Review of Facts and Falsehoods – Part 2

Review of Facts and Falsehoods – Part 2

Thomas Allen

Negro Voting

Edmonds reveals the low opinion about Blacks held by the typical Republican. He quotes an 1880 issue of the Lemars (Iowa) Sentinel, which he describes as one of the boldest Republican organs that frankly betrayed its party’s real feeling toward the Negro race, “As an office seeker, the negro [sic] has more brass in a square inch of his face, more rapaciousness for office, than his barbarian masters ever dared to possess. The Southern brigadier wants office and place, but he is willing to fight for them, or vote for them; at the drop of the hat he will shoot and cut for them; he does not whine like a whipped cur, or demand like a beggar on horseback, as the nigger does. Let the nigger first learn to vote before he asks for office. The brazen-jawed nigger is but a trifle less assuming, insolent and imperious in his demands than the lantern-jawed brigadiers; the educated nigger is a more capacious liar than his barbarian masters ever were, or dared to be.

“The greatest mistake the Republican party ever made was taking the nigger at a single bound and placing on his impenetrable skull the crown of suffrage. It is a wrong to him and to us to let him wield the ballot. The nigger is necessarily an ignoramus. The free nigger, we repeat, is a fraud.” (p. 220.)

(The reason for giving the Negro suffrage was to maintain Republican political power. Thus, the reason for the fifteenth amendment, which gave Black males the vote, was to maintain Republican control in the North. This amendment only applied in the Northern States; the Negro already had the vote in all the defunct Confederate States when this amendment was ratified.)

Grant’s Drinking

About Grant’s alcoholism, Edmonds writes, “From early manhood General Grant was afflicted with the drink disease.” (p. 221.) Then he quotes Wendell Phillips, insane hater of the South, and General Don Piatt, an abolitionist (p. 221).

“Phillips said: ‘Grant can never stand before a bottle of whiskey without falling down.’

“General Piatt, in ‘Memories of the Men Who Saved the Union,’ says: ‘Grant’s habit of drink lost us thousands and thousands of patriotic lives. The attempt to conceal this is not only pitiable, but hopeless.’”

Continuing, Edmonds writes, “The terrible slaughter of Union soldiers at Cold Harbor was charged to Grant’s drunkenness. Major-General Wm. F. Smith, in a confidential letter to Senator Foote, July 30, 1864, states that soon after Grant had taken a pledge to drink nothing intoxicating, he (Grant) called at his (Smith's) headquarters, and asked for whiskey, and drank so often he went away drunk, and General Butler saw him. A short while before this Grant had written to Washington asking that General Butler be relieved from that department, because he (Grant) ‘could not trust Butler with the command of the troops in the movements about to be made.’ Instructions were sent to Grant to remove Butler. Butler heard of this and hurried to see Grant. General Smith wrote Senator Foote that he heard direct from Grant’s headquarters, and also from another source, that General Butler threatened Grant that he would expose his drunken habits if the order was not revoked. The order was revoked, and Butler remained in command, although Grant had said he was unfit to be trusted.” (p. 221.)

Some English Views of Reconstruction

Edmonds quotes two English historians on their views of Reconstruction (p. 238).

“Percy Gregg, the English historian, in his history of the United States, says: ‘The reconstruction policy was at once dishonest and vindictive. The Congressional majority (Republican) were animated not merely by selfish designs, but by rabid hatred of the South’s people which had fought so gallantly for what the best jurists of America believed to be their moral and constitutional right.’

“Another English writer of great eminence, Anthony Trollope, was in this country during the reconstruction period, and wrote of it thus: ‘I hold that tyranny never went beyond this. Never has there been a more terrible condition imposed upon a fallen people. For an Italian to feel an Austrian over him, for a Pole to feel a Russian over him, has been bad indeed, but it has been left for the political animosity of the Republicans of the North — men who themselves reject all contact with the negro — to subject the Southern people to dominance from the African who yesterday was their slave. The dungeon chains were knocked off the captive in order that he may be harnessed as a beast of burden to the captive's chariot.’

“We will give another passage from Gregg, the English historian: ‘The devastation of the Pallatine [sic] hardly exceeded the desolation and misery wrought by the Republican invasion and conquest of the South. No conquered nation of modern days, not Poland under the heel of Nicholas, not Spain or Russia under that of Napoleon, suffered from such individual and collective ruin, or saw before them so frightful a prospect as the States dragged by force, in April, 1865. under the “best government in the world.”’ (Page 375, Gregg's History of United States.)” [Palatine was a territory in Germany that lost about 90 percent of its population during the Thirty Years War.]

Not So Random Quotations

Wendell Phillips, an abolitionist:

– “He [Lincoln] is a first-rate second-rate man; that is all of him.”

– “Mr. Lincoln is a politician; politicians are like the bones of a horse’s fore shoulder; not a straight one in it.”

– “The Constitution is a mistake! Tear it to pieces! Our aim is disunion!”

– “The Republican party is in no sense a national party. It is a party of the North, organized against the South.”

– “We confess that we intend to trample on the Constitution of this country. We of New England are not a law-abiding community. God be thanked for it! We are disunionists; we want to get rid of this Union.”

William Lloyd Garrison, a New England abolitionist:

– “The Republican party is moulding public sentiment in the right direction for the dissolution of the Union.”

Rev. Andrew Forbes:

– “There never was an hour when this blasphemous and infamous Union should have been made; now the hour must be prayed for when it will be dashed to pieces.”

Parson Pryiic, a red hot Republican:

“A dissolution of the Union is what a large portion of the Republicans are driving at.”

William H. Seward, Lincoln’s Secretary of State:

– “Our Constitution is to us of the North a great danger. The Southerners are using it as a shield.”

– “Only a despotic and imperial government can subjugate seceding States.”

– “The attempt to reinforce Sumter will provoke an attack and involve war.” 

Ward H. Lamon, Lincoln’s self-appointed bodyguard:

– “As a people, Lincoln thought negroes would only be useful to those who were at the same time their masters, and the foes of those who sought their good.”

– “Lincoln always contended that the cheapest way of getting rid of the negro was for the Nation to buy the slaves and send them out of the country.”

– “He [Lincoln] never at any time favored the admission of negroes into the body of the electors in his State, or in the States of the South.”

General Don Piatt, an abolitionist:

– “Lincoln well knew that the North was not fighting to free slaves, nor was the South fighting to preserve slavery.”

– “I found that Mr. Lincoln could no more feel sympathy for that wretched [Negro] race than he could for the horse he worked or the hog he killed.”

Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio:

– “There is really no Union now between the North and the South. I believe no two nations on earth entertain feelings of more bitter rancor toward each other than these two peoples.”

Senator Stephen Douglas:

– “The fact can no longer be disguised that many Republican Senators desire war and disunion under pretense of saving the Union. For partisan reasons they are anxious to destroy the Union. They want this done without holding them responsible before the people.”

the Lemars (Iowa) Sentinel, a Republican newspaper:

– “The Stalwarts do not care a fig for the Constitution, and will trample it under foot today as did Lincoln and the Union hosts from ’61 to ’65.”

an Iowa editor:

– “Abraham Lincoln kicked the Constitution into the Capitol cellar, and there it remained innocuous until the war ended.”

Judge Yaples, in the Cincinnati Enquirer of 1880:

– “Republican hate is grounded on the fact that the people of the South will not join the Republican party.”

Unknown:

– “The people of Raleigh, N. C, were astonished to find that Sherman’s army were Christian gentlemen.”

George Edmonds:

– “The underlying cause of every conflict between man and man, tribe and tribe, country and country, has been on the one side a craving for power, on the other side an effort to escape that power.”

– “So long had the gospel of hate been preached, those New Englanders had come to hate the South so venomously they wanted to force her out of the Union she loved.”

– “All abolitionists believed in the right of secession. All hated the Union and wanted to break it to pieces.”

– “Before the South seceded, the foremost men in the Republican party openly maintained the right of secession.”

– “Lincoln was the first President who usurped the power to rule the American people.”

– “The whole reconstruction period was a deadly war on Southern people, and the more base and cowardly because waged on unarmed men and women.”

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More Southern articles.

Review of Facts and Falsehoods – Part 1

Review of Facts and Falsehoods – Part 1

Thomas Allen

Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-1865 (Memphis, Tennessee: A. R. Taylor & Co., 1904) by George Edmonds is an excellent book and worth reading. Edmonds reveals the real Abraham Lincoln before he was deified.

