Calvin’s Views of Jesus and the Trinity

Calvin’s Views of Jesus and the Trinity

Thomas Allen

In History of the Dogma of the Deity of Jesus Christ (revised edition of 1876, translated 1878), Albert Reville, a minister of the French Reformed Church, gives a brief description of Calvin’s views on the Trinity and Jesus. Although Calvin claimed to support the orthodox Trinitarian and Incarnation doctrines of the Catholic Church, his Christology and explanation of the Trinity approached the unitarianism of the modalists or Sabellians.

Calvin maintained “that the finite cannot contain the infinite” (p. 179). This axiom, he used against the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, which holds that the bread is the actual body of Christ and the wine is his actual blood.

If this axiom is applied to the person of Jesus, it results in a contradiction: “‘the whole plenitude of the Deity dwelt in the human nature of Christ,’ and at the same time, ‘the whole Deity was without him’” (pp. 179-180). Thus, “the Son, or the Word[,] was not circumscribed or enclosed in the man Jesus” (p. 180). While intimately united with Jesus, the Word never ceased to fill the infinite.  Consequently, “the Word was united to the man Jesus, so far as human nature, without false to itself, was capable of embodying the divine perfection” (p. 180). Reville concludes, “If in the place of the Word, we put here the Holy Spirit, which after all only differs from the Word in name, we are on the verge of the most decided Unitarianism” (p. 180).

The divine attributes of which human nature is capable are not omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. They are moral attributes like holiness, justice, and goodness. Thus, the perfection of Jesus is “moral perfection, holiness, not absolute perfection” (p. 180). Calvin seriously accepted “all those details of the evangelical history in which the truly human nature of Jesus is positively indicated” (p. 180). Reville asks, “Did Calvin himself see that his exegesis . . . disposed of almost all scriptural proofs generally brought forward in support of the Trinity? On thing is certain, that his Commentaries reduced them to nothing” (p. 181). Accordingly, Calvin claimed that the formula of baptism (baptizing in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit — Matthew 28:19) did “not relate to the Trinity of the Divine Persons, but to the triple relation in which God stands towards man in the new economy” (p. 182).

Moreover, Calvin modified “the strict notion of personality as applied to the three terms of the trinity. The three persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) became simply divine attributes or modes. Thus, his doctrine of the Trinity is essentially Sabellianism (which was considered heresy by the fourth century). “In effect, the personality of Jesus, which in the old orthodoxy was a divine personality, becomes once more the human personality of primitive Unitarianism” (p. 182). Consequently, Mary is no longer the Mother of God. Faith becomes one of Jesus’ virtues. Worship should not be paid to Christ because he “possesses only a part of the Divine perfections” (p. 183). Although Jesus is the Mediator, “he cannot be the object of that worship which can be properly addressed only to the absolute Being” (p. 183).

For Calvin, the Holy Spirit “is no longer a person in the true sense of the world; . . . it is God in action in the world and the soul” (p. 183).

Nevertheless, Calvin and his followers claimed to follow the Catholic orthodoxy of the Trinity and defended it against its opponents. However, Calvin had changed the fundamental idea of the Trinity.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Neoconservatives

Neoconservatives

Thomas Allen

Neoconservatism grew out of Jewish conservatism but primarily out of Jewish liberalism and anticommunism (mainly Jewish anticommunism). What follows is a description of the typical neoconservative. The typical neoconservative:

– is an egalitarian, a statist, and a rationalist;

– inclines toward pragmatism;

– is forever future-oriented;

– is a social justice conservative and compassionate conservative;

– promotes equality and antiracism;

– is an anticommunist, but does not oppose the Communist organized and controlled civil rights movement;

– despises Russians, who are second only to Southerners as the cause of America’s problems;

– is an ardent Zionist, who promotes an Israel-first foreign policy for the Middle East;

– opposes any country that presents a threat to the American and especially Israeli imperialism — even too wanting to attack militarily such a country — although he cannot conceive of the United States or Israel as imperialistic;

– although he condemns segregation and discrimination, supports Israel’s segregation of and discrimination against Palestinians, who deserve no rights;

— often acts as though most Americans, especially Blacks, who discriminate against Jews are antisemitic;

– is convinced that Jews can do no wrong and do not control anything, especially the presstitute media, Hollywood, medicine, banking, and finances, even though the CEOs and other high ranking corporate officials are often Jews, and vehemently condemns anyone who claims otherwise as an antisemite (if a perpetrator or corporate official is a Jew, his Jewishness is ignored or concealed);

