King on Antidotes for Fear

King on Antidotes for Fear

Thomas Allen

In "Antidotes for Fear," Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 119–132, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses fear, courage, love, faith, and social justice. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins with a discussion of fear crippling people, which for the most part is accurate. Overcoming fear is the theme of this essay. “Everywhere men and women are confronted by fears that often appear in strange disguises and a variety of wardrobes.” (P. 119.) Such fears include bad health, aging, insecurity, inferiority complex, and failure. Then, he comments, “A fear of what life may bring encourages some persons to wander aimlessly along the frittering road of excessive drink and sexual promiscuity.” (P. 120.) (King must have been a frightened man because he wondered the road of sexual promiscuity.) He remarks that “many people have permitted fear to transform the sunrise of love and peace into a sunset of inner depression.” (P. 120.) 

Continuing, King notes that economic fears are common. Business owners fear failure, and employees fear unemployment. 

  Other fears are the fear of death and the fear of racial annihilation. (Since King promoted miscegenation, which leads to racial annihilation, that he would mention it as a fear is strange. Today, the only race facing annihilation is the White race. Yet, most do not fear their annihilation — probably because they are living in denial. Further, many Whites are so Albusphobic that they look forward to their annihilation.)

Then, King comments on the fear of nuclear war. It has terrorized people to build fallout shelters while urging the government to increase the stockpile of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the quest to maintain “a balance of terror” only increases fear.

Although “fear drains a man’s energy and depletes his resources,” (p. 120) man should not seek to eliminate fear completely. King notes that fear warns of approaching danger and is, therefore, necessary for survival. Moreover, it is a powerful force. “If man were to lose his capacity to fear, he would be deprived of his capacity to grow, invent, and create.” (P. 121.) However, “abnormal fears are emotionally ruinous and psychologically destructive.” (P. 121.) Continuing, he remarks, “Normal fear protects us; abnormal fear paralyzes us.” (P. 121.)

To overcome abnormal fear, a person must seek its cause. Once the cause is discovered, then he may overcome his fear with courage. Then, King discusses courage, which “is the power of the mind to overcome fear.” (P. 123.)

Next, King contrasts courage and cowardice. “Courage breeds creative self-affirmation; cowardice produces destructive self-abnegation. Courage faces fear and thereby masters it; cowardice represses fear and is thereby mastered by it.” (P. 124.)

Continuing, King states that “fear is mastered through love.” (P. 124.) Then, he claims, “Hate is rooted in fear, and the only cure for fear-hate is love.” (P. 124.)

Next, King notes that fear is a major cause of war. This fear leads to hate, which in turn leads to war, which leads to greater hate. (The hostility between the Jews and Palestinians is an excellent example of King’s observation. Moreover, what he writes here can also be applied to personal relationships.) To King, the solution to war is love. “Only disarmament, based on good faith, will make mutual trust a living reality.” (P. 125.)

Furthermore, fear-hate leads to hostility between the races. King asserts that love is the solution to ending racial hostility. (Although King preached a great deal about love and its virtues and seemed to have a good understanding of love, he was a failure at practicing it. If he truly loved, he would not have destroyed the South and later the United States to achieve his vain ambition.)

Continuing, King discusses what he calls social justice. Love is the solution to social justice. Then, he declares, “Racial segregation is buttressed by such irrational fears as loss of preferred economic privilege, altered social status, intermarriage, and adjustment to new situations.” (P. 125.) (These fears have all come to pass. Whatever preferred economic privileges that Whites had have long vanished. Now, with quotas and affirmative action, Negroes have more preferred economic privileges than Whites ever had. Today, unqualified Negroes are hired instead of qualified Whites. Now, Negroes have a higher social status than Whites. Proof: Negroes used to try to pass as Whites. Today, Whites try to pass as Negroes. Since the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967), which nullified miscegenation laws, interracial marriages have increased significantly. [See "Interracial Marriages" by Thomas Allen.] Consequently, Negroes and Whites are genociding each other via miscegenation.) 

Then, King discusses some of the techniques that Whites used to avoid his program of forced integration. “[S]ome seek to ignore the question of race relations and to close their mind to the issues involved.” (P. 125.) Others, using “such legal maneuvers as interposition and nullification, counsel massive resistance.” (P. 125.) (King counseled illegal massive resistance against segregation. Thus, the segregationists were merely following King, except they were using legal tactics. He should have been proud of them. Instead, he despised them.) Still, others resorted to violence against Negroes. (These segregationists were merely following the tactics of civil rights leaders who resorted to violence against Whites. King seldom objected to violence against segregationists.)