Before Lincoln’s deification, most Republicans, including his cabinet, did not respect him, and many despised him. Further, they perceived him as incompetent, opportunistic, and indecisive and as a political hack and a politician in the worst sense of the word. Fame was what Lincoln wanted. Assassination was the best thing to ever happen to him, for it brought him the fame for which he lusted and his deification.

Edmonds shows that the founding principles of the Republican Party were hatred of the Constitution and Southerners, disunion, and the concentration of political power in the federal government. Being a White man’s party, the Republican Party had little use for Blacks — free or slave. 

He discusses the hatred of the South that many Republican leaders possessed from Lincoln’s War to 1904 when he published his book. This hatred of the South still exists today albeit in a milder form when conservatives, e.g., Beck and Coulter, express it. This hatred reveals itself in the left’s destruction of Southern culture, history, and memorials with the support of scalawags including most Southern Republican and Democratic governors, and the complacency of most conservatives.

The following are some excerpts from his book.

Comparison of Buchanan with Lincoln

Edmonds quotes the Lemars (Iowa) Sentinel, 1879, which fearlessly propounded Republican doctrines, “No reasonable man will say that President Buchanan was wrong when he said that the North had no constitutional right to coerce seceding States, but what of that? Up jumped Abraham Lincoln, the rail-splitter, and kicked the Constitution into the Capitol cellar, and called for 75,000 armed men to march down and conquer the South, and when the 75,000 proved not enough, the rail splitter called for more, and more, until he had over 2,000,000 armed men, and he sent ’em down to burn and pillage, to kill, conquer or annihilate traitors to our glorious Union, the Constitution all the while in the Capitol cellar." (pp. 23-24)

About Rebellion

Edmonds writes, “The history of man’s struggle for freedom shows that rebellions have won for mankind all the freedom they possess. Did ever any ruler on earth, of his own will, loosen his grip on the liberties of those he ruled? Every inch of liberty the English-speaking people now have was gained by rebellions. The colonies of ’76 won freedom by rebellion. Rebellion means resistance to lawful rule. George III was the lawful King of the Colonies. At no period in the existence of this Union has one State or group of States held lawful rule over any other State or group of States. The most stupendous falsehood ever told on this continent is the falsehood that the Southern people rebelled. There can be no rebellion except against lawful rulers. The Republican party of the 6o’s was guilty of the monstrous crime of usurping the power to rule the Southern States. Not only did Republicans pour out the virulence of hate on the South’s men, her women came in for a share, and a large share they received.” (p. 245)

Lincoln’s Response to Medill’s Protest to Lincoln’s Order for More Troops

About Lincoln rebuking Joseph Medill, editor of the Chicago Tribune and Republican politician, when he protested Lincoln ordering more troops from Chicago, Edmonds cites Ida Tarbell, who wrote a biography of Lincoln. Miss Tarbell relates what Medill told her about this incident, “In 1864 when the call for extra troops came, Chicago revolted. Chicago had sent 22,000 and was drained. There were no young men to go, no aliens except what was already bought. The citizens held a mass meeting and appointed three men, of whom I (Medill) was one, to go to Washington and ask Stanton (the War Secretary) to give Cook County a new enrollment. On reaching Washington we went to Stanton with our statement. He refused. Then we went to President Lincoln. ‘I cannot do it,’ said Lincoln, ‘but I will go with you to Stanton and hear the arguments of both sides.’ So we all went over to the War Department together. Stanton and General Frye were there, and they both contended that the quota should not be changed. The argument went on for some time, and was finally referred to Lincoln, who had been silently listening. When appealed to, Lincoln turned to us with a black and frowning face: ‘Gentlemen.’ he said, with a voice full of bitterness, ‘after Boston, Chicago has been the chief instrument in bringing this war on the country. The Northwest opposed the South, as New England opposed the South. It is you, Medill, who is largely responsible for making blood flow as it has. You called for war until you had it. I have given it to you. What you have asked for you have had. Now you come here begging to be let off from the call for more men, which I have made to carry on the war you demanded. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Go home and raise your 6,000 men. And you, Medill, you and your Tribune have had more influence than any other paper in the Northwest in making this war. Go home and send me those men I want.’

“Medill says that he and his companions, feeling guilty, left without further argument. They returned to Chicago, and 6,000 more men from the working classes were dragged from their homes, their families, forced into the ranks to risk limbs and lives in a war they had no part in making, while the men that forced that war on an unwilling people remained at home in comfort and safety, and made enormous fortunes by the war.” (p. 162)

To this, Edmonds adds, “Is it any wonder educated workingmen often become anarchists and hate all governments?” (p. 163)

Lincoln on Courts

About Lincoln’s preference for using military courts instead of civil courts, Edmonds writes, “Daniel Webster objected to military courts because, as he said, ‘military courts are organized to convict.’ The so-called humane Lincoln objected to civil courts because one member of the jury might be more ready to hang the panel than to hang the man! Lincoln seems to assume that men arrested by military officials must be guilty, therefore should have no chance of escaping conviction by trial in a Civil court. Lincoln also objects to civil courts because they only convict on charges of crime well defined by law. Military courts convict on the most frivolous pretexts, or no pretext at all. The chief thing necessary to military conviction is that some man in high place should desire the man to be convicted and put out of his way. In the Albany address reference was made to the suspension of the habeas corpus. To this Mr. Lincoln replied as follows: ‘The suspension of the habeas corpus was for the purpose that men may be arrested and held in prison who cannot be proved guilty of any defined crime.’” (p. 212)

Continuing, Edmonds writes that the above declaration is not Lincoln's worst. Then, he quotes Lincoln’s comment to the Albany committee of Democrats, “Arrests are not made so much for what has been done as for what possibly might be done. The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered (by arrest, imprisonment, or death) he is sure to help the enemy.” (p. 212).

Then, Edmonds writes, “Is it any wonder under rulings like this that 38,000 arbitrary arrests threw 38,000 innocent men and women into American bastiles [sic] to languish for months or years, and many therein to die?” (p. 212.)

Moreover, Edmonds writes, “Under Lincoln’s definition silence became an act of treason. A man with a sore throat, unable to talk aloud, if he happened to be present when the Lincoln Government was discussed, was liable to arrest and imprisonment in the most distant fortress in the land.” (p. 212).

Next, Edmonds quotes Lincoln writing, “Much more if a man talks ambiguously, talks with ‘buts’ and ‘ifs’ and ‘ands’ he cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered (by imprisonment or death) this man will actively commit treason. Arbitrary arrests are not made for the treason defined in the Constitution, but to prevent treason.” About this quotation, Edmonds comments, “That is to prevent the sort of treason never before known on earth — the treason of ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ and ‘ands’ — the treason made and invented by Abraham Lincoln, the first President of the Republican party.” (pp. 212-213.)

Seward’s Character

To describe the character of William H. Seward, Lincoln’s Secretary of State, Edmonds quotes General Piatt, a personal friend and great admirer of Seward, “Seward began life as a school teacher in the South. He had been treated with condescending indifference by the unenlightened masters, which treatment he never forgot. Seward looked down on the white men of the South in the same cynical way that he did upon the slaves. He had no pity for the slaves, and no dislike for the master. He was a great favorite with the last named. He had contempt for them, which he concealed as carefully as he did his contempt for the United States Constitution. Seward had trained himself to believe that worldly wickedness indicated ability. He thought to be bad was to be clever. He thought that devotion to wine, women and infidelity gave proof of superior intelligence. He affected a wickedness he did not feel, because such wickedness, in his estimation, was good form.” To this description, Edmonds asks, “Was it spite that made Seward so vindictive toward the Southern people?” (p. 158)

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2.

More Southern articles.

Mosaic Economics

Mosaic Economics

Thomas Allen

In Moses the Economist (1947, Editor Ben Williams, Reprinted 2009, American Christian Ministries), C.F. Parker gives his understanding of Mosaic economics as described in the Pentateuch. Some of his descriptions and my comments follow.

– Value. Parker believes that the value of the labor used to provide a product or service determines its value. (Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx held this view.) The opinion of the consumer is irrelevant. Thus, if the labor value of a product is $100 and the consumer values it at $50, the product cannot be sold for $50. To sell it for $50 would cheat the workers of their due wages and would be an ill-gotten gain for the consumer, who has cheated the workers out of part of their wages. For the product to sit on the shelf and deteriorate is better than selling it for less than $100. How the workers are better off losing $100 by the product deteriorating to worthlessness than losing $50, Parker does not explain.