– believes or claims to believe the official governmental conspiracy theory of 9-11;

– most likely, admires, reveres, and supports the American Empire that the Yankees built although he probably rejects the notion that it is an empire;

– favors power politics and prefers war to peace;

– believes that America was built on the proposition that all men are created equal instead of being built on race and consanguinity, and unlike other nations is not a genetic nation;

– believes in political equality (democracy — except Palestinians should not be allowed to vote in Israel) and social equality (integration, amalgamation, miscegenation), but opposes economic equality (socialism);

– adheres to the notion that the United States is (their verb, instead of “are,” the correct verb) a propositional (creedal) country dedicated to the proposition that “all men are created equal” and it has been foreordained by God to force this concept on the rest of the world, that is, America is an exceptional nation that is divinely destined to impose equality and democracy on the rest of the world (except the Palestinians);

– claims that equality is universal and the premier God-given unalienable right of all humanity;

– asserts that patriotism is an affirmation that the principle of equality is the core of America’s founding and that race and ethnicity, which historically has defined  patriotism, are irrelevant;

– considers traditional patriotism of loyalty to one’s country (territory), race, people (ethnicity), family, and traditions as evil and a vice and not a virtue; thus, defining patriotism as loyalty to the abstract doctrine of American exceptionalism, America’s form of government (liberal democracy), and equality of natural rights;

– places universalism, i.e., giving equal consideration to all people whom an action may affect (although unreconstructed Southerners and Palestinians seem to be exceptions) above patriotism;

– opposes a foreign policy based on isolationism, liberal internationalism (multinationalism), or realism (interest in terms of power);

– seeks to destroy the Soviet Union (now replaced by a desire to destroy Russia);

– believes in the Puritan idea that the United States is the “City upon a Hill” and, therefore, is destined to bring universal peace and harmony to the world by establishing a benevolent global hegemony (all this is accomplished when everyone in the world becomes the image of the Puritan Yankee);

– favors the government intervening to promote unalienable natural rights (described below) domestically and internationally — even using force when necessary to impose them;

– like the Yankee and Progressive, is inclined toward utopian ideals;

– prefers homogeneity to plurality;

– like the liberal, favors a designed order over a spontaneously evolved order;

– prefers the motto of the French Revolution, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” to the motto of the American Revolution, “Life, Liberty, and Property (Pursuit of Happiness)”;

– construes morality as abstract universal principles that are self-evident and existed before and independently of all traditions; thus, believes in universal moral truths that depend on reason and not on tradition;

– favors family values and is disturbed by rising illegitimacy, single parenthood, divorce, and crime and opposes homosexual activity and marriages although beginning to accept the homosexual and queer agenda;

– prefers to discourage abortion rather than its elimination;

– disdains the counterculture, cancel culture, and political correctness;

– believes that the government should encourage religion and opposes a strict separation between church and state;

– adheres to the universal principle of natural rights (describe in next section) and opposes the notions of positive rights (governmentally granted rights) and historical and traditional rights of the nation;

– believes in the natural rights of men, which are unalienable rights endowed by God and are independent of culture and transcend time and place (existed before and independent of any culture or civilization) and are self-evident truths discovered by reflection and reason and can be expressed as principles of abstract ideas (in reality, natural rights are based on personal preferences or sentience of the speaker), and rejects the notion that liberty varies with time and circumstances and that conventions and traditions determine rights;

– despises most customs and traditions and subordinates particulars and traditions to the universality of abstract principles, values, and ideas;

– believes that the Union predated the States and the Union created the States instead of the States creating the Union;

– considers the United States to be one undivided independent country instead of a federation of sovereign States and that it was founded as one undivided independent country instead of a federation of sovereign States;

– ostensibly advocates interpreting the US Constitution the way that the drafters and ratifiers intended it to be understood (original intent) while praising and supporting the Racial Republicans’ radical transformation of it (the living document theory);

– generally, supports a powerful central government (unless it promotes something with which he disagrees) and opposes of States’ rights (unless a State opposes a federal action with which he disagrees), yet is often skeptical of governmental solutions to problems;

– favors Lincoln’s understanding of government (the Hobbesian concept of man as a solitary being) to Jefferson’s understanding of government (the Aristotlean concept of man as a communal being); 