King blames the country’s racial problems on the fear of Whites. If Whites “are to master fear, they must depend not only on their commitment to Christian love but also on the Christlike love that the Negro generates toward them.” (Pp. 125-126.) (I do not know whether King is deceiving himself or is lying to deceive Whites. Most likely, it is the latter. One thing that the Negroes who follow King have not done is to show Christlike love toward Whites. Christlike love does not lead to riots, the destruction of property, and the deaths of innocent people — acts that Negroes have been notorious for committing against Whites since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Christlike love does not promote the genocide of Whites. That King would have actively opposed these acts of violence against Whites is highly unlikely since he supported violent acts — contrary to his assertions of being a man of peace. Most likely, he would have endorsed and promoted them. Other than King-idolizing conservatives, who lack any functioning brain cells when it comes to race, does anyone with a functioning brain cell believe that King would have opposed Black Lives Matter protestors? No, he would have supported them and their violence as did all liberals and many conservatives.)

Then, King writes, “A guilt-ridden white minority fears that if the Negro attains power, he will without restraint or pity act to revenge the accumulated injustices and brutality of the years.” (P. 126.) (When the Negro attained power, revenge is what he sought. Negroes have used their power against Whites since the beginning of the Civil Rights Era. Much of this revenge is concealed in crime. [See “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen.] Some of it is open like the Black Lives Matter riots and the destruction of statues. Moreover, many Whites have joined the Negro in his revenge against their White brothers. These acts of violence prove that Whites who fear that Negroes would use their power for revenge were correct.)

Next, King writes, “The Negro must show them that they have nothing to fear, for the Negro forgives and is willing to forget the past. The Negro must convince the white man that he seeks justice for both himself and the white man.” (P. 126.) (The Negro has failed. Most Negroes have shown no forgiveness or willingness to forget the past as the wanton destruction of statues and memorials and the renaming of buildings in the South proves. Moreover, Negroes have not sought justice for Whites as the conviction of Derek Chauvin and other innocent Whites prove.)

King declares that he knows the cure for the fear of integration: love. Moreover, he claims that God is on his side (although the Bible endorses segregation and denounces integration and amalgamation). 

Continuing, King states that “fear is mastered through faith.” (P. 127.) Deficiency of resources and inadequacy of life lead to fear. Then, he discusses the importance of positive religious faith and what it offers and does not offer. Also, he discusses the inadequacy of irreligion. He notes that a positive religious faith overcomes the fear of death.

In closing, King comments briefly on the Montgomery bus protest and Mother Pollard.

In this essay, King discusses four essential components in conquering fear: (1) discovering the cause of the fear, (2) having the courage to overcome the fear, (3) mastering the fear through love, and (4) mastering the fear through faith. However, he errs greatly when discussing the fear that segregationists had (their fears prove valid) and the loving, forgiving attitude of Negroes (most of whom lack a loving, forgiving attitude).

Although King could preach a good sermon, he drew the wrong conclusion concerning what he called social justice. Southerners and segregationists are not as evil as he presents them. His erroneous conclusion derives from his erroneous understanding of the Bible. Contrary to what he claims, the Bible does not support integration; it supports segregation.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Who Killed Jesus?

Who Killed Jesus?

Thomas Allen

Did the Romans kill Jesus, or did the Jews kill Jesus? Christian Zionists and Jews claim that the Romans killed Jesus.

In “Who killed Jesus: The Romans or the Jews?,” The Jerusalem Post (December 29, 2021; Updated: November 19, 2022) at https://www.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/article-690095, Lewis Regenstein presents an argument in favor of the Romans being guilty of Jesus’s death and the Jews being innocent. With his argument, most Christian Zionists would agree.

In Judea, the Romans controlled capital punishment; the Jews had no authority to crucify anyone. Only the Romans could execute someone by crucifixion. If the Jews had executed Jesus, they would have stoned him as they did Stephen. Therefore, the Romans are responsible for Jesus’s death.

Moreover, Pilate sentenced Jesus to death and authorized his execution. Further, Roman soldiers carried out the crucifixion of Jesus. The New Testament shows that the Romans, and not the Jews, killed Jesus.

Jesus and his family, disciples, followers, and supporters were Jews, and like other Jews, they were victims of Roman oppression. Since Jesus was an observant Jew and popular with the Jewish people, why would the Jews kill him?

Jesus’s popularity with the Jewish people was the primary reason that the Romans executed him. To carry out their scheme to kill Jesus, the Romans used Jewish agents and collaborators. 

Nevertheless, because of what Jesus said to and about the Jewish leaders, they wanted the Romans to kill Jesus since they had no power to execute him themselves. Further, they feared that the Romans would deal harshly with the Jews unless Jesus, whom they and the Romans saw as a troublemaker, was eliminated. Consequently, these leaders, who held office at the pleasure of the Romans, collaborated with the Romans to kill Jesus. 

In short, the Gospels describe Jesus as a popular Jewish reformer with a large Jewish following. They clearly describe the Romans as cruelly executing Jesus because the Romans perceived Jesus as a threat to the Romans and their Jewish collaborators in the priesthood.

As for the mob of Jews that cursed Jesus and demanded his execution, if such a mob existed, it consisted of Roman collaborators.