Like most people, he has the cost of labor and materials determining the selling price of the product backward. The cost of labor and other inputs to produce a product does not determine the selling price of the product. The marginal consumer does. What the consumer is willing to pay for a product determines the cost of the labor and other inputs in the production of the product.

– Taxes. Farmers bear the primary burden of funding the government. They pay 10 percent of their crops and increase in herds to the government. (If their herds decrease, does this the government reimburses them for 10 percent of their loss — probably not.) However, they pay their taxes in products and livestock instead of money.

To provide additional revenue (taxes) for the government, Parker extends this principle to manufacturers. Through some convoluted reasoning, he concludes that the use of tools powered by steam or electricity produced by coal, petroleum, natural gas, uranium, water, and now wind and solar makes their products equivalent to agriculture. Consequently, manufacturers would pay the government 10 percent of what they produce. Thus, applying the agricultural equivalency, an automobile manufacturer would give the government 10 percent of the cars and trucks that he produces. A spark plug manufacturer would give the government 10 percent of the spark plugs produced. In like manner, a toy manufacturer would pay the government 10 percent of the toys that he produces. And, likewise, for other manufacturers.

However, if furniture manufacturers or seamstresses used no power tools in producing their furniture or apparel, they pay no taxes. Yet, if they use power tools, such as electric saws and drills and electric sowing machines, they pay 10 percent of their products to the government.

Providers of services are exempted from taxation. For some strange reason, Parker puts miners, who extract God-given ore from the ground, in the nontaxpaying category. Although he is unclear whether extractors of petroleum, natural gas, and coal pay taxes or not, he seems to place them in the nontaxpaying category.

Parker does not address solar and wind energy because when he wrote his book, they were not used to produce electricity, although the wind was used to grind grain, pump water, and move ships. However, based on his agricultural principle, since God provides the wind and sun, people who use them to produce electricity should give the government 10 percent of the electricity that they produce.

– Land. Parker is a proponent of the jubilee where all land returns to the original owner every 50 years. For the Western Hemisphere, this means that all land return to the Indians (who gets the land of the extinct Indian tribes?). Or, it returns to the monarchs of Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Russia. If the principle of the right of conquest, the land belongs to whoever conquers it, is applied as it is applied to the Israelite’s conquest of Canaan, then the aforementioned monarchs are the original owners since the land was conquered for them and in their name. Consequently, the Indians have no claim. (See “Jubilee” by Thomas Allen.)

– Usury, Loans, and Debt. Of course, charging interest including fees, which is interest by another name, on loans is prohibited. Moreover, all debts are canceled after seven years —not seven years from when the loan is made but a fixed calendar seven years for all loans. Thus, a loan may be canceled a year after it is made. (See “Questions for Anti-Usurers” by Thomas Allen.)

If all debt is canceled every seven years, then all paper money and its electronic equivalent including checkbook money become void every seven years. These types of money are obligations, i.e., debts. Parker seems not to recognize this cancellation of credit or representative money, which he believes is real money like full-weight gold and silver coins. His confusion about money derives from his belief that money is a mere token. (See “What Is Money?”,  "What Are the Functions of Money,” and “What Is the Difference Between Commodity and Fiat Money” by Thomas Allen)

Although Parker does not realize it, his anti-usury stance if carried to its logical conclusion forbids farmers from saving part of their crop as seed for the next season. Deciding how much to consume now and how much to save for future consumption involves interest, usury.

Furthermore, even the holdings of Social Security, of which Parker approves, would cease to exist every seven years because they are obligations (debts) owed to the participants.

– Money. Further, Parker has little understanding of commodity money, e.g., gold and silver, and a commodity monetary system, e.g., the gold standard. He believes that the monetary commodity has a different value, usually, a lower value, from the commodity stamped as a coin. Under a true commodity standard, the commodity has approximately the same value as an equivalent weight of the commodity when stamped as a coin. Money has value in and of itself that is independent of any image, words, or numbers stamped on it. The weight of the commodity in the coin is what gives it value and not what is stamped on it. (If the monetary value of a currency exceeds the commodity of which it is made, as with paper money, it represents real commodity money and is, therefore, an obligation to pay real commodity money, i.e., it is a debt payable in real commodity money.)

If he had looked in Genesis, he would have found the attributes of real money, which are quantity, a measure of weight, and substance. According to Genesis 23:16, Abraham bought a burial plot. He paid 400 (quantity) shekels (measurement of weight) of silver (substance). All commodity money has these three attributes, which makes money more than a mere token.

Therefore, a token even if used as a medium of exchange is not Biblical money. When used as a medium of exchange, token money represents money and passes the obligation to pay real money from one person to another. When the seven-year debt cancellation comes, token money becomes a canceled debt, and the person holding it is cheated out of whatever value it had as a medium of exchange.

Nevertheless, Parker is correct about money itself not being wealth. However, the gold in a gold coin is wealth as gold bullion. (See “What is the Gold Standard?” by Thomas Allen.)

– Banks. Banking as known today would cease to exist. People who wanted to save their money in a secured vault would have to pay someone to protect their money in a vault.

As for checking accounts, people would have to pay a depositary to hold their money against which they could write checks. They may also have to pay when a check is cashed or money is transferred from one account to another account. A return to yesteryear where bill collectors visited people’s houses or businesses to collect payment may return. Most likely, people may have to visit centralized offices to pay their bills as that would be the cheapest way of making payments.

– Wages. According to Parker, people should be paid according to their effective endeavors. Also, he seems to argue for a wage system that is akin to what progressives promote from time to time. Some governmental bureaucrats establish a relative pay scale for each type of job based on their opinion of its importance and on the labor required for that job. 

Nevertheless, he maintains that workers who work more efficiently acquire more wealth than less efficient workers. The incompetent and slackers become impoverished. He is a proponent of meritocracy in the workplace, which the free market generally provides when the government does not interfere with employment.

According to Parker’s understanding of Mosaic economics, wealth is fixed and is the aggregate of the rivers, lakes, oceans, soil, plants, animals, atmosphere, and the like. Wealth has nothing to do with human intelligence in organizing and using these resources. Thus, African countries rich in resources should be wealthier than Singapore, which is extremely poor in natural resources, but most are not.

– Stocks. Corporations with publicly traded stock would cease to exist under Parker’s Mosaic economics. Paying dividends on stock is outlawed because the owner of the stock did not earn the money. Moreover, one could never sell a stock for more than he paid for it because that is ill-gotten gain. Likewise, apparently, one could never sell a stock for less than what he paid for it because that would be an ill-gotten gain for the buyer. 

– Abundances and Scarcities. Buying items such as generators and food in a region of plenty and selling them in a region of want because of a natural disaster, war, or otherwise at a price above what existed before the disaster is forbidden. One must sell the item at the predisaster market price. (Higher prices mean stronger demand relative to the supply and are a signal for more supply. By fixing prices, Parker denies this signal. He appears to have a great deal of confidence in the integrity and the subjective opinions of governmental bureaucrats to move products from a region of abundance to a region of scarcity. He seems to want to eliminate the free market.)

Moreover, in a region that has an abundance of agricultural products, he would prohibit selling the products below the pre-abundant price. To do so would cheat the farmer. Apparently, the farmer and presumably the consumer benefit more from the excess crops rotting away than from selling them at a lower price.

– Selling Used Items. Selling a used product, including antiques and old masterpiece paintings, for a profit is forbidden. One cannot sell a used product for more than what he paid for it (or the original price if the original price is lower). Consequently, if a person inherits a painting, jewelry, furniture, or anything else whose original price is unknown, he cannot sell it.

Moreover, stamp and coin collecting as an investment would cease to exist. One can never sell a stamp or coin for more than its face value.

– Insurance. Private insurance is verboten. Nevertheless, Parker accepts governmentally run Ponzi schemes like social security, which is often called insurance.

– Conclusions. If implemented, Mosaic economics, as Parker explains it, would be detrimental to today’s economy. A small minority of the country, the farmers and manufacturers, bear the tax burden; the remainder remains untaxed. This dearth of taxes does keep the government small and, therefore, limited. The government could not make up for the shortfall by deficient spending as the cancellation of debt every seven years and the illegality of charging interest would prevent most people from lending to the government.