– supports nationalism and opposes sectionalism, federalism, and localism;

– prefers the concentration and centralization of political power to decentralization and dispersal of political power;

– prefers the commercial-financial empire that Lincoln and the Republicans created to the union of sovereign States that the founding fathers created;

– although opposing socialism, seldom objects to the Yankee’s version of fascism, a.k.a. business-government partnership, the military-industrial complex, crony capitalism, corporate welfare, or corporatocracy;

– a proponent of regulated capitalism but not overly regulated;

– condemns Progressivism while advocating most of its social positions and many of its political positions;

– approves of most of the social welfare programs of the welfare state, such as social security, Medicaid, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and family assistance, but wants to reform them to make them more economical and humane (less dehumanization); however, opposes the redistribution of income;

– supports bureaucrats overriding the market (private business decisions) for social purposes, such as the promotion of Black privileges, yet opposes affirmative action and quotas; 

– is racial nihilists and practitioner of the new morality and, therefore, does not oppose the destruction of the races through amalgamation and miscegenation; thus, has little concern about breeding the American Negro out of existence;

– despises racial segregation and separation by any race even if it is voluntary and even if Blacks are advocating racial segregation and separation;

– promotes inclusiveness, especially racial inclusiveness, but his inclusiveness does not include Southerners (especially unreconstructed Southerners), antisemites (anyone who is not a Zionist or believes that Palestinians should have a say in what happens to them), racial supremacists (especially White supremacists), racial preservationists (especially White preservationists), anyone who is labeled “racist,” most Moslems, isolationists, and principled conservatives (or traditional American conservatives, which includes Jeffersonian-Calhounians, paleoconservatives, traditional Southern conservatives, and Old Right);

– panders to Blacks as a racial group, but never openly appeals to Whites;

– claims that Martin Luther King is an archconservative, perhaps the greatest conservative ever, and a racial nihilist although King was a racial supremacist (a Negro supremacists) and a practitioner of the old morality;

– conceives Lincoln to be the greatest or second greatest president and praises him for saving the Union (although he changed the Union from one of consent as established in 1787 to one of coercion and converted that union into an empire) and, more important, freeing the slaves, which he claims was the primary reason for Lincoln’s War;

– although highly praising Jefferson, rejects nearly everything that Jefferson supported and accepts nearly everything that Jefferson opposed;

– is most likely a Republican;

– seeks to salvage and enhance the reputation of the Republican Party by declaring it to be the party of civil rights and racial equality, the leading opponent of (White) racial supremacy, and the force of everything good in America since its founding in 1854:

– sees the Democratic Party as the party of racists, White supremacists, and Black oppressors and everything evil in America at least since the beginning of Andrew Jackson’s administration; 

– is a Confederaphobe and Dixiephobe;

– treats the Southerner, especially the unreconstructed Southerner, as he treats the Palestinian: like a nonperson and subhuman only worthy of genocide although using euphemisms instead of being so blunt;

– believes that everything coming out of the South is bad except one phrase in the Declaration of Independents: “all men are created equal”;

– blames the South for nearly all of America’s problems;

– prefers the Yankee culture to the Southern culture;

– laments that the failure of Radical Republicans, whom he praises, to reconstruct the Southerner into the image of the Yankee;

In short, the key characteristics of a neoconservative are that he is an anticommunist, an anti-Southerner (especially anti-Confederate), a Zionist, a racial nihilist, and a Republican. Moreover, like the progressive, the neoconservative is rationalist and universalist, and he is a proponent of the natural rights of men. Furthermore, he promotes integration, equality, democracy, and foreign intervention. He reveres and sanctifies Lincoln and King, even defying them, especially King. Also, like the liberal, the neoconservative believes that the Constitution should be understood as Lincoln understood it and not as Jefferson understood it. Perhaps most important, he maintains that the United States are an exceptional country and a proportional nation whose purpose is to spread the American ideals of democracy, equality, and natural rights of men across the planet by force if necessary.

Some neoconservatives may deviate from several of the items on this list. However, most neoconservatives adhere to nearly all, if not all, of these items. Moreover, many neoconservatives often show signs of schizophrenia or other mental disorders.

