclusion: She was a genius. Not only was she a highly skilled drawer and artist, she drew and painted with humor. Many of her drawings and paintings revival her humor, especially in the later years. Unfortunately, few people recognized her talents and abilities. I hope that in the years to come she will be recognized as the talented genius that she really was. The few who bought her work may have a valuable treasure in the years to come. (I have absolutely no bias for Deb's work.)

‒ I found that she made great use of the scrape paper that I brought home. Many of her drawings and writings were done on the back of that scrape paper. Needless to say, I have shed many tears as I have gone through Deb’s files.

‒ This year (2012) was the first time in two decades that I did not go to pick strawberries. Deb, you made excellent strawberry jam and strawberry shortcake. Some people may have made better jam and shortcake, but you made yours with love.

‒ Those of you who have not read Deb's blogs ought to. Here is one of her most philosophical blogs:
    If you don’t like God talk don’t read this.
    I know you can’t buy your stairway to heaven. Some people try by doing all sorts of things for their church and giving huge amounts of money. No God doesn’t want what he already owns to begin with. As an artist I was guilty of thinking that giving my artwork and art teaching away to a church would bring me closer to God and he would bless me with lots of art buyers. Big mistake because the more I gave the more the people in the church took without buying my art. God does love a cheerful giver but you need to be sure it is God you are giving too. Charity has to come from love to be cheerful. God really wants us follow his commandments, give him our love and have faith in him to take care of us. So I let go of the greedy church, I moved on to a place I could worship a loving God and give without threats from a church. Only then did I really see all the blessing God had already given me.

‒ In a few of her blogs, Deb wrote about things that she wanted to do or planned to do in the future. Now that future is forever gone. Before she died, she was thinking  of many things to paint. When in the hospital, she told me that when she got out, we could do a book together about her ordeal. I would write it, and she would illustrate it. Her failing to live to do these things is a great lost to the world.

‒ Deb, I will miss you at apple harvest time. You made life easier. When I had a big harvest, I could stack baskets of apples 3 and 4 high on the cart, and you would steady the load as I hauled it to the trailer. Now I will have to double my trips. When I ran short of jugs, you would wash some more while I continued to press. Also, I will miss your apple strudel. When we had a big harvest like that of 2010, you would make apple butter and applesauce. You processed the apples from trees that produced too few to juice.

‒ Deb, I will miss you when the grapes come in. You helped me pick and juice them. Without you helping me, it takes twice as long. When the freezers were full, you would make grape jam. Usually, I did the sticky  work of separating the pulp from the hulls. (She made several batches in 2010.)

‒ Deb, I miss you when I go Christmas shopping. I miss not having you at my side questioning just about everything that I suggest for a present and often saying no. It was somewhat irritating then as you seldom offered any suggestions, but now I miss it.

‒ In 2009, Deb made and gave me a video for Valentine's Day. It was the greatest Valentine's gift that I have ever received and one of my greatest presents. As Deb's song, “Our House” by Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, says in her video, “life used to be so hard, but everything is easy because of you.” Well, Deb, you made everything easy for me. Even in the worst of times, things were easy because of you. Now they are again hard. “Our house is a very, very, very fine house.” It was an extremely fine home when you were in it. Now it has an immense void that is swallowing me up. Deb, you did “play those love songs all night long for me, just for me.” I hope that I did the same for you. “Only for you,” for you Deb. You were my “unchained melody.” Only you are the ghost instead of me. I hunger for your touch; I need your love. The only thing that remains is “two cats in the yard.” Deb, you are my soul and my inspiration. I never had much, but at least I had you. You were all that I needed to get me by. You were my reason for being. Without you, what good am I? I can’t make it without you. When I play this video, it tears me to pieces.

‒ Deb, you wanted so much for everyone to be happy and to get along with each other. I am glad that I was able to free you of financial worries so that you could concentrate on the two things you valued most: raising your family and doing your art. I enjoyed supporting you and trying to relieve you of as much worry and concern as possible. I always tried to support you in whatever you did although I often did an inadequate job.

‒ In one of her messages on Facebook, Deb commented that I was taking her to a cookout that she did not want to go to, but she was going to it because she thought I wanted to go. The main reason that I wanted to go was because I thought she wanted to go. I was taking her so that she could get out of the house and be with some of her friends for an afternoon. If I had known that she did not want to go, we would not have gone.

‒ In the early years of our marriage, Deb would help in the garden. Mostly, her help was as a sidewalk supervisor. But she did plant some seeds and help me with things that required more than one person or were much easier with two. As the kids got old enough to help, she began doing less and less. However, her presence always provided purpose and motivation. We always had an area for her to plant her flowers. In latter years, planting flowers and cutting asparagus were about all that she did in the garden other than helping me cut plastic and fold nets as these jobs require two people. Several years ago, I planted a new asparagus bed for her. The other asparagus bed had gone to weed years earlier. She also knew where the wild asparagus were growing and would keep an eye on them and harvest them. Since she liked French, I planted a French variety of garlic for her. Unfortunately, she never got to use any.

‒While cleaning out some old files, I came across a letter that I wrote a few years before I met Deb. It reminded me of what Deb saved me from and what she shielded me from for 30 years. For 30 years I actually mattered to someone. In essence, I am not a desirable person to be around. Deb saw something in me desirable and stayed with me for 30 yeas. Whatever it was, I don't know, but I am glad that she found it.

‒ Although I angered you at times, Deb, you always cared about me. Although I disappointed you at times, you never disappointed me and, more importantly you never rejected me. You were always there for me. You seemed to always find me desirable; I always found you desirable. You always made me feel loved, needed, and wanted.

‒ I was once asked what was on my bucket list. I did not answer because I cannot achieve what is on my bucket list. My bucket list was to celebrate my 50th wedding anniversary with Deb in the house that we built.

‒ When going through Deb’s things, I found her bucket list. She wanted to do some things that she never did. I did not get around to doing them for her — mostly because I did not know about them. If she had lived longer, we would have done many of them, especially if she had told me.

‒ Once the blueberry bushes started really producing, we got more blueberries than we knew what to do with. One way Deb found to use blueberries was to make blueberry pancakes. For about 20 years before she became too ill to cook, we had blueberry pancakes nearly every Sunday morning. She also made many very delicious blueberry muffins. A few times she made blueberry jam.