For fear of Roman persecution, early Christians could not blame the Romans for the death of Jesus. Therefore, to avoid persecution, writers of the New Testament shifted the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews. (When one considers the persecution that Paul, Peter, and other followers of Christ suffered from the Romans and Jews, shifting the blame from the Romans to the Jews for fear of Roman persecution seems absurd. Besides, if Paul, Peter, and the other writers of the New Testament blamed the Jews for killing Jesus when the Romans were responsible for his death, then they are guilty of bearing false witness.)

What does the Bible say? According to the Gospels, Pilate did order Jesus’s execution, and Roman soldiers carried out that order. However, Paul and Peter place the blame and responsibility for Jesus’s crucifixion on the Jews.

In 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, Paul writes:

(14) For you, brothers, became imitators of the assemblies of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus; for you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews (15) who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and drove us out, and don’t please God, and are contrary to all men.

In this passage, Paul clearly blames the Jews for killing Jesus: “the Jews who both killed the Lord Jesus.”

Speaking to a group of Jews, Peter said, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know certainly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you [Jews] crucified.” (Acts 2:36). Clearly, Peter identifies the Jews as killing Jesus. Later, Peter spoke to the religious rulers and elders of the Jews and said, “[M]ay it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you [Jews] crucified, whom God raised from the dead, this man stands here before you whole in him.” (Acts 4:10) Again, Peter identifies the Jews as the killers of Jesus. At another time, when speaking to the religious leaders of the Jews, Peter said, “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you [Jews] killed, hanging him on a tree.” (Acts 5:30) Once more, Peter declares that the Jews kill Jesus. Afterward, Peter said, “We are witnesses of everything he did both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they [Jews] also killed, hanging him on a tree.” Several times and to various Jewish audiences, Peter accuses the Jews of killing Jesus. (Biblical citations are from the World English Bible.)

Both Paul and Peter identify the Jews as responsible for the death of Jesus. So, the question is, “Whom do you believe?” Do you believe Jews and Christian Zionists, who claim that the Romans killed Jesus? Or do you believe Paul and Peter, who claim that the Jews killed Jesus?

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen

More religious articles.

King on Our God Is Able

King on Our God Is Able

Thomas Allen

In “Our God Is Able,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 109–117, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses the importance of God, evil, colonialism, and segregation. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King declares that Christians are convinced that God exists and that He can “do exceedingly abundant things in nature and in history.” (P. 109.) Moreover, the God whom Christians worship is neither weak nor incompetent.

King rejects the notion “that only man is able” (P. 109) and the substitution of “a man-centered universe for a God-centered universe.” (P. 109.) “The laboratory began to replace the church, and the scientists became a substitute for the prophet.” (P. 110.) Correctly, King writes, “Man is not able to save himself or the world.” (P. 110.)

However, events cause people “to question the ableness of God.” (P. 110.) Evil, both manmade and natural disasters, leads people to question God’s abilities. Why “do these things occur if God is able to prevent them?” (P. 110.) King’s answer is “that there is and always will be a penumbra of mystery surrounding God.” (P. 110-111.) (Instead of admitting their ignorance, especially about questions about God, most preachers will assert that it is a mystery, which may be true, but why do they not simply say that they do not know? Moreover, much confusion about God results from manmade doctrines.)

Although man may believe that he is the master of the physical universe, God sustains it. To defeat man-centered arrogance, King describes some of the things that God has done, such as the God-created solar system.

Then, King discusses God’s ability “to subdue all the powers of evil.” (P. 112.) To Christians, evil is real. “History is the story of evil forces that advance with seemingly irresistible power only to be crushed by the battering rams of the forces of justice. There is a law in the moral world — a silent, invisible imperative, akin to the laws in the physical world — that reminds us that life will work only in a certain way.” (P. 112.) To support his claim, King cites some examples.

To King, colonialism is one of the world’s great examples of evil. (Whether or not colonialism was evil, it brought a great deal of benefits to Africa. Before the arrival of Europeans, the people of sub-Sahara Africa sat on vast unused agricultural and mineral resources. Europeans taught Africans how to develop and use these resources. Europeans greatly improved the health and safety of the Africans. Furthermore, they brought the Africans the gospel of Jesus. Because of the colonial exploitation of European powers, Africans enjoy a much higher standard of living today than they would have if the Europeans never arrived. Nevertheless, colonialism has led to the destruction of the colonial powers. Consequently, contrary to what King would argue, Africa has benefitted more from colonialism than has Europe. To King, Africans exploiting Europe is justice.)

Also, to King, segregation is another great evil. (Since God is the Great Segregationist, how can segregation be evil? While the Bible endorses and teaches segregation and separation, it condemns integration and amalgamation.) Further, King claims that segregation “inflicted the Negro with a sense of inferiority, deprived him of his personhood, and denied him his birthright of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (P. 113.) (If true, integration should have liberated everyone, both White and Black, from the debilitating effects of segregation. Then, why are Negroes still complaining in this fully integrated America where Negroes have benefits and privileges that Whites never had? Why are Negroes segregating themselves from Whites? Why do so many Whites feel so deprived of personhood that they hate their own race and long for its genocide? Why are Whites being denied their birthright of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — what are affirmative action