For the most part, establishment conservatives agree with neoconservatives; the two are often indistinguishable. (Establishment conservatives are conservatives who are not neoconservatives, enlightened conservatives, or principled conservatives; they include Hamiltonian-Lincolnians, big-government conservatives, the typical Republican politicians, and Buckleyites. Enlightened conservatives are the New Conservatives of the 1950s represented by Russell Kirk and who subordinate the individual to society, subordinate freedom to virtue [for them, virtue is freedom] and rights to duty, subordinate reason to undifferentiated tradition to the point of rejecting reasoning, scorns reason and principle, reduces virtue to prudence, and depends heavily on Providence.) Moreover, except for some economic issues, neoconservatives generally agree with liberals and progressives. Thus, distinguishing between neoconservatives and liberals and progressives, especially on social issues, is often difficult.

The following are some neoconservatives: Kenneth Abelman, Elliot Abram, Larry Arnn, Steve Balch, Glenn Beck, Adam Bellow, William Bennett, Peter Berger, Alan Bloom, Max Boot, Eric Briendel, David Brooks, Mona Chares, Lynne  Chenney, Eliot Cohen, Matthew  Continetti, Ann Coulter, Dinesh  D'Souza, John Davisdson, Lucy  Dawidowicz, Midge Decter, Rostow Eugene, Douglas Faith, Don Feder, David Frum, David Gelernter, Nathan Glazer, Erwin Glinkes, Jonah Goldberg, Newt Gringerich, Allen Guelzo, Nikki Haley, Sean Hanity, Victor Hanson, Kay Heimowitz, Mark Helprin, Will Herbert, Gertrude Himmelfarb, John Hood, Sidney Hook, David Horowitz, Irving Howe, Brit Hume, Laura Ingraham, Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Jeff Jacoby, Harry Jaffa, Michael Joyce, Robert Kagan, Max Kampelman, Leon R.  Kass, Jack Kemp, Charles Kesler, Jeane Kilpatrick, David Klinghoffer, Allan Kors, Bruce Kovner, Neil Kozodoy, Hilton Kramer, Charles  Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol, David Lapin, Michael  Ledeen, Max Lerner, Mark Levin,  S.M. Lipset, Seth Lipsky, Herbert London, Frank Luntz, Myron Magnet, Joshua Marvchik, Michael Medered, Adam Meyerson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Joshva Muravchik, Rupert Murdoch, Forrest Nabors, Richard Neuhaus, David Novak, Michael Novak, Robert Nozick, Bill O’Reilly, Dinash O’Souza, Rauesh Pennuru, Martin Peretz, Richard Perle, Nathan Perlmutter, Daniel Pipes, John Podhoretz, Norman Podhoretz, David Prager, Ronald Radosh, Karl Rove, Jennifer Rubin, Rick Santorum, Lisa Schiffern, Wendy Shallir, Ben Shapiro, Leo Strauss, Diana Trilling, Lionel Trilling, Ben Wattenberg, George Weigel, Paul Weyrich, George Will, James Wilson, Albert Wohlstetter, Paul Wolfowitz, and Adam Wolfton.

References

Friedman, Murray. The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Gottfried, Paul Edward. Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right. New York, New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2007.

Kerwick, Jack. Misguided Guardians: The Conservative Case against Neoconservatives. Las Vegas, Nevada: Stairway Press, 2016.

Personal observations and other articles.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Taylor’s Observations of Some Republican Leaders

Taylor’s Observations of Some Republican Leaders

Thomas Allen

In Destruction And Reconstruction: Personal Experiences of the Late War (1879), Richard Taylor (1826 – 1879), the son of  Zachary Taylor and a Lieutenant General of the Confederate Army, gives his impression of several Republican officials whom he met during his trips to Washington during Reconstruction. Following are his observations of President Johnson, Secretary of State Seward, Secretary of War Stanton, Representative Stevens, Representative Davis, President Grant, Senator Morton, and Secretary of State Fish.

About President Andrew Johnson (1808–1875), he writes:

. . . the President [was] a saturnine man, who made no return to my bow, but, after looking at me, asked me to take a seat. Upon succeeding to power Mr. Johnson breathed fire and hemp against the South, proclaimed that he would make treason odious by hanging traitors, and ordered the arrest of General Lee and others, when he was estopped by the action of General Grant. He had now somewhat abated his wolfish desire for vengeance. . . . (p. 240)