Further, his explanation of money is flawed. Also, his requirement for governmental price fixing is highly destructive and would create continuous surplus and shortages. He asserts that the value or price of labor in producing and distributing products fixes their value or price; the subjective opinion of the consumer, i.e., what the consumer is willing to pay for the product is irrelevant in fixing its value or price. His demand to abolish interest would cause the consumption of capital until society reverts to the hunter-gatherer stage. (See “Usury” by Thomas Allen.) 

Moreover, Mosaic economics, as Parker explains it, relies heavily on the wisdom, integrity, altruism, and near omniscience of governmental bureaucrats. Although historically and biblically, governments have been much more doers of evil than doers of good, Parker displays a childlike trust and confidence in governments always being doers of good.

Parker is convinced that Mosaic economics as he understands it will eliminate poverty. However, instead of making the country prosperous as he claims, his proposals would impoverish the country.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More economic articles.

Calhoun and States’ Rights

Calhoun and States’ Rights

Thomas Allen

In Chaining Down Leviathan: The American Dream of Self-Government 1776-1865 (McClellanville, South Carolina: Abbeville Institute Press, 2021), Luigi Marco Bassani discusses John C. Calhoun’s concept of States’ rights. The following summarizes that discussion.

Calhoun used “State” to designate the people of a State and not its government, which the people (body politic of that State) created. Each State was a self-governing political community, and the people of each State were the sovereign authority — not their government. Concurrent majority and the concept that the Constitution was an agreement between the States were the core features of Calhoun’s political thoughts. Thus, he objected to the notion that a simple numerical majority should decide all political issues.

According to Calhoun, sovereignty belonged either to the States or to the Union. Because sovereignty was indivisible, it could not belong to both. He argued that sovereignty resided in the people of the individual States and not in the people of the Union as a whole.

Calhoun asserted that the Supremacy Clause invested no power in the federal government. It clearly did not establish the supremacy of the federal government. Further, he maintained that the authority of the federal government set up by the Constitution was limited to the delegated powers and that laws enacted pursuant to these delegated powers were supreme. However, the Supremacy Clause did not extend beyond these delegated powers, i.e., the supremacy of the federal government is not absolute. The States and the people of the States retained all authority not expressly delegated to the federal government.

Conflict, according to Calhoun, did not originate in society. Governmental action caused conflict by creating two opposite social classes: taxpayers and tax consumers. Moreover, suffrage led to conflict between the different interests in a community because each interest strove to obtain the power to protect itself from the others and to advance its own agenda. However, conflicting interests did not lead to a government. Politics was what caused the conflict between various interests.

Calhoun thought equalizing the fiscal appropriations of a government was impossible. Taxation and public expenditures caused two conflicting interests. While those who controlled the government benefitted from the taxes, those who did not control the government paid more in taxes than they received back in disbursements. Consequently, political power, government, is the cause of conflict in society.

For many years, Calhoun sought in the Constitution the defense against the federal government’s intrusions. He based his arguments on the individual States being contracting parties to and, therefore, the real principals of the Constitution.

The Constitution centered around the States. This centralness appeared in how Representatives and Senators were chosen. The people of the several States chose members of the House of Representatives. The legislatures of the States elected senators. (Now, the people of each State elect that State’s Senators via the seventeenth amendment.) Representatives and Senators must be inhabitants of the State from which they are elected. Moreover, Representatives were never considered a delegate of a part of the American people.

Calhoun noted that States were the source of the federal government’s political powers. Political power flowed from the States to the federal government and never vice-versa. The Constitution gave certain powers to the federal government and prohibited others. However, it never gave any powers to the States; it only prohibited certain powers. All powers that the States did not expressly delegate to the federal government, they reserved for themselves, i.e., the States retained all powers not expressly delegated. Thus, the Constitution established a federal government with highly limited powers.

For Calhoun, the States were the sole actors in the Union. Unlike Jefferson, who favored a federal-type relationship between centers of government within a State, Calhoun did not. He favored a simple administrative relationship between the State government and local authorities. However, he believed that the United States were an authentic federation.

Calhoun objected to governmental interference in the economic pursuits of individuals, who understood their own interests better than any government. Accordingly, he supported free trade and, therefore, low tariffs. Fervently, he objected to protective tariffs and the South paying disproportionately a much larger share of federal revenue than the North paid. Consequently, the North was exploiting southern producers and consumers for the benefit of the northern manufacturing industry. This redistribution of wealth was not limited to the South. It also was used against northern workers and would result in a class struggle — all courtesy of the federal government.

Furthermore, Calhoun recognized that the centralization and concentration of power in the federal government were being used for northern interest and were causing corruption that threatened the freedom of the country. Interposition by the States was the solution to this centralization of power. However, States could not interpose their authority to interfere with the powers that the Constitution expressly delegated to the federal government. Likewise, the federal government could not interfere with the powers that the States had retained for themselves.

Moreover, the Constitution was based on distinguishing between government and sovereignty. Governmental powers resided in the institutions either of the States or the federal government. Sovereignty resided in the people of each State respectively. Three-fourths of the States were the final constitutional authority.

Because the Constitution created the departments of the federal government, sovereignty did not and could not reside in any department of the federal government. Their sole purpose was to execute the provisions of the Constitution. Any act of the federal government that altered the nature of the Constitution or changed any condition of the parties to it was usurpation.

Calhoun believed that the Supreme Court might judge acts of a State whether they violated the constitutional prerogatives of the federal government. However, the Supreme Court should not and could not legitimately judge an act of the federal government whether it violated the constitutional prerogatives of a State. For the Supreme Court to do so placed it above the States that created the Constitution and vested in it the power to alter the powers of the federal government and the States. 

Calhoun recognized that the text of the Constitution could not impose practical restraints on the federal government. Reason and justice could never restrain power: Only power could restrain power. Only the States possessed sufficient power to restrain the federal government. Therefore, each State should have and did have the right to judge for itself if the federal government had violated any of its rights.

Calhoun maintained that the Constitution implicitly allowed secession because it was a contract between sovereign parties. The ratification process proved this conclusion. As distinct political entities independent from each other, the States ratified the Constitution. Moreover, no State was part of the Union under the Constitution until it ratified the Constitution. Furthermore, the Union was a union of sovereign States without a direct link between the federal government and citizens.

Secession had nothing to do with the federal government. It was an act of a State withdrawing from a partnership with the other States. Although secession was extreme, it was not foreign to the constitutional system. However, according to Calhoun, secession did not derive from the contractual nature of the Constitution; it derived from its political nature.

Calhoun rejected the notion of the will of the majority being the will of the people. For him, the “will of the majority” meant a particular interest or coalition of interests that prevailed over others. Like most people of his era, he believed that a government based on a numerical majority was tyrannical by nature. To overcome the tyranny of an absolute numerical majority, he advocated a concurrent majority on all important issues.

For Calhoun, the term “United States” was geographical and not political. However, he conceived of the United States as more than a league of States. Yet, the States should never become a centralized democracy where an absolute majority ruled. Such a rule would result in abandoning constitutional guarantees. Consequently, States should and did have the right to judge as the last resort the limits that the Constitution placed on the federal government. This right should be defended at all costs. Otherwise, the United States would become a dictatorship of the executive branch.

Both Jefferson and Calhoun considered a State to be the people of the State and not the governmental power. However, Jefferson believed that the United States were for a special purpose only while Calhoun believed them to be an assemblage of nations.

For Calhoun, nullification was peaceful in nature and did not damage the prerogatives of the federal government. When a conflict between a State and the other States could not be resolved, the State had to choose either secession or submission. As a political sovereign and partner with the other States in establishing the Union, each State acting individually and independently had the right to secede peacefully.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Jefferson and States’ Rights

Jefferson and States’ Rights

Thomas Allen

In Chaining Down Leviathan: The American Dream of Self-Government 1776-1865 (McClellanville, South Carolina: Abbeville Institute Press, 2021), Luigi Marco Bassani discusses Thomas Jefferson’s concept of States’ rights. The following summarizes that discussion.

Jefferson used “State” to designate the people of a State and not its government, which the people (body politic of that State) created. He advocated localism over nationalism; localism is more closely tied to liberty than is nationalism. Therefore, local interest should be superior to the national interest. Further, he supported self-government and elected officials being directly responsible and linked closely to the voters. Thus, he endorsed natural rights, limited government, and popular sovereignty.

Moreover, the government should be restricted to protecting life, liberty, and property and have a laissez-faire approach in economic matters. Consequently, he opposed the concentration and consolidation of power in a single center and, therefore, fervently opposed a strong federal government that decided the limits of its power.