‒ Deb and I seemed to have spoiled each other without even trying. By the time I retired, Deb’s work load had been reduced to processing the harvest (except juicing apples and grapes and shelling the beans and peas), cooking meals, washing dishes, doing laundry, taking out the cat box when she couldn’t get the kids to do it, and planting her flowers (I prepared the bed and did the weeding for her). I tried to free her up so that she had a good deal of time for painting, reading, surfing the web, etc.

‒ When Deb’s gardenia bloomed this year (2012), it was so loaded with flowers that the flowers weighted the branches to the ground. It was as though the bush was weeping for Deb. Deb’s mother gave her that bush. Deb loved that bush and its flowers.

‒ Moving from sweat to stench, I doubt that Deb is missing the chestnuts in bloom with their unforgettable foul stench. The best use that was ever made of the chestnuts was Deb and the kids roasting them in a fire to hear them pop. If I had it to do over again. I would not plant chestnuts.

‒ Deb liked garden peas, especially fresh from the garden. She froze the excess and used them in various dishes, especially her chicken and rice, chicken and noodles, and beef and rice dishes.

‒ Deb was not an easy person to anger. That is one of the multitude of things that I liked about her. The angriest that I recall seeing her occurred at a street show in Wake Forest. She was displaying and selling her art from her art car. A woman stopped with her daughter and admired one of Deb’s paintings. As they walked away, the woman commented to her daughter that Deb was using paint-by-the-numbers kits. Deb started after that woman to give her the lecture of her life. I thought I was going to have to grab her to restrain her. But Deb cooled off before she got to the woman and returned to the car while muttering her dislike of the woman’s comment.

‒ Deb had one virtue that far, far out weighted all her flaws. Not only did she tolerate my existence, she actually wanted me around. Although I know some people did not love her, it is beyond me why anyone could not love her.

‒ Deb, I was extremely happy with you as my wife and with my life with her. Your being filled my life with joy. I had more than I ever expected or could have hoped for and more than I deserved.

‒ Deb, a major part of my problem is that I love you too damn much. When I married you, I loved you dearly and more deeply than I have ever loved anyone. I devoted myself to you and made your happiness the top priority. Your welfare was of supreme importance. All that I had was yours. All these feelings were nothing compared to what was later to come.
    Somewhere around 1995-1996 after our last major argument, something changed in me toward you — more subconsciously than consciously. You became my focus, my reason for being. Over time, you became more of me than I was of myself. I started doing more for you and reducing your choirs. I left you a few things to do so you had something to do and could feel like you were contributing. I tried to set up our finances so that at least you would be financially taken care of after I was gone.

‒ I would rather go through what I am going through now than have you go through it. I wish that I could have borne your illness for you. Nevertheless, you bore it better than I would or could have. You could endure my lost better than I can endure yours.

‒ I usually went to bed before Deb did. After I was in bed, she would come up and take her shower. I surely miss seeing her walking across the room and getting into bed after her shower.

‒ Deb, I miss not having you at my side when I go to sleep and wake up. You probably won more of the blanket battles than I did. I don’t recall seeing the blanket on the floor on my side of the bed. It did occasionally end up on the floor on your side. I have the tendency to push the blanket down when I first get into bed after getting out of a hot shower. Then when I cool off, I pull it up. When I pushed the blanket down, your shoulders were exposed and cold. We solved that problem by your using a small blanket to cover your shoulders.

‒ Deb and I used to save fan blades. She painted patterns on the blades. Then she put the blade on a shaft and attach the shaft to a pole. The wind blew; the blade turned. No longer do I need to save fan blades for her. When the wind finally destroys the two in the yard, no longer will I have the pleasure of seeing Deb’s fan blades turn in the wind.

‒ Deb and I used to save old speakers. She took the magnet out of the speaker. Then she sprayed foam over the magnet. Sometimes with a little carving and sometimes without carving, she had a figure. Next she painted the figure. At a few of her street shows, she sold these figures. Children really liked them. No longer do I need to save old speakers for her.

‒ Several years ago, I made Deb a pair of moccasins from a kit. They did not fit her. She had feet that were uncommonly wide for a woman. They were blocky. She saw the disappointment in my face when they did not fit. To make me feel better, she wore them several days anyway.

‒ Deb, you always protected me and frequently kept me from getting into trouble. By nature, I am a trusting person — often too trusting. At times I would agree to things that I should not have. If you were around, you would halt the agreement. After I thought about what you did, I knew that you were right. No longer do I have you to protect me from my folly.

‒ We had a Jonathan apple tree that died some years ago. Deb like Jonathan apples. Several years ago, I planted another one. That tree has yet borne an apple. When it does bear, Deb will not be around to enjoy any of its apples.

‒ Deb, you did make me happy; I hope I made you at least as half as happy as you made me. You did more for me than anyone, including you and me, can ever realized or ever will realize.

‒ I regret not being a better husband and a better friend. Moreover, I regret not doing more for you, Deb. You loved me more than I thought was possible (you had to have an immense amount of love for me to put up with me for 30 years). You  made my life easy and joyful. I miss serving you.

‒ Deb, I surely miss you. It is not the things that you did for me that I really miss although I do miss them. What I really miss are the intangibles that you gave me: love, devotion, caring, cheerfulness, optimism, joy, happiness, friendship, companionship, and the like. Moreover, I miss devoting myself to you, giving to you, caring for you, taking care of you, providing for you, supporting you, sharing life with you, going places with you, etc. I miss you not being in the house when I come in from doing yard work.

‒ One good thing about Deb dying before me, if it can be called good, is that she is not having to go through what I am going through. I am convinced, though, that she could handle it better than I; she was always better at such things than I.

‒ I have been told that no one dies from a broken heart. That may be true. But one can certainly die with a broken heart.

‒ Deb, the longer that you are gone from me, the more I miss you and the more I realize how much I love you and need you. You were, are, always will be, and probably have been since the beginning of time, my desideratum. When I look at your chair and you are not there. . . .

‒ I will always love you, Deb, and shall never forget you and the joy, happiness, contentment, and purpose that you brought me. As I told one person, I cannot forget the 30 happiest years of my life. Deb, I am gradually returning to “normal” — or at least what can pass for normal without you. However, I still feel as though I am going through the motions without purpose, direction, or motivation.