. . . he [President Johnson] always postponed action, and was of an obstinate, suspicious temper. Like a badger, one had to dig him out of his hole; and he was ever in one except when on the hustings, addressing the crowd. Of humble birth, a tailor by trade, nature gave him a strong intellect, and he had learned to read after his marriage. He had acquired much knowledge of the principles of government, and made himself a fluent speaker, but could not rise above the level of the class in which he was born and to which he always appealed. He well understood the few subjects laboriously studied, and affected to despise other knowledge, while suspicious that those possessing such would take advantage of him. Self-educated men, as they are called, deprived of the side light thrown on a particular subject by instruction in cognate matters, are narrow and dogmatic, and, with an uneasy consciousness of ignorance, soothe their own vanity by underrating the studies of others. To the vanity of this class he added that of the demagogue (I use the term in its better sense), and called the wise policy left him by his predecessor “my policy.” Compelled to fight his way up from obscurity, he had contracted a dislike of those more favored of fortune, whom he was in the habit of calling “the slave-aristocracy,” and became incapable of giving his confidence to anyone, even to those on whose assistance he relied in a contest, just now beginning, with the Congress.

President Johnson never made a dollar by public office, abstained from quartering a horde of connections on the Treasury, refused to uphold rogues in high places, and had too just a conception of the dignity of a chief magistrate to accept presents. It may be said that these are humble qualities for a citizen to boast the possession of by a President of the United States. (pp. 242-243)

About William Seward (1801–1872), Secretary of State (1861–1869), he writes:

A loin of veal was the piece de resistance of his dinner, and he called attention to it as evidence that he had killed the fatted calf to welcome the returned prodigal. Though not entirely recovered from the injuries received in a fall from his carriage and the wounds inflicted by the knife of Payne, he was cheerful, and appeared to sympathize with the objects of my mission [to visit Jefferson Davis, who was in prison] — at least, so far as I could gather his meaning under the cloud of words with which he was accustomed to cover the slightest thought. (pp. 240-241)

About Edwin Stanton (1814 – 1869), Secretary of War (1862 – 1868), whom Tayor did not meet, he writes:

A spy under Buchanan, a tyrant under Lincoln, and a traitor to Johnson, this man was as cruel and crafty as Domitian. . . . In the end conscience, long dormant, came as Alecto, and he was not; and the temple of Justice, on whose threshold he stood, escaped profanation. (p. 241)

About Thaddeus Stevens (1792 – 1868), Chairman of the U.S. House Appropriations Committee (1865 – 1868), he writes:

Thaddeus Stevens received me with as much civility as he was capable of. Deformed in body and temper like Caliban, this was the Lord Hategood of the fair; but he was frankness itself. He wanted no restoration of the Union under the Constitution, which he called a worthless bit of old parchment. The white people of the South ought never again to be trusted with power, for they would inevitably unite with the Northern “Copperheads” and control the Government. The only sound policy was to confiscate the lands and divide them among the negroes [sic], to whom, sooner or later, suffrage must be given. Touching the matter in hand, Johnson was a fool to have captured Davis, whom it would have been wiser to assist in escaping. Nothing would be done with him, as the executive had only pluck enough to hang two poor devils such as Wirtz and Mrs. Surratt. Had the leading traitors been promptly strung up, well; but the time for that had passed. (Here, I thought, he looked lovingly at my neck, as Petit Andre was wont to do at those of his merry-go-rounds.) (pp. 243-244)

About Henry Davis (1817–1865), a Republican member of the House of Representatives (1855–1865), he writes:

Like the fallen angel, Davis preferred to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven or on earth. With the head of Medusa and the eye of the Basilisk, he might have represented Siva in a Hindoo temple, and was even more inaccessible to sentiment than Thaddeus Stevens. (p. 244)

About General Ulysses S. Grant (1822–1885) before he became president, Taylor writes:

The officers of the army on duty at Washington were very civil to me, especially General Grant, whom I had known prior to and during the Mexican war, as a modest, amiable, but by no means promising lieutenant in a marching regiment. He came frequently to see me, was full of kindness, and anxious to promote my wishes [to visit Jefferson Davis]. His action in preventing violation of the terms of surrender, and a subsequent report that he made of the condition of the South — a report not at all pleasing to the radicals — endeared him to all Southern men. Indeed, he was in a position to play a role second only to that of Washington, who founded the republic; for he had the power to restore it. His bearing and conduct at this time were admirable, modest and generous; and I talked much with him of the noble and beneficent work before him. While his heart seemed to respond, he declared his ignorance of and distaste for politics and politicians, with which and whom he intended to have nothing to do, but confine himself to his duties of commander-in-chief of the army. Yet he expressed a desire for the speedy restoration of good feeling between the sections, and an intention to advance it in all proper ways. (p. 244)