States’ rights were the best and surest way to prevent the consolidation of power in the federal government. After all, the States had created the federal government as their agent to manage their common affairs, such as foreign relations. They did not create it to rule over them and to manage their internal affairs.

For Jefferson, tyranny rose from the concentration of power. States’ rights were the mechanism by which such tyranny could be prevented. Only by strictly construing the Constitution could the States be saved from being subservient to the federal government. Only when a State acting individually and independently could decide if a federal act exceeded the authority delegated to the federal government and could nullify such unconstitutional act within its territorial limits would the liberties and rights of the people be protected.

Jefferson favored a constitution that united the States concerning foreign affairs but kept the States separate and distinct in domestic concerns. Thus, the States were independent in everything within themselves but were united in everything respecting foreign countries. However, he opposed becoming entangled with other countries; therefore, he favored allowing merchants the freedom to manage their trade with foreign countries.

The Kentucky Resolutions, which Jefferson wrote, expressed the core of his concept of federalism, States’ rights, and constitutional doctrine. According to the Kentucky Resolutions, each State had the right to nullify within its own territory any federal act that if found exceeding the powers delegated to the federal government without the need of other States joining it. Thus, the Kentucky Resolutions expounded the political and judicial philosophy of Jefferson’s States’ rights.

Jefferson believed that the States were much better defenders of individual liberties than were federal courts. Consequently, he replaced the doctrine of natural rights as expounded by federal courts with the doctrine of States’ rights, which were more powerful and effective at protecting the liberties of individuals. Therefore, the States should be responsible for guarding the constitutional balance against the consolidation of power in the federal government.

As sovereign powers, the States entered into a compact to create a federal government as their agent, subordinate to the States, to carry out well-defined, limited functions. Since the States were sovereign parties that entered into the constitutional compact, the federal government, their agent, had no authority to expand its power without the agreement of the contracting parties, the States.

Consequently, Jefferson maintained that each State acting individually and independently could decide if an act of the federal government was contrary to the Constitution. If it found such an act unconstitutional, it could nullify that act within its territory.

Although Jefferson adored the Union, he valued the right of local self-government even more. Thus, he insisted that freedom and self-government could not be subordinated to the Union. Like many people before 1861, he contended that the Union was an experiment in liberty and not an end in itself. Moreover, he thought that local self-government and not the Union was the guarantor of the safety and happiness of the people.

Also, Jefferson objected to the notion that the Constitution gave the federal government implied powers as Alexander Hamilton had argued. Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution did not give the federal government absolute supremacy over the States. Not all federal laws are the supreme law of the land. Only those laws enacted pursuant to one of the delegated powers are supreme. Otherwise, State laws are supreme.

To Jefferson, the Union was a true federation with the federal government having a few delegated functions and powers as set out in the Constitution. Only with the consent of the States through the amendment process could it expand its power. He considered federalism as an end in itself with self-governing States being supreme over the federal government. Moreover, he rejected the notion that the Bill of Rights applied to the States and asserted that it only applied to the federal government.

Jefferson also rejected the notion that a federal common law existed. Each State had its own common law system that applied solely within its borders. However, no American common law existed.

He feared that if the federal legal system incorporate common law, Congress could expand its power by revising and integrating the principles of common law. If this were to happen, constitutional limitations on the federal government would vanish. Congress could legislate in all cases whatsoever. If common law were to limit federal legislative activity, then the judiciary would acquire legislative power. If common law became a body of law, the Constitution would cease limiting the powers of the federal government. In any event, the incorporation of American common law into the federal legal system would be disastrous for the liberties of the people and States’ rights. The Constitution and federal common law could not coexist in the American system of government.

Jefferson rejected the notion of the Supreme Court, which was part of the federal government, being the final arbitrator between a State and the federal government. If the Supreme Court were the final arbitrator, then Congress and the President, which were also part of the federal government, were being adjudicated by another part of the federal government, the Supreme Court, and not by the Constitution. If the federal government could force the States to comply with all federal laws whatsoever, whether according to the Constitution or in flagrant violation of it, then federalism would cease to exist except in name only. Consequently, the States were and ought to be the final judges of the constitutionality of federal acts. (Being part of the federal government, federal courts has no incentive to prevent the consolidation of power in the federal government. History has shown that not only do federal courts place little constraint against such consolidation, but they have often led in such consolation.)

Thus, Jefferson maintained that the authority of the Supreme Court to decide in the last resort did not extend to the rights of the States, which were parties to the constitutional compact. The States gave federal judges their delegated trusts. As original parties to the constitutional compact, each individual State was the ultimate judge of whether an act of the federal government was compatible with the Constitution. As a creation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court could not be the ultimate judge.

Since the defeat of the Confederacy, the federal government has been suppressing States’ rights and has almost extinguished them. As a result, liberty has faded and the tyranny that Jefferson feared has happened.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The Jim Crow Era Versus the Civil Rights Era

The Jim Crow Era Versus the Civil Rights Era

Thomas Allen

I have read several books and articles whose authors hated the Jim Crow Era and loved the Civil Rights Era. Only slavery was worse for Blacks than the Jim Crow Era. The Civil Rights Era is the greatest thing that ever happened to Blacks. Reading their works, one is perplexed about how they arrived at this conclusion. They present information that shows that in many respects, life for Blacks was superior during the Jim Crow Era than during the Civil Rights Era.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a growing middle class based on merit and, thus, self-respect. Because of this growing Black middle class, Stalin sent agents to destroy it by creating a Black revolution. Contrariwise, during the Civil Rights Era, the growing Black middle class is based on affirmative action and, therefore, doubt. In the Civil Rights Era, the Black middle class has been based on special privileges, those who grant the privileges can quickly bring the Black middle class down by removing the privileges. Consequently, Blacks had more independence during the Jim Crow Era than they have had in the Civil Rights Era.

Further, during the Jim Crow Era, most Black families had fathers. Now, in the Civil Rights Era, most Black families have no fathers. Thus, the family unit was much stronger during the Jim Crow Era. Moreover, Blacks married at a higher rate than Whites. During the Civil Rights Era, Black marriages have plummeted. A much lower percentage of Black children were born out of wedlock in the Jim Crow Era. Now, the Civil Rights Era has resulted in a large percentage of Black children being born out of wedlock. Moreover, Black sacrificed far fewer of their children to Lucifer at the abortion clinics then than now.

Also, during the Jim Crow Era, criminal activity by Blacks was lower than during the Civil Rights Era. During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a higher moral standard than they have had in the Civil Rights Era.

Moreover, fewer Blacks were welfare recipients and, therefore, much more self-reliant. During the Civil Rights Era, many Blacks have become enslaved to the welfare state and are dependent on their masters in Washington. Thus, they have traded segregation for slavery.

In the time of Jim Crow, only a few Blacks expressed a desire to genocide their race, the American Negro, via miscegenation. As a result of the Civil Rights Era, an ever-growing number of Blacks seem compelled to genocide the American Negro via miscegenation.

Apparently, the benefits of the Civil Rights Era have more than offset the deterioration of the Black family, the rising Black crime rate, the enslavement of Blacks in the welfare state, and the genocide of the Black race. (Not only is the American Negro being genocided via miscegenation, but also the culture and society of the American Negro are being destroyed through integration, which too is genocide. This genocide of the American Negro may account for the deterioration of Black behavior.) At least the Civil Rights Era has reduced the number of restrooms and water fountains by amalgamating the races. With integrated schools, it has reduced the quality of education for all through indoctrination-propaganda curricula, but at least both Blacks and Whites now receive the same low-quality education. Anyway, Blacks can now eat in the same restaurants as Whites, can sit beside Whites on public transportation and at public entertainment events, and stay at the same motels — although integration ended many Black businesses. Moreover, during the Civil Rights Era, Blacks have received preferential treatment in employment via affirmative action and quotas. Nevertheless, most people believe that the benefits of the Civil Rights Era for Blacks far outweigh its costs for Blacks and especially for Whites.

As shown above, Blacks were much more independent and self-reliant during the Jim Crow Era. Now, in the Civil Rights Era, they are dependent on their masters in Washington and the statehouses. Thus, many have reverted back to slavery without the self-respect that a slave had knowing that he more than earned his keep. Today’s slaves are nothing more than parasites living off others and giving nothing in return but their votes and services as protestors and rioters. Contrary to the popular myth, Blacks had many advantages and benefits under Jim Crow that they have lost during the Civil Rights Era.