‒ Thanks to you, Deb, I did achieve much of what I set out to accomplish that was really important. I got a good homestead where my family could be raised. I married a fantastic woman, who loved me, devoted herself to me, and took care of me and whom I loved, devoted myself to, and took care of. We had three children (we originally wanted four, but health issues of yours caused us to stop at three); all of whom have turned out good. As a bonus, I got two grandchildren. I was fortunate enough to have a job that could support my family without scrimping although our budget was tight for about the first 15 years. I wish that I could have figured out how to have given you the kitchen that you wanted. I wish that I was a great promoter and marketer so that I could have gotten your paintings sold. Also, I wished that I had started taking you on weekly trips in 2008 instead of 2010. I regret not being able to celebrate our 50th wedding anniversary together.

‒ Deb. I surely do miss you. I miss not taking showers with you. I miss you not fixing meals for me. I miss not eating with you. I miss you not being in the house when I come in from feeding the animals or doing yard work. I miss not seeing you going to the mailbox as I am also going. I miss you not being with me when I go to the post office, the hardware store, the building supply store, and the grocery store. I miss not having you at my side when I go to sleep and when I wake up. I miss you not being next to me when I watch a movie. I miss your help, your advice, your hugs and kisses, and your love. I never knew I could ever miss anyone as much as I miss you, Deb. The hardest thing that I have ever had to do is to go on without you.

‒ No one could ever have been as good of a wife for me as you were. You were the best — the very best. Deb, I had a great adventure with you. I hope you had one with me.

Copyright © 2012 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on Deb. 

Sunday, October 21, 2012

States’ Rights

States' Rights

Thomas Allen

I

    The essence of States’ rights is the dispersal and decentralization of political power. Its opposite is consolidation, which is the concentration and centralization of political power. The republican principle of not concentrating absolute political power in any one individual or body is a States’ rights principle. Because it disperses rather than concentrates political power, States’ rights is an antidemocratic principle. Democracy concentrates absolute political power in the majority.

    States’ rights does not mean the right of the States to do as they please. To the contrary, it limits the ability of the States to do as they please. 

    Whenever and wherever States’ rights is accepted as a valid principle, political subdivisions are able to judge the legality and constitutionality of acts of the government above them and are able to veto those acts judged illegal and unconstitutional. In a federation, be it a true federation or a pseudo federation, each State of that federation is able to judge the acts of the federal government and interpose and veto acts of the federal government, so far as they apply to that State, when that State deems them illegal or unconstitutional. (A true federation is a confederation of several States. The United States prior to the War Between the States and Germany prior to World War I were true federations. A pseudo federation is a State divided into several independent or quasi-independent parts. The Soviet Union, West Germany, and Brazil are pseudo federations.) Even in unitary countries, such as the United Kingdom, where regions thereof, such as Scotland, have guaranteed home rule, each of these regions has some veto over acts of the central government that the region judges illegal or unconstitutional. Even within a State, the counties have some veto over acts of the State government that the counties judge illegal or unconstitutional. Each political subdivision has the right to judge the acts of the government above it and veto acts judged illegal or unconstitutional if States’ rights is accepted as a valid principle.
 
    States’ rights does not end with political subdivisions. It includes family governments and church governments. It may also be extended constitutionally to include other important segments of society, such as economic interests or racial interests. Whenever and wherever States’ rights is considered a valid principle, each of these bodies through their representatives has the right to judge the legality and constitutionality of the acts of their State and political subdivisions thereof and have the right to veto those acts judged illegal or unconstitutional so far as those acts apply to that body. To a certain degree even individuals have the right to judge and veto laws. However, the veto of an individual may be overruled by a jury. The veto by the representatives of family governments, church governments, and perhaps some other segments of society is absolute and final. Under the principle of States’ rights, not only do political subdivisions have the right of veto, but so do the more important segments of society. 

    The following is an example of how States’ rights as just described could work in practice. Acting in their capacity as the representatives of family governments, the heads of households in each county elect members to a body that represents the family governments of that county. These bodies in turn elect members to a similar body that represent the family governments of the State. Now suppose that a county outlaws the spanking of children. If a sufficient minority, say about 10 or 20 percent, of the heads of households believes that the law usurps the authority or rights reserved for family governments and signs a petition proclaiming such and if the county board representing family governments agrees, then the law is vetoed so far as it applies to families. That is, parents or other members of the family can spank a child of that family and the law does not apply. However, if anyone else spanks the child, the law applies. If the State had enacted the antispanking law, the State board would be the body that would veto the law upon petition. If the State board fails to veto the law, then each county can judge the law. If the board of county commissioners, or preferably some other specific county board, finds the law unconstitutional and vetoes it, the law does not apply in that county. It does continue to apply in all other counties that have not vetoed it. As this example shows, the principle of States’ rights can be applied in a real situation without creating chaos.
 
    The question arises is the principle of initiative and referendum a States’ rights doctrine. The answer is no. They are democratic principles. They are majority rule. Initiative is the positive act of enacting a law. Under an initiative the majority imposes its will on the minority by enacting a law. Referendum is the negative act of repealing a law. Under a referendum the majority imposes its will on the minority by repealing a law. Initiative and referendum are not States’ rights principles.
 
    There is at least one important difference between vetoing a law by the democratic principle of referendum and the republican principle of States’ rights. Under the doctrine of referendum, the law is vetoed completely; it no longer applies to anyone. Under the doctrine of States’ rights, the law is only partially vetoed. Although it no longer applies to that segment of society that has vetoed it, it continues to apply to all other segments of society. Thus, the vetoing body does not veto the law for other segments of society, which may desire the law (unless of coarse they desire the law to oppress the segment of society that has vetoed the law in which case their plans have been foiled.) For example, the representatives of church governments judge a law of the State unconstitutional, i.e., the law usurps the rights, duties, or powers that belong to the church, and vetoes the law. The law would then no longer be of any force or effect with respect to any church or church official acting for and in the name of a church. However, it would continue to be enforced against all other segments of society. One of the important differences between veto by referendum and veto by States’ rights is the degree to which the law is repealed. 

    Applying veto by States’ rights doctrine in lieu of democratic referendum does not mean that the minority has the right to oppress the majority. To the contrary, the minority has no more right to oppress the majority than the majority has to oppress the minority. Under the States’ rights doctrine, instead of resorting to referendum and initiative to protect themselves from the minority, the majority uses the same avenues available to the minority to veto laws. That it can simultaneously protect the minority from the majority while protecting the majority from the minority makes States’ rights vastly superior to democratic doctrines, which can only protect the majority. 