About Grant after he became president, Taylor writes:

Before the conventions to nominate candidates for the Presidency met in 1868, I had much intercourse with General Grant, and found him ever modest and determined to steer clear of politics, or at least not permit himself to be used by partisans; and I have no doubt that he was sincere. But the Radical Satan took him up to the high places and promised him dominion over all in view. Perhaps none but a divine being can resist such temptation. He accepted the nomination from the Radicals, and was elected. . . . As ignorant of civil government as of the characters on the Moabitish stone. President Grant begun badly, and went from, bad to worse. The appointments to office that he made, the associates whom he gathered around him, were astounding. All his own relatives, all his wife’s relatives, all the relatives of these relatives, to the remotest cousinhood, were quartered on the public treasury. Never, since King Jamie crossed the Tweed with the hungry Scotch nation at his heels, has the like been seen; and the soul of old Newcastle, greatest of English nepotists, must have turned green with envy. The influence of this on the public was most disastrous. Already shortened by the war, the standard of morality, honesty, and right was buried out of sight. (p. 256) . . . In Boston, July, 1872, . . . President Grant and I met for the first time since he had accepted the nomination from the Radical party. He was a candidate for reelection, and much worshiped; and, though cordial with me, his general manner had something of “I am the State.” (p. 259) . .  .  Of a nature kindly and modest, President Grant was assured by all about him that he was the delight of the Radicals, greatest captain of the age, and saviour of the nation’s life. It was inevitable that he should begin by believing some of this, and end by believing it all. Though he had wasted but little time on books since leaving West Point, where in his day the curriculum was limited, he had found out to the last shilling the various sums voted by Parliament to the Duke of Wellington, and spoke of them in a manner indicating his opinion that he was another example of the ingratitude of republics. The gentle temper and sense of justice of Othello resisted the insidious wiles of Iago; but ignorance and inexperience yielded in the end to malignity and craft. President Grant was brought not only to smother the Desdemona of his early preferences and intentions, but to feel no remorse for the deed, and take to his bosom the harridan of radicalism. As Phalaris did those of Agrigentum opposed to his rule, he finished by hating Southerners and Democrats. (p. 265)

About Senator Oliver Morton (1823–1877) from Indiana (1867–1877), he writes:

. . . my first step in Washington was to call on the leader of the Radicals in the Senate, Morton of Indiana, when a long conversation ensued, from which I derived no encouragement. Senator Morton was the Couthon of his party, and this single interview prepared me for one of his dying utterances to warn the country against the insidious efforts of slave-driving rebels to regain influence in the Government. The author of the natural history of Ireland would doubtless have welcomed one specimen, by describing which he could have filled out a chapter on snakes; and there is temptation to dwell on the character of Senator Morton as one of the few Radical leaders who kept his hands clean of plunder. But it may be observed that one absorbing passion excludes all others from the human heart; and the small portion of his being in which disease had left vitality was set on vengeance. Death has recently clutched him, and would not be denied; and lie is bewailed throughout the land as though he had possessed the knightly tenderness of Sir Philip Sidney and the lofty patriotism of Chatham. (pp. 260-261)

About Hamilton Fish (1808–1893), Secretary of State (1869–1877), he writes:

Of a distinguished Revolutionary race, possessor of a good estate, and with charming, cultivated surroundings, this gentleman seemed the Noah of the political world. Perhaps his retention in the Cabinet was due to a belief that, under the new and milder dispensation, the presence of one righteous man might avert the doom of Gomorrah. (p. 261)

More Southern articles.

More on the US Constitution

 More on the US Constitution

Thomas Allen

Below discussed are two philosophies of government, two concepts of the States, and the three-fifth clause of the Constitution below.

Two Philosophies of Government

In the United States, two philosophies of government are competing: the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the philosophy of Abraham Lincoln. Until 1860, Jefferson’s philosophy prevailed. Since 1865, Lincoln’s philosophy has dominated.  Between 1861 and 1865, a war (Lincoln’s War) was fought to decide which of these two philosophies would govern the United States. Lincoln won and Jefferson lost. Today, the vast majority of people follow Lincoln’s philosophy.

Jefferson’s philosophy is based on the Aristotelian philosophy: Man is communal and naturally forms groups in which to live. The purpose of the government is to protect life, liberty, and property. Therefore, the government is the minimum necessary to protect life, liberty, and property.