Jim Crow laws never sought to destroy the Black society, culture, and race; they even protected them. However, an objective of the Civil Rights laws has been to destroy White society, culture, and race along with Black society, culture, and race.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles. 

A Look at a Proponent of the Lincoln Constitution

A Look at a Proponent of the Lincoln Constitution

Thomas Allen

A proponent of the modern US Constitution that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans as furthered developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court gave the United States claims that it is superior to the one that the founding fathers gave the country. To support his claim, he cites several Supreme Court rulings: Baker v. Carr, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

An explanation of each of the aforementioned Supreme Court rulings follow:

– Baker v. Carr: This ruling gave federal courts absolute power over drawing legislative and Congressional districts. This ruling led to establishing electoral districts of equal population on the principle of one person, one vote for State legislatures and congressional districts. Thus, States had to draw districts that shifted representation from rural areas to urban areas. Consequently, rural areas, which are typically more conservative than urban areas, lost political power. Moreover, at the time of this ruling, more Blacks lived in rural areas than in urban areas in the South. Thus, shifting representation from rural to urban areas resulted in under-representing Blacks. To overcome this problem a covert quota system was imposed on the Southern States. To ensure Black representation (overrepresentation) and to guarantee the election of Black candidates, Blacks and Negrophiles are concentrated in the districts that guarantee that Black candidates are elected. However, the States are forced to draw district boundaries so that such an outcome is not obvious.

– Roe v. Wade: This ruling legalized abortion. As a result, a large number of Black babies have been murdered. As a weapon to genocide Blacks, this ruling has been highly effective. Without abortion, the Black population would be much higher than it is.

– Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka: This ruling outlawed school segregation and led to the integration of Blacks into White society. Consequently, Blacks have been integrated and amalgamated with Whites. Integration is amalgamating Blacks with Whites, and, thus, it is leading to the genocide of Blacks. Consequently, this ruling has been a leading cause of the genocide of the American Negro.

– Lawrence v. Texas: This ruling legalizes homosexual activity. Thus, homosexual activity among Blacks was encouraged and increased. With Black men having sex with other men and Black women having sex with other women, the opportunity to reproduce is greatly reduced. Again, another ruling leading to the genocide of Blacks.

– Obergefell v. Hodges: This ruling legalized same-sex marriages. It leads to the genocide of Blacks in the same way that Lawrence v. Texas does.

Amazingly, this proponent omitted Loving v. Virginia. This ruling legalized interracial marriages. More than any other ruling of the Supreme Court, this ruling has resulted in genociding Blacks as interracial marriages have exploded over the years since this ruling. Thus, because of this ruling, Blacks are being bred out of existence, which is genocide. 

Although most of these rulings are hostile to White supremacy, they also promote the genocide of Blacks. Thus, they are far more harmful to the American Negro, the American Black, than is White supremacy. At least White supremacy promotes policies that preserve the Black race while these rulings lead to policies that genocide Blacks.

According to this proponent, these rulings have undone many of the racist rulings and laws of the past. For him, White supremacy is highly destructive of liberty. Also, for him, liberty is civil rights. Based on the Supreme Court rulings that he cites, he is a homophile and an albusphobe (and subconsciously a Negrophobe).

This proponent believes that White supremacists control the country and that the 1619 Project is the true history of the United States. (At least, he is partially correct. The founding fathers did establish the United States under the Constitution of 1787 as a White man’s country. [See “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen.]) Further, he believes everything that the establishment and ruling elite indoctrinate about race and is an adherent of Critical Race Theory.

Being a proponent of the Lincoln constitution, he must also approve the dysgenic results of the Lincoln constitution. The Lincoln constitution has brought the welfare state, which has led to the degeneration of Blacks. The welfare state encourages the reproduction of low-quality people and discourages the reproduction of high-quality people. Thus, Blacks with lower IQ and character — low-quality Blacks — are paid to reproduce. Moreover, high-quality Blacks, Blacks with higher IQ and character, are more likely to marry outside their race — thus, leading to the genocide of higher quality Blacks.

Furthermore, this proponent of the Lincoln constitution believes that the races of man are fictions, i.e., a social construct; therefore, the races do not exist. Yet, he denies the logic of his belief because he believes that White supremacy and racism are the country’s biggest problems. Logically, if the races do not exist, then White supremacy and racism cannot exist. If the races do not exist, then no one can be superior to or discriminate against a nonexistent race. Consequently, civil rights laws and court rulings on racial integration are unnecessary and are an irrational intrusion on the rights of the people in the name of a fiction. It would be better for Congress and the courts to confess the truth that races do not exist and, therefore, racial supremacy, racial discrimination, and racism do not and cannot exist. Thus, all civil rights issues are resolved.

As shown above, the constitution that Lincoln gave the country is not only detrimental to liberty, it also genocides the American Negro. Moreover, it creates irrational and illogical people like this proponent of the Lincoln constitution.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

More Social Issues Related to Blacks

More Social Issues Related to Blacks

Thomas Allen

White supremacy, preservation of the American Negro, segregation at universities, and social justice reforms are discussed below.

White Supremacy

Do White supremacists exist in the United States today? Yes, a majority of the White population in the United States is White supremacists.

White supremacy is alive and prospering. However, it is not in the form of the stereotypical Klansman of yesteryear, who is now almost extinct. Today’s White supremacists are progressives, liberals, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, many libertarians. Today, White supremacists are those who support the civil rights movement and the welfare state because they believe that Blacks cannot succeed on their own. They need Whiteys’ succor. If these people want to see a White supremacist, all that they need to do is to look in a mirror.

White supremacy today exists as White parentalism toward Blacks. These Whites believe that Blacks can only advance and prosper with Whitey’s aid. Thus, they have granted Blacks many privileges that they deny themselves, such as affirmative action, quotas, lower scores for college entrance, and set-asides. Further, these White supremacists support the Civil Rights Acts, the welfare state, and most of the programs of Johnson’s Great Society and their descendants. 

Moreover, Blacks who support or believe the claims of civil rights and welfare proponents believe in White supremacy because they believe that Blacks are so inferior that they can accomplish nothing without Whitey’s granting Blacks special privileges.

Preservation of the American Negro

If conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians were asked if the American Negro, the Black race of America, should be preserved and saved from genocide, all would answer yes. Likewise, if asked if they opposed policies that resulted in the genocide of the American Negro and supported policies that preserved the American Negro, they would again answer yes.

However, if one looks at the policies that conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians promote and the policies that they oppose, one would discover that they have lied. They do not care about protecting the American Negro from genocide. If they wanted to save the American Negro, they would support policies that segregate and separate the races. Moreover, they would oppose policies that integrate and amalgamate the races. Therefore, they act oppositely from their assertion about their desire to preserve the American Negro, the Black race of America. The exception is that some liberals and progressives weakly promote some policies that aid in the preservation of the American Negro. 

Segregation at Universities

Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) sent a letter to Attorney General Barr urging him to investigate the “alarming trend of racial segregation” occurring at some universities. Universities are allowing nonwhite students to create race-based dormitories and events for Blacks and other “people of color.” (Whites are not granted such privileges except by exclusion.)

Specifically, they object to one major university having racially segregated online discussion groups with racially segregated moderators. Thus, the university created a discussion group for nonwhites only and another for Whites only.

Also, they object to another major university holding “segregated training sessions for resident assistants (RA), students who oversee dorms and enforce policies and rules.” One session was for resident assistants who were White, and another was for resident assistants who were Black and other people of color. The nonwhite session was described as “Healing Space for Staff of Color,” and the White session was described as “White Accountability Space.”

These two senators claim that such segregation violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. They express sadness about the growing trend of segregation, especially on college campuses. (These two senators err in believing that the Civil Rights Act applies to segregation by nonwhites. It intended to prevent Whites from segregating. It was never intended to prevent nonwhites from segregating.)

These two senators rail against the defense offered by the universities. The universities’ defense is that racial segregation gives “members of certain racial groups, especially minority groups, spaces where they can discuss shared concerns and issues. Thus, these defenders attempt to portray racial segregation as a tool to further diversity.” (Blacks who are seeking segregation and the university administrators who approve these requests for segregation show much more intelligence than these two senators. Unlike these senators, Blacks know that segregation promotes diversity. They know that segregation preserves diversity while integration destroys diversity. [See “Diversity” by Thomas Allen.])