  Why not use the courts to decide the constitutionality and legality of governmental acts instead of resorting to veto under the principle of States’ rights? First, courts are part of the government. Being part of the government, courts cannot always be relied upon to act in an unbiased manner. Anything that adds to the power and importance of government adds to the power and importance of the courts. Most men prefer having power and importance to not having them. Therefore, the inclination of the courts is to increase their power and importance. The result is that power and importance of the government is increased at the expense of the other segments of society. Second, in a republic the courts are created by the federated parts of the body politic. In a federation they are created by the federated States. Courts are created agents. As such they should not have the final say. The creators, each acting in its independent capacity, should be the final judge. Although the courts should be the first to judge the constitutionality and legality of governmental acts, for these two reasons it should not be the last.

    States’ rights is a principle that limits political power. It decentralizes and disperses political power. It allows each part of the State to judge whether the acts of the State trespass on the rights, duties, or powers reserved by that part of the State and to veto those acts that are judged to usurp these reserved rights, duties, or powers. It protects the minority from the majority while protecting the majority from the minority. States’ rights is a principle of liberty.

    The time has come to resurrect the principle of States’ rights. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States where States’ rights is truly considered a valid principle.

II

    There are two types of States’ rightists: the true States’ rightist and the false States’ rightist. The true States’ rightist advocates States’ rights regardless of the issue. He is a strict constitutionalist and believes that the federal government has only those powers expressly delegated to it and no more. All other governmental powers have been reserved by the States. That is, the States have retained all powers that they have not delegated to the federal government and that is not denied them by the compact creating the federal government. Before the false States’ rightist advocates States’ rights, he first determines the position that the State has taken vis-a-vis the federal government. If a State favors his position while the federal government opposes it, the false States’ rightist advocates States’ rights. On the other hand, if the federal government favors his position while a State opposes it, the false States’ rightists opposes States’ rights and advocates consolidation. The following example of gun control illustrates the difference between the true and false States’ rightist. 

    Excluding those who are indifferent, people tend to take one of two positions on gun control. One group believes that the ownership of guns should be moderately to severely restricted and regulated. The other group believes that there should be little or no restrictions or regulation of gun ownership. Because extremely few true States’ rightists fall in former group, only the latter group is considered. 

    The true States’ rightist believes that the Second Amendment, “the right to bear arms” amendment, applies only to the federal government. Contrary to what the consolidationists and false States’ rightists claim, it does not apply to the States. For the true States’ rightist, whether gun ownership is restricted or not is a State issue. Gun ownership is protected from restriction by a State with the State’s constitution and not with the federal constitution. Therefore, even though nearly all true States’ rightists favor little or no restriction on gun ownership, they would not consider appealing to the federal government when a State restricts gun ownership. That is an issue to be resolved by the State. The federal government, including the federal courts, has no say in the matter. 

    The false States’ rightist views the matter differently. If a State restricts gun ownership, he has no inhibitions about pursuing the matter in federal court. The false States’ rightist typically argues that the Second Amendment applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, a State may not restrict gun ownership. (The true States’ rightist does not recognize the Fourteenth Amendment for several reasons. Foremost, it was adopted illegally and under the force of arms. Also, it is extremely anti-States’ rights because it changes the locus of citizenship from the States to the Union.) However, if the federal government restricts ownership, the false States’ rightist has no inhibitions against turning to the States and persuading them to protest this infringement upon liberty. The more radical ones may even advocate interposition and nullification. (The true States’ rightist would join the false States’ rightist in this endeavor not only because he opposes the restriction of gun ownership but more importantly because he opposes usurpation of power by the federal government.) For the false States’ rightist, the position taken by the federal government and States determine whether he advocates States’ rights or consolidation.

    The true States’ rightist consistently advocates States’ rights. He believes that all governmental powers not expressly delegated to the federal government by the States in the federal constitution belong to the States unless the federal constitution specifically denies the States such power. Even where a power has been expressly delegated to the federal government, he believes that the States have concurrent power, provided the exercise of that power is not contrary to the federal constitution or federal law. However, if a particular power has been expressly delegated to the federal government and denied to the States, he will side with the federal government.
 
    On the other hand, the position taken by the false States’ rightist depends on the issue in question. If a State supports his position while the federal government opposes it, he favors States’ rights. If the federal government supports his position while the State opposes it, he opposes States’ rights. If both the States and the federal government oppose his position, he usually favors consolidation in preference to States’ rights. It is much easier to persuade one government than many.
 
     In summary there are two types of States’ rightist: the true States’ rightist and false States’ rightist. The true States’ rightist support States’ rights regardless of the issue in question. The false States’ rightist supports States’ rights only when the State supports his view of the issue in question; otherwise, he supports consolidation. 

    (The preceding discussion can be extended to described the principle of States' rights within a State merely by substituting “State government” for “federal government” and “family government,” “church government,” etc. for “the State.”)

Copyright © 1987 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on politics.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Calhoun and Concurrent Majority

Calhoun and Concurrent Majority
Thomas Allen

    John C. Calhoun is perhaps the greatest and most original political thinker ever produced by the Western Hemisphere. Born in South Carolina, Calhoun was more of a realist than an idealist. He tended to set class economics above abstract humanitarianism. Caring little for egalitarian doctrine, he objected strongly to the assertion that all men were created free and equal. Such an assertion was contrary to all biological and social facts. He set forth the principle of concurrent majority, which is perhaps the most original political principle ever espoused by an American. 

     In 1828, he broke away from Henry Clay’s nationalism of federal intervention and consolidation to become one of the greatest minds, perhaps the greatest, that the South has ever produced. The issue was tariffs. Tariffs were protecting the industrial North from foreign competition at the expense of the agricultural South. As a result of the tariffs, the North was prospering while the South was in a depression. 