Lincoln’s philosophy is based on the Hobbesian philosophy: Man is a solitary beast living by the “Law of the Jungle” (the survival of the fittest) instead of being communal. Therefore, man has to be forced into relationships with his fellow man. Further, only force can maintain these relationships. Consequently, the purpose of the government is to apply this force. The government is how civilization and society are maintained. To apply this force requires a powerful government.

Under Jefferson’s philosophy, the United States are a voluntary union of independent bodies politic (a voluntary union of independent States). As independent sovereigns, the States entered into a compact, the United States Constitution. Under the Constitution, the States retain all powers that they did not expressly delegate to the government for the United States (commonly called the federal government) or denied themselves in the Constitution.

Under Lincoln’s philosophy, the United States is (according to Lincoln’s philosophy and “are” according to Jefferson’s philosophy) a union where the people are submissive to an all-powerful government (the federal government). Also, the States are not independent sovereign bodies politic; they are merely equivalent to counties of the federal government. Moreover, the States have only those powers that the federal government condescends to grant or allow them. Further, the States are to do whatever the federal government orders them to do.

Jefferson’s philosophy of government is one of liberty. Lincoln’s philosophy of government is one of oppression.

Two Concepts of the States

In Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction and Related Topics, 1898 (pages 320–328), William Dunning, Ph.D., explains two concepts of the States. They are the older concept, the Jeffersonian concept, and the newer concept, the Lincolnian concept. The Jeffersonian concept generally prevailed before 1861, and the Lincolnian concept has prevailed since 1861.

The Lincolnian concept of the States maintains that the States are not equal: Some States are more equal than others. The original States north of the Potomac River along with a few other States are superior to the other States. All the other States including the Southern States are inferior because the act of Congress that admitted them (or readmitted the Southern States) placed conditions on them that are forever binding. Thus, the act of admission is superior to the Constitution.

Adherents of the Lincolnian concept argue that nothing in the Constitution requires that States be equal. Thus, Congress can impose perpetually binding conditions on a State when admitting that State into the Union. Further, courts are bound by these conditions and cannot overturn them on the grounds that all States are equal. The only equality to which all States are entitled is equal representation in the Senate, a proportional number of members in the House of Representatives, and a republican form of government. “But beyond such clearly defined rights, Congress may determine as it pleases the degree of restriction which it deems best for any particular community” (pp. 325-326).

The Jeffersonian concept maintains that all States are equal. The tenth amendment asserts this equality. Even if Congress were to admit with conditions a territory as a State, those conditions become irrelevant once the territory becomes a State. 

Adherents of the Jeffersonian concept contend that the Constitution overrides the act of admission. “If the power in question is not delegated to the United States by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states, it rightfully belongs to the state, anything in the act of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding” (p. 327).

Moreover, proponents of the Jefferson concept maintain that Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution only authorizes Congress to admit new States; it does not authorize Congress to create new States. “The creation of the state is antecedent to the admission, and springs from the will of the people inhabiting the territory” (p. 327).

Of the two concepts, the Jeffersonian concept is far more compatible with liberty than the Lincolnian concept. Ultimately, the Lincolnian concept leads to tyranny and despotism. Regrettably, many States have been admitted (or readmitted for the Southern States) following the Lincolnian concept. Thus, the Union consists of two types of States: the superior States and the inferior States. While the inferior States entered (or reentered for the Southern States) with perpetually binding conditions imposed on them, the superior States entered the Union without conditions.

Three-fifth Clause

Section 2, Article 1 of the Constitution for the United States reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Thus, slaves are only counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of direct taxation and representation.

Many people seem to believe that the slaveholding Southern States argued that Black slaves should not be counted because they were inferior subhumans. On the other hand, the Northern States, especially the New England States (home of the Yankee at that time), argued that Blacks should be counted as whole persons because they are the White man’s equal. On the contrary, the Southern States wanted to count Black slaves as whole persons. The Northern States did not want to count them as persons. The South and North compromised by counting slaves as three-fifths of a person. 

This disagreement had nothing to do with the inferiority of Blacks or the superiority of Whites; after all, free Blacks were counted as whole persons. Instead, how to count Black slaves concerned political power. If Black slaves were counted as whole persons, the South would have more political power. If Black slaves were counted as nonpersons, the North would have more political power. Even the compromise gave the North more political power.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.