Like neoconservatives and liberals, Senators Cotton and Loeffler believe that the United States are a creedal country and not a genetic country. (Also, these two senators are racial nihilists, who practice the new morality, and have no qualms about genociding the American Negro. Genociding the American Negro will be the result of the policies that they are urging.)

(Reference: “Public Colleges Defy Federal Law with Racially Segregated Events to Further Diversity,” Judicial Watch, November 13, 2020, https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/public-colleges-defy-federal-law-with-racially-segregated-events-to-further-diversity/, accessed December 2, 2020.)

Social Justice Reform

Social justice reform is easy. All that the government has to do is to release all Blacks from prison and exempt all Blacks from all laws. Then, Blacks would no longer have to pay taxes or obey traffic laws. Moreover, they will no longer be arrested for any crime including battery, theft, rape, or murder. Also, they should be allowed to take any job of any White including that of a CEO of major corporations. Further, the employer cannot require Blacks to do any work and cannot fire them. Blacks may take the house of any White along with his furniture, cars, and all other property, and the White may not object. Also, Blacks may use White women, men, and children for their sex toys without any objection from the White toys. Thus, Blacks will have received justice — if they can stop killing each other long enough to enjoy the fruits of their thefts.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

How Many?

How Many?

Thomas Allen

2 Samuel 24:9: And Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

1 Chronicles 21:5 And Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

According to Samuel, Judah had 500,000 men capable of bearing arms and Israel had 800,000. Yet, according to Chronicles, Judah had 470,000 men capable of bearing arms and Israel had 1,100,000 men. Which is correct: Samuel’s census of 500,000 plus 800,000 for a total of 1,300,000 or Chronicles’ census of 470,000 plus 1,100,000 for a total of 1,570,000?

Samuele Bacchiocchi, who believes that the Bible is infallible but not inerrant, claims that the writers used two different sources. Nevertheless, whichever number is correct, if either, should not have any effect on a person’s faith or practices.

In Peake’s Commentary, W.H. Bennett notes the difference between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. However, he does not explain the difference, but he believes that they are exaggerated. W.O.E Oesterley states that the writer of Chronicles may have used a different source than did the writer of Samuel, but this is uncertain.

In The Wycliffe Commentary, Barton Payne remarks that the writer of Samuel rounded the 470,000 in Chronicles to 500,000 and lowers the number of men available for combat. Otherwise, he does not explain the discrepancy.

In A New Commentary on Holy Scriptures, A. Guillaume notes the discrepancy between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles, but he does not explain the difference.

In The Interpreters Commentary, John Weavers believes that the Samuel text is the original. Nevertheless, both numbers in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles are exaggerated. Also, David’s census may be based on the census in Numbers 1:46, which gives 603,550 and was taken several centuries before David’s reign.

Adam Clarke states that the numbers in Samuel and Chronicles are not exaggerated. However, both cannot be correct. Moreover, it is now difficult to say which is correct. Most likely, Samuel is correct. Further, he notes that “more corruptions have taken place in the numbers of the historical books of the Old Testament than in any other part of the sacred records.” (Clarke, p. 335) He believes that trying to reconcile these differences is a waste of labor. Nevertheless, mistakes in copying may account for the difference between the two censuses.

In The Twentieth Century Commentary, D.R. Ap-Thomas states that because of corruption occurring in transmission, the numbers in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles are highly unreliable. Likely, the figures have been round to the nearest 100,000, which was accurate enough for practical purposes.

Elizabeth Reed, who is a proponent of the inerrancy of the Bible, offers this solution:

It is written in 2 Sam. 24: 9, that “there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and men of Judah five hundred thousand,” but in Chron. we find “the number of Israel were eleven hundred thousand; and Judah four hundred three score and ten thousand,” making, to all appearance, a difference of three hundred thousand Israelites, and thirty thousand Benjaminites. But it appears from Chronicles that there were twelve divisions of generals, who commanded monthly, and whose duty it was to keep guard near the king’s person, each having a body of troops consisting of twenty-four thousand men, which jointly formed a grand army of two hundred and eighty-eight thousand; and as a separate body of twelve thousand men attended on the twelve princes of the twelve tribes, mentioned in the same chapter, the whole makes three hundred thousand, which is just the difference between the two accounts of eight hundred thousand, and of one million one hundred thousand. And here we have found the natural solution of the difficulty. (Reed, pp. 89-90)

Thus, the 300,000-man difference between Samuel’s number of potential warriors and the Chronicles’ is accounted for by the palace guards and the guards for the princes. Samuel did not count the 300,000 serving as guards because they were in the king’s standing army and, therefore, there was no need to count them. However, they were included in the Chronicles’ census because all men available for war including the guards were counted. She places great stress on Chronicles using “all” and Samuel omitting “all.”

She accounts for the differed count in Judah (500,000 in Samuel and 470,000 in Chronicles) by including the 300,000 troops along the border with Philistine (2 Samuel 6:1) in Samuel’s census but not in Chronicles’ census. These troops were excluded from Chronicles because they were not all of the tribe of Judah.

She is unclear about where Chronicles put the 300,000 troops on the border in its census. They are excluded from Judah but appear not to be included in Israel where she accounts for the 300,000 difference with the guards of the palace and princes. Anyway, she is the only commentator that I consulted that attempts to reconcile the difference.

Although Reed offers a plausible reconciliation of the two censuses, most commentators accept the numbers as given. Their explanations for the discrepancy are using different sources or copying errors. Regardless of whether Reed is correct or the others are correct, should one’s faith be determined by a census, which is now irrelevant to all but ancient historians?

References

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. “Biblical Errancy And Inerrancy.” Endtime Issues No. 102 – Part 2. August 19, 2003.

Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible. Abridged by Ralph Earle. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967.

Davies, G. Henton, Alan Richardson, and Charles L. Wallis, editors.  The Twentieth Century Bible Commentary. Revised Edition. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1955.

Gore, Charles, Henry L. Gouge, and Alfred Guillaume, editors. A New Commentary on Holy Scripture. New York: The Macmillian Co., 1928.

Laymon, Charles M., editor. The Interpreter’s One-volume Commentary on the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971.

Peake, Arthur S., editor. A Commentary on the Bible. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.

Pfeiffer, Charles F., editor. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Reed, Mrs. H.V (Elizabeth). Bible Triumphant: Being a Reply to a Work Entitled 144 Self-contradictions of the Bible, Published by Andrew Jackson Davis. Harvard, Illinois: H.V. Reed, 1866.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

January 6

January 6

Thomas Allen

The so-called January 6 insurrectionists stormed the Capitol Building because they knew that the Democrats had stolen the 2020 presidential election and almost no Republican was objecting to the theft. Consequently, Nancy Pelosi established a committee to prove that President Trump organized, incited, and supported this so-call insurrection. Following are some observations on the 2020 presidential election and the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill insurrection.

– If the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election, then that means that 81 million Americans hate America so much that they voted for its destruction by electing the great destroyer, who has done an excellent job of destroying America.

– I do not understand why many of the 81 million people who voted for Biden disapprove of him. He promised to implement policies to destroy America. Eighty-one million people voted for him to carry out his promises. So far, he has been highly effective in fulfilling his promises. Yet, many people who voted for him to do what he promised to do and is doing disapprove of him. The only thing that I can figure out is that he is not destroying America fast enough to satisfy them. Perhaps, if he can provoke Russia into a nuclear war, which he is working eagerly to do, they will be satisfied.

– As braindead as Biden is, he still has more functioning brain cells than most Democrats and many Republicans. He knows that he is not the real president and admits it. Most Democrats and many Republicans refuse to admit that Biden is not the real president.

– If Trump were planning a coup, why did he authorize 20,000 national guard troops to protect the Capitol? Certainly, they would have thwarted his coup. Why did the Democratic mayor of Washington fail to order the deployment of these troops? Surely, if the Democrats suspected that Trump was planning a coup, they would have ordered the deployment of troops that Trump had authorized. Did the Democrats want to blame Trump for attempting a coup, which he never attempted or planned to attempt? Since the Democrats refused Trump’s offer of troops to protect the Capitol, they knew that he was not planning a coup. They wanted to give the appearance of a coup to use as propaganda against Trump and if possible to imprison him. However, if they knew of a planned coup and rejected the offer of troops, then they are accomplices in the coup.