    Calhoun realized that the United States were drifting towards consolidation and an uncritical faith in numerical majorities. Under such conditions the minority position of the South could not be protected. Contrary to what most Americans believed then, and unfortunately still believe, the principle of political democracy offers no safeguard against the dangers of arbitrary government. When unrestrained by constitutional limitations on its will, numerical democracy is the enemy of political justice. The measure of protection given to the weakest citizen is the critical test of every government. Judged by this test, a democratic state becomes little more than a tyrant as power is centralized into the hands of a few. The majority inevitably becomes irresponsible in its unrestraint. The more power it wields, the more vicious its disregard of minority opinion becomes. To Calhoun the perennial problem of constitutional government was how to restrain it by constitutional checks to keep it just. With this point of view, Calhoun addressed himself to the problem of restraining the majority and protecting the rights of the minority.
 
    Calhoun built his political principle upon the meshing of the Jeffersonian Republican doctrine of States’ rights and the Montesquieuian Federalist doctrine of static government resulting from exacting balanced powers. He believed that both doctrines were sound in their major premises, but they had strayed in certain important deductions. Experience had taught him that consolidation was extremely dangerous and that the existing checks on the federal government were insufficient. The Jeffersonians were mistaken in their belief that the democratic majority necessarily served the cause of political justice. The Federalists were mistaken in their belief that the division of power provided in the U.S. constitution was adequate to prevent arbitrary government. His solution to these mistakes was to provide an additional check. This check was the right of individual States to veto acts of the federal government. The veto power was the hallmark of constitutional government. Thus, he brought together two basic philosophies upon which the United States had been founded and strengthen them with the concept of concurrent majority. 

    Confusion on the interpretation of “the people” and “government” has done immeasurable harm to liberty and has brought untold oppression. In a republic sovereignty is intrinsic in the people. All authority is delegated. Government is merely an agent with strictly defined fiduciary powers. All its acts are subject to review by the principal. Depending on constitutional system of government, the review may be immediate and full or removed and limited. Where most political philosophers fall short is that they tend to treat “the people” as a homogenous body with a common interest. Calhoun realized that this was not the case. “The people” are an aggregation of individuals, groups, classes, and factions with diverse and often antagonistic interests. Most political philosophers also error in treating government as a sacred entity, the inheritor of sovereignty, which cannot be criticized without committing a crime against the sovereign. Again Calhoun realized that this was not the case. In a republic officials are invested with temporary power, and these officials are guided by motives common to all men. Unlike many political thinkers, Calhoun understood the meaning of “the people” and “government.”

    To Calhoun the common fallacy of treating “the people” as a homogenous body with a common interest was an egregious danger that obscured the economic basis of society and confused the whole problem of government. The Jeffersonians had contributed to this problem by assuming a clear division between ruler and subject and by appealing to a common democracy against the aristocracy in their struggle against consolidation. Although the Federalist understood the economic origins of political power and the economic ends served by the political state, they concealed their designs by deceptive appeals to patriotism and made their knowledge serve their own interests. Calhoun knew that “the people” is a political fiction. Society is composed of a multitude of individuals, each with his own interest. They can never be merged into a united whole no matter how they are grouped or classified. To assume that government rests on the will of the people or represents the people is dangerous and fallacious. The political state is partisan to those who administer it. The diversity of the people and the errancy of treating them as one whole Calhoun acknowledged. This acknowledgment led him to devise his principle of concurrent majority, which compels the various segments and factions of the community to cooperate while preventing a majority of them from combining to oppress or exploit the rest of the community. 

    Just as Calhoun’s understanding of “the people” exceeds that of most political thinkers, so does his understanding of “government.” He knew that power corrupts and that governmental officials often become drunk with power. Once safely in office these agents begin assuming all the prerogatives of the principal and cloth their acts with the sanctity of sovereignty. With the power of taxation, these agents benefit their friends and favorites while penalizing and exploiting their enemies and the politically weak. Without an adequate defense to protect themselves, the weaker interest suffer legal exploitation and oppression. The popular government of the Jeffersonian Republicans changed only the outward form of the selfish struggle for power. It substituted party rule for class rule. The more democratic government becomes, the more callous and vicious majority rule becomes. All systems of checks and balances that fail to obstruct sufficiently this innate tendency of party rule prove to be unsuccessful. Separation of powers among executive, legislature, and judiciary, as the Montesquieuian Federalist had done, is not enough. The reigning majority can come to control all three and, thus entrenched, oppress the minority. Knowing how political leaders and political parties behave once they acquire power, Calhoun offered the minority, with his doctrine of concurrent majority, away to thwart this behavior. 

    Calhoun regarded freedom as the ultimate goal and most precious aspect of civilization. By freedom he did not merely mean legal restraints on tyranny, such as habeas corpus, he meant freedom from legal exploitation and statutory dictatorship. In his words, “The abuse of delegated power, and the tyranny of the stronger over the weaker interests, are the two dangers, and the only two to be guarded against; and if this be done effectually, liberty must be eternal. Of the two, the latter is the greater and most difficult to resist.” He acknowledged that two powers were necessary to the existence and preservation of a free state. One is the power of the governed to prevent their governors from abusing their authority and to compel them to be faithful to their constituents. This power is attained through suffrage. The other is the power to compel the various factions of the community to be just to one another by requiring them to consult the interest of each other. This power can only be achieved by requiring the concurrence of all the great and distinct interest of the community. With these two powers freedom can be safeguarded. 

    The method used to implement this second power to preserve liberty and prevent conflict between diverse parts of the community brought forth Calhoun’s great contribution to political science — the principle of concurrent majority. His solution to the preservation of liberty was to superimpose the will of a geographical majority upon the consolidated, indiscriminate majority. His solution collected not only the sense of the majority, but it also considered the various interests of the community. In “A Disquisition on Government,” Calhoun proclaimed,
    It results, from what has been said, that there are two different modes in which the sense of the community may be taken: one, simply, by the right of suffrage, unaided; the other, by the right through a proper organism. Each collects the sense of the majority. But one regards numbers only, and considers the whole community one unit, having but one common interest throughout; and collects the sense of the greater number of the whole, as that of the community. The other, on the contrary, regards interests as well as numbers; — considering the community as made up of different and conflicting interests as far as the action of the government is concerned; and takes the sense of each, through its majority or appropriate organ, and the united sense of all, as the sense of the entire community. The former of these I call the numerical, or absolute majority; and the latter, the concurrent, or constitutional majority.
    Calhoun’s political philosophy is based on the principle that property rules by reason of its inherent power and that political justice is attainable only with a precise system of checks and balances that provides each important group with a veto. He has offered a mechanism by which minorities can protect themselves from oppression and exploitation without having to resort to armed conflict. With his principle of concurrent majority, Calhoun bequeathed his beloved South with a barrier to protect herself from political consolidation, standardization of society, and the universal monetary evaluation of life. Unfortunately for the South, and perhaps the rest of the world as well, this barrier was utterly destroyed in 1865. For the sake of liberty, the time has come to resurrect the lost principle of concurrent majority.

Copyright © 1987 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on politics.

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Restoring an Agrarian Society in the South

Restoring an Agrarian Society in the South
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]

    “Agrarianism” is defined in I'll Take My Stand as follows:

    Opposed to the industrial society is the agrarian, which does not stand in particular need of definition. An agrarian society is hardly one that has no use at all for industries, professional vocations, for scholars and artists and for the life of the cities. Technically, perhaps, an agrarian society is one in which agriculture is the leading vocation, whether for wealth, for pleasure, or prestige — a form of labor that is pursued with intelligence and leisure, and that becomes the model to which the other forms approach as well as they may.
     In “The Pillars of Agrarianism” Frank Owsley complements this definition by writing, “. . . agriculture was the leading vocation . . . the agrarian population and the people of the agricultural market towns must dominate the social, cultural, economy, and political life of the state and give tone to it.” He adds that “subsistence farming must be the first objective of every man who controls a farm or plantation. The land must first support the people who till it; then it must support their stock.”

    In “Happy Farmers” John Ransom defines agrarianism as “. . . old-fashioned farming; or the combination of subsistence farming of the first place with a money farming of the second place. . . . Agrarianism is a kind of amphibianism: the farmer, wonderful creature, is capable of sustaining his life in either or both of two different economic elements. It should be both, but in a certain order; his private or subsistence economy first, and his social or money economy second. . . . The technique of subsistence on good land, with inexpensive tools [means] . . . to raise the great bulk of the foods for the family . . . to do plain carpentering to the extent at least of repairs, to paint and whitewash, . . . to feed all the animals, as well as persons, from the land, to fertilize the land by the periodic use of grass crops.”

    Owsley identifies the principal enemy of agrarianism as “. . . a system which allows a relatively few men to control most of the nation’s wealth and to regiment virtually the whole population under their anonymous holding companies and corporations. . . .” He states a major objective as the restoration of property and the abolishment of the proletariat. “The more widespread is the ownership of property, the more happily and secure will be the people and the nation.”

    Both Owsley and Ransom advocate a free market, free trade economy, which would place agriculture on par with industry. (In this essay industry or industrialism includes manufacturing, commerce, and finance.) They identify the economic problems of America during the Great Depression (when they wrote) as caused in large part by trade restrictions, such as protective tariffs and import quotas. The trade restrictions gave the industrialist a protected market in which to sell his products at a higher price than he could in a free market. Trade restrictions reduced the price of agricultural products because the agriculturist could not trade his products for foreign manufactured goods. They identified part of the problem as the concentration of economic power into the hands of a few. Thus, they advocated the widespread ownership of property. Agricultural goods should have priority over manufactured goods. The tax system needed revising — especially property and land taxes. Although both saw a need for government intervention, they sought to keep it minimal, mostly at providing assistance to people to resettle on the land. Otherwise, farmers would become welfare wards. (Unfortunately turning farmers into welfare wards has come to past in the United States. Just suggesting a reduction in farm subsidies, raises a protest across the country in opposition just as suggesting a reduction in social security or any other welfare program.) Neither believed in nor advocated egalitarianism. Each person was to stand or fall on his own merit, abilities, and resources. Both outlined a program, which differed in some details, to bring about a revival of an agrarian economy in the South. Parts of their programs are still of value. Parts are dated and would be counter productive if implemented today.

    Much has changed in the South since the agrarians wrote their essays in the early 1930s. The most obvious change has been the industrialization of the South. Many details offered by the agrarians 60 years ago to bring about an agrarian society and concomitant agrarian economic system are now out of date and would be difficult, even impossible, to implement without resorting to authoritarian government. However, the underlying principles are still valid. The essence of agrarianism can still be achieved in the twenty-first century South.

    The essences of agrarianism are individualism, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency. Agrarianism stresses the importance of the family, the community, and social activity, especially religion. It requires decentralized ownership of property, both land and industry, and a decentralized political economy. Its economy is a free market, free trade economy with widespread ownership of property. Its political system is decentralized republicanism of concurrent majorities as opposed to a democratic, oligarchic, or autocratic political system. It social system is one of free association with respect for the various races of mankind and a desire to preserve them. Economic, political, and social egalitarianism is an abhorrence because it is unnatural. Hierarchies and authority are recognized and respected. However, they are not touted or protected by law. They are tempered because of the independents of subordinates. Agrarianism brings about leisure time to reflect and invest in the “finer things of life,” such as religion, the arts, philosophy, and craftsmanship. It creates time for community services both secular and religious and both social and political. (Politics becomes an avocation or social duty rather than a profession.) Sports, recreation, and vacationing, though important, are not the objects of leisure under agrarianism. Agrarianism stresses the high culture of the classics and folk culture of the people while it shuns the mass culture of democratizing television. It preserves traditions and heritage. It provides a feeling of belonging and a place, people, and past. Agrarianism stresses the spiritual over the material while recognizing the necessity and importance of the material.

    To bring about an agrarian economy, which is an economy based on the essential principles of agrarianism, a three-part program is needed. The first part addresses the ownership of land, agriculture, and a program of returning people to the land. The second part addresses industrialism and the ownership of industry. The third part addresses the bureaucratic regulatory state. These programs should be implemented simultaneously along with programs to rectify the political and social systems to achieve an agrarian society.

    A program is needed to address land ownership, agriculture, and returning people to the land.

    Land in the South should be owned by the inhabitants of the South and preferably by inhabitants of the State in which the land is located. Land ownership by corporations and other associations, except churches, should be restricted to those organized in a Southern State and preferably to those organized within that State. Land owned by corporations and other associations should be limited to the minimal amount of land needed for factory and office buildings and concomitant parking, settling ponds, and buffer zone, but not to exceed some specified maximum amount, say 100 acres. Land ownership by persons residing outside the South who are not citizens of a Southern State should be prohibited. Likewise with associations, those organized outside the South should be prohibited from owning land in the South.