– Democrats are notorious for accusing others of doing what they (the Democrats) are guilty of doing. The Democrats stole the election from Trump. Thus, to deflect attention from their theft, they accuse Trump of trying to steal the election from Biden.

– If our Representatives and Senators thought that a disorganized unarmed mob was trying to overthrow the federal government, why did they flee? Since they heavily outgunned the insurrectionists, why did they not stand and fight to save the government?  Were they cowards? Did they believe that the federal government was not worth defending? Or, did they know that this was no instruction and, therefore, lied about it being one? At least one of these three choices has to be true. If they are cowards, they should not be in Congress. If they believe that the government is not worth defending, they should not be in Congress. If they have lied, they should not be in Congress. Consequently, none of these Representatives or Senators should be in Congress.

– If anyone wants to see a Soviet show trial kangaroo court in action, he can watch the January 6 hearings. The conclusion of the committee holding the hearings was determined before the hearings started. Like the Kennedy assassination commission and the 9-11 commission, the purpose of these January 6 committee hearings is to conceal the truth and to keep the truth from being revealed.

– The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, incident reveals America’s two-standard, two-tier justice system, which is no justice system at all. On January 6, 2021, guards at the Capitol Building opened the doors and let the people inside. Some vandalized and should be punished. Yet, many of those who entered the Capitol Building who did no damage and even people who did not enter have been arrested. They have been imprisoned without due process. Many are held in solitary confinement, and some have not even been charged with a crime. Most are denied bail. Some have spent more time in jail than the length of their sentence if found guilty, and for many, their punishment far exceeds their crime. Moreover, many of those arrested committed no crime on January 6.

On the other hand, BLM and Antifa rioted, burned buildings, destroyed property, and injured numerous people. However, almost none of these rioters were arrested. Most of the few who were arrested had their charges dropped or were released with no charges. Almost none were fined or served a prison sentence. Yet, the BLM and Antifa rioters did much more damage and were a much greater threat to the country than the so-called insurrectionists on January 6.

– One purpose of the  House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, incident is to provide cover for a stolen election. It is an attempt to convince people that the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election by persuading people that Trump was the one trying to steal the election. Another purpose is to provide anti-Trumpers propaganda for the upcoming 2022 and 2024 elections. Also, the Democrats and other anti-Trumpers are using the January 6 investigation to justify lynching Trump. (If they could literally lynch Trump, they would. They know that they can get away with it because the US Department of [In]justices would do nothing but protect them from local law enforcement. They need only do the lynching in a Blue State.)

– Nancy Pelosi’s closing remarks to the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill insurrection:

This Committee has proven beyond any doubt what it set out to prove. We have shown that Donald Trump while dressed in a military battle uniform led a heavily armed million-man army to the Capitol Building with the intent to overthrow the government. If it were not for the courageous Democratic members of the House and Senate, who, although unarmed and standing alone, fearlessly fought Trump’s army for hours in hand-to-hand combat and finally drove Trump and his army away from the Capitol Building, the government would have fallen, and Trump would be a dictator. These brave Democrats saved democracy. We have proven this with bias, prejudicial, and at times fabricated testimony while suppressing all testimony that refutes the guilt of Trump and the goals of this inquiry.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

A Credibility Test

A Credibility Test

Thomas Allen

The following is a test to decide if a person is credible and has a rudimentary knowledge of recent American political history. It is especially useful for politicians and political commentators. (This article is an expansion of the credibility test given in “More Political Thoughts.”)

Does the person believe or act as though he believes:

1. The official story of the Kennedy assassination. (Along with the many other flaws and anomalies of the official story, the person believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin who killed President Kennedy by firing three shots from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. He believes that Oswald could fire three shots in six seconds and hit two men 200 feet away with a cheap, low-quality, defective rifle. Further, he believes that a single high-powered rifle bullet penetrated both Kennedy and Governor Connally causing seven wounds, shattering a rib and wrist bone, and emerging in almost pristine condition. Also, he must believe that all the eyewitnesses whose accounts contradict the official story deliberately lied. Moreover, he believes that the statements in the Warren Report that have subsequently been shown to be inaccurate or untrue are still true and accurate. On the other hand, he must ignore (1) evidence that more than three shots were fired, (2) the overwhelming evidence that shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll, (3) evidence of more than one rifle being used and more than one shooter, (4) the lack of evidence that places Oswald on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time of the shooting and the evidence that he was not on the sixth floor at that time, (5) no evidence that Oswald ever had possession of the rifle used in the assassination (moreover, the scope on the rifle was adjusted for a left-handed shooter; Oswald was right-handed), (6) a tree branch prevented a clear line of sight from the window of the sixth floor of the Depository, (7) Oswald never achieving marksmanship standard when he was in the Marines, (8) the paraffin test made on Oswald on the day of the assassination suggesting that he had not fired a rifle that day, (9) evidence that the FBI put Oswald’s finger prints on the murder weapon after he died, (10) the scientific evidence that different bullets struck Kennedy and Connally, (11) Connally’s claim that different bullets hit him and Kennedy, (12) the poor quality superficial autopsy, (13) the Dallas doctors claiming that Kennedy had a large hole in the right rear of his head while the Bethesda doctors claimed that the wound stretched from the upper side of the rear to the right front, (14) Kennedy’s body being wrapped in a white sheet and placed in an expensive bronze casket in Dallas for transport to Bethesda and arriving at Bethesda in a black zipper body bag inside a cheap military shipping casket, (15) changing the location of the entry wound between Kennedy’s shoulder blade that exited through his throat, which required the bullet to travel in an upward direction, by raising the entry wound to fit the official story, (16) the throat wound being smaller than the back wound, which suggests that the bullet entered the throat and exited the back. (17) evidence that three bullets hit Kennedy instead of two, and (18) the Commission not being allowed to see the autopsy photographs and X-rays. Moreover, he must ignore the Commission, FBI, and other federal agencies suppressing evidence that conflicted with the official story, changing evidence to support the official story, and harassing and intimidating witnesses whose testimony conflicted with the official story. Also, he must disagree with members of the Warren Commission who later questioned the conclusions of the Warren Report. Above all, he must believe that the Kennedy assassination involved no conspiracy.

2. The official governmental conspiracy theory of 9-11. (A gang of Muslims, who could hardly fly trainer aircraft, hijacked four passenger airplanes. They flew two into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, which caused the two buildings to collapse at near free-fall speed into their footprints. Somehow, they also caused Building 7 to collapse at near free-fall speed into its footprint. Moreover, they made an impossible turning maneuver to fly an airplane into the Pentagon so that they could avoid hitting the side of the building, which required no turn, where Rumsfeld’s office was. Instead, they made an impossible turn and hit the side of the building where an audit of the Department of Defense’s expenditures was occurring. Remarkably, they managed to do this by causing a hole in the building much smaller than their hijacked airplane and causing no damage to the adjacent lawn. If such miracles were not enough, they managed to create a fire hot enough to vaporize aluminum, greater than 4400̊F, yet cool enough not to incinerate human bodies, less than 1400̊F. Further, the hijackers caused several simulations of hijacked aircraft to occur while they carried out their dastardly deed. Moreover, they changed the standard operating procedures for intercepting hijacked airplanes. Additionally, the hijackers sent intercepting jets from airfields far enough away and at slow enough speeds so that they could not intercept the hijacked aircraft before they crashed into the buildings. Moreover, the United States have the most incompetent intelligence agencies that have ever existed throughout history [If this notion is rejected, then the other two choices are {1} high-ranking governmental officials knew that the attack was going to happen and let it happen or {2} high-ranking governmental officials collaborated in the attack.])

3. That the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election but won it fairly. (Thus, the person believes that 81 million people hate America so much that they voted for its destruction by putting the great destroyer in office, who has done an excellent job in destroying the country.)

4. That White replacement is a hoax. (No program exists to replace Whites [Aryans, Homo albus] in Europe, the United States, and the White Anglophone countries with people of color: Negro [H. niger], Melanochroi [H. brunus], Turanian [H. luridus], Indo-Australian [H. australis], and  Khoisan [H. khoisanii]. [Being racial nihilists, most conservatives and libertarians, or albusphobes, most liberals and progressives, they refuse to acknowledge the facts that prove that White replacement is true.])

If a person answers “yes” to any of these statements, his credibility is questionable. If he answers “yes” to two or three, he has no credibility. If he answers “yes” to all four, he is ignorant beyond repair and is irredeemably stupid.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.