    Ownership of land by government is in desperate need of restriction. The federal government should own no land. Whatever land it may need it should obtain by short to medium term leases, leases of no more than about seven years. State and local government should be restricted to owning no more than about 5 percent, which should include easements, of the land within their jurisdiction. They should own no land outside their jurisdiction.

    Land that is not owned by a citizen and that has not been used for a number of years should be required to be auctioned to citizens who do not own land. Land that escheats to the State should be auctioned to citizens who do not own land.

    The right of the heir apparent should be protected to assure that the land remains in the family. (The heir apparent is the person who would naturally and legally inherit the property where there is no will, e.g., the eldest son.) A modified system of primogeniture is suggested. The heir apparent is defined by law and cannot be deprived of his inheritance in the land, especially the homestead, without his consent. Furthermore, the land should not be sold or title otherwise transferred without the consent of the heir apparent. Such laws would tend to protect and preserve the land and homestead within the family from generation to generation.

    To protect the land and homestead further, it should be made somewhat inalienable. Any land owned by a citizen could not be taken to satisfy a debt, civil suit, or tax lien. (The only time a court could alienate the land of a citizen would be when the citizen has been convicted of a felony, mala in se but not mala prohibita, and the land or money obtained from selling it is needed to pay restitution to the victim of the crime.) To prevent banks and other loan companies from refusing to lend to homesteaders, discrimination based on the ownership of the land should be prohibited. Such acts would achieve the agrarian goal of making land unmortgageable.

    Besides these land reform programs, a program is needed to assist and encourage people to return to the land to become homesteaders. (A homesteader may take several forms. He may be a classic farmer described by the agrarians who is first a subsistence farmer and second a commercial farmer. He may be the type often found in the South today who owns a few acres up to occasionally several hundred acres and who raises much of his food on his land but who earns his money primarily with an off-farm job. Two subcategories of this type of farmer are the farmers who supplement their farm income with an off-farm job and the farmers who supplement their off-farm income by farming. Such a program would assist persons, primarily family units, in acquiring land and settling it. The principal form of aid would be in loans for the land (say up to 90 percent), dwelling (say up to no more than 50 percent of median price of a house in that area to encourage the homesteader to do as much work in building his own house as he is capable), and a small amount for initial living expenses, equipment, and supplies. Such a loan would be repayable within say 20 years. Rather than paying a compound interest rate as common on most loans, the borrower would pay say 10 percent more than the amount of the loan and some uniform minimal amount no matter the size of the loan. These fees rather than tax moneys would pay for all the salaries, overhead, administrative and other costs connected with these loans. No person should be eligible for more than one loan during his lifetime. Only citizens of the State where the loan is granted should be eligible for the loan. To ensure that the loan is used for homesteading purposes, the borrower should be required to raise a minimal amount of his food, say two-thirds or three-fourths, to provide his own water and sewage systems rather than connecting into community or public systems, and perhaps meet other requirements. Failure to meet these requirements could result in eviction. Title of the land would not pass to the borrower until the loan is repaid in full along with the accompanying fees. If the borrower died before he repaid the loan, the loan and land would pass to his heirs. If the borrower were evicted before he completely repaid the loan, he should continue to be obliged to finish paying the loan. Funding for this program would come from a very small land and property tax. After some years a trust fund should be built up, and this tax could be ended. Members of the board overseeing this program should guarantee any loans that are irredeemably uncollectible by paying off the loans with their own money. Such a program should greatly aid people who want to become homesteaders but who lack the necessary means.

    The agricultural policies of the States (the federal government should not really have any except a foreign trade policy directed toward removing trade barriers) should be revised. They should emphasize homesteading and subsistence farming over commercial farming — the complete opposite of today’s policies.

    A parallel program to the program of returning people to the land is a program to expand the ownership of industrial capital. This program would be another loan program. Loans would be made available to citizens of that State to buy shares of corporations organized in that State when they meet certain conditions. Examples of these conditions are (1) when the citizen registers his first marriage, (2) when the birth of a child is recorded (Both the parents and the child would receive loans.), (3) When a mother remains home with her minor children for the first five years of their lives, (4) when a citizen reaches certain ages, e.g., 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100, (5) when a citizen owns a homestead for a minimal amount of time, and (6) as a reward when a citizen performs certain outstanding services. The loans would be repaid from the stock dividends. Most dividends would be used to repay the loan while a small part would go to the shareholder. The shareholder could not sell his shares until the loan has been repaid although he could trade them for shares in other companies. The shareholder’s blood kin would inherit these shares as he may choose. The funds for lending would come primarily from a small corporation tax. After a significant trust fund has been built, this tax could be ended. This program would go along way toward spreading the ownership of industrial capital without resorting to some socialistic scheme.

    The corporate structure itself should also be revised. Corporations should be organized so that both immediate and ultimate control rests with the owners and not with those who are merely managers. The stockholders, not the board of directors, should nominate and elect the board of directors and principal executive officers. The entire net income of a mature corporation (a corporation that has effective access to market sources of capital funds for new capital formation) during or immediately after the close of each financial period should be paid out in dividends to its shareholders (except perhaps a small percentage retained as working capital and contingent reserves) unless the shareholders vote in each financial period that part should be retained for expansion or debt retirement.

    Cooperatives and mutualities (companies owned, managed, and operated by the workers) should be encouraged and developed. Perhaps a program modeled after that for assisting people to form homesteads could be developed to assist people to form mutualities.

    The third and most difficult program needed to bring about an agrarian economy and an agrarian society is a complete overhaul of the bureaucratic state. What is needed is the complete elimination of many, probably most, governmental programs and a drastic reduction in others. Very few new programs would be needed. (Only a few areas of reform are discussed here and then only in general terms. To discuss all of the reforms needed, even in general terms, would require several books.)

    Perhaps the most important reform needed is true tax reform — meaning tax reduction instead of the Washington definition of disguised tax increases. The federal and State constitutions should strictly limit taxes as to type, amount, and use.

    The federal government should levy only two types of taxes. The first would be a tax levied by the federal government on the States in proportion to their population and the value of all real property therein. The other tax would be an export and import tariff. Such a tariff should be uniform, that is, the same rate is paid on every type of good imported regardless of origin without exception. Import tariffs should be limited to 5 percent. Export tariffs should be limited to 2 percent on manufactured goods and to 5 percent on raw goods except agricultural products, which should not be taxed.

    State and local taxes are also in dire need of reform and reduction. The income tax should be eliminated. The sales tax should be eliminated or at least reduced to less than 1 percent.

    From a strictly agrarian point of view, the tax in most need of reform is the property and land tax. The property tax should only be used to pay for those governmental services that are directly related to protecting property, e.g., for fire protection and for part of the police and defense. The property tax should not be used for those governmental activities that do not relate to the protection of property, e.g., parks and recreation (user fees should be used), sewage and water (again user fees should be used), welfare programs (they should be eliminated, but if they are not, participation in such programs should be voluntary and only the participants in such programs should pay for it), and public schools (they should be abandon, but if not, then they should be supported solely by voluntary gifts and a poll tax levied on the students actually attending public schools). Government should pay taxes on the land that it owns. Any government or company that has an easement across another’s land should pay the taxes on the part on which it has the easement. For tax purposes land should be appraised based on how it is being used rather than based on its best use. (An exception would be vacant land in, not adjacent to, built up commercial or industrial areas of towns and cities. Such land probably should be appraised as commercial or industrial land.) Such reform is necessary to make the land and property tax compatible with an agrarian society.

    Inheritance and estate taxes should be abolished so that the homestead, family owned farms and businesses, and the family capital can be passed on to the next generation.

    Rather than supporting government by general taxes that have no relation with the services received, taxes that have some relation with the services received should be the primary source of governmental revenue. Thus, a poll tax would become a major source of revenue. It should be used to pay for a good part of the police, defense, and general operation of government. (Another important aspect of the poll tax is that in a republic every citizen benefits, at least in theory, the same and equally from governmental activity; therefore, every citizen ought to contribute the same and equally to support the government. Also, if the poll tax is a principal source of governmental revenue, it will serve to keep government small, and by that, liberty great, because it is a direct, obvious tax that affects everyone the same. To believe that the populous would tolerate paying a high rate of such an obvious tax where everyone pays the same is absurd.) User fees (fees paid by the user of a service where the user has the option of using or not using the service without any penalty beyond not receiving the service, such as using a park) and service fees (fees paid by the user of a service where the user does not have the option of not using the service without a penalty beyond forgoing the service, such as registering a deed or transferring a deed) should be used to pay for most governmental services — especially the user fee. Such tax reform would go along way to facilitating agrarianism.

    Government should be denied the power of eminent domain. Denying government this power should protect the homesteader from bureaucratic agencies that want to take his land without paying a fair market price for it. (A fair market price is the price at which an exchange takes place. That a homesteader refuses to sell at the price offered is proof in itself that a fair market price has not been reached. The buyer must also pay for intangibles.)

    Licensing and permitting requirements should be abolished. Building codes, if retained, should be modified to encourage innovation and to facilitate rather than discourage the homesteader building his own dwelling and buildings.

    Zoning and land use restrictions should be abolished. If they are retained, they should allow farming and livestock rearing in every district. They should allow multiple uses of property and more than one principal building, i.e., several homes and businesses and homes on the same lot or plat.

    Environmental laws should not be used, as they are often used, to war against the landowner, farmer, and homesteader. Environmental laws are important and necessary, but those currently on the books go way beyond what is needed and desirable. They should be completely rewritten. They should be written from the point of view of protecting life and property from trespass, vandalism, battery, and, in severe cases, manslaughter. They should be modeled after these laws. They should not be used as they now are to take land without buying it or to control land use and development.

    The current monetary and banking system should be dramatically changed. A decentralized free banking system should replace the current centralized banking system and its legal tender notes. The governmentally prescribed legal tender monetary system should be replaced by a free market monetary system where the market instead of politics determines what will be used as money — be it gold, tobacco, debt (which is what is currently used for money), or bank notes. Then inflation and economic contractions (panics, depressions, and recessions) would be mild and shot-lived and generally localized.

    To facilitate the creation and maintenance of an agrarian economy and society, changes are needed in the political system and social system. Although a detail discussion of these changes is beyond the scope of this essay, they can be generally outlined. The present egalitarian democratic political system with its concentration of power in the central government needs to be abandoned and replaced by republicanism of concurrent majority where church and family are the state’s coequals. Each State acting in its own independent capacity as a state (body politic) should be the final judge of the acts of the federal and local governments as it has created both as its agents and should be able to veto any act of either that it judges to be contrary to law. (Each local government probably should be given enough home rule by its State’s constitution to veto acts of the States that it judges to usurp its proper authority.) Likewise the church and family, being the state’s coequals, could veto acts of the State or its agents when in their independent opinion the State or its agents usurp that which belongs to the church or family. Another needed political reform is to weight voting and representation in favor of homesteaders, agriculturists, property owners, and taxpayers.

    In the realm of social reform, the current egalitarian social system of integrational genocide should be abandon. A system that respects and protects the various races of mankind should replace it. Adopting a system of separation as advocated by Lincoln and Jefferson can only obtain such preservation and protection.

    Family and church should become the focal point of the social system. These political and social reforms are essential to achieving and maintaining an agrarian society.

    The Southern States have no hope of becoming an agrarian society if they remain colonies of the United States. For more than a century, the doctrine of industrialism has guided the controlling regime of the United States. Mercantilism and commercialism with emphasis on finance now guide the regime. Industrialism seeks egalitarianism through a proletariat democracy with its deadening dehumanizing mass culture. It seeks to destroy all true individuality by amalgamating all into the oneness of an egalitarian integrated society stripped of all morality. It seeks a political economy of democratic fascism where a democratic government controls all and a democratic state is all and minorities (dissenters from the democratic order) are prosecuted (usually covertly rather than overtly — it is less messy and noticeable that way). Under this regime agrarians will continue to be hunted down and destroyed, for agrarianism is the antithesis of industrialism and of all that this regime represents.

    Mercantilism and commercialism differ little from industrialism with respect to agrarianism. The major difference is that mercantilism and commercialism seek a plutocratic controlled democracy instead of a proletariat controlled democracy. Both want an amalgamated egalitarian society except the plutocrats do not amalgamate with the mass whom they intend to rule. Other than that they differ little from each other. Both are the eternal enemy of agrarianism.

    The only hope that the South has of once again becoming an agrarian society lies in becoming a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States. Such Southern independence would not only bring hope to Southern agrarians, but it would bring hope to agrarians throughout the world.


Copyright © 1991, 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on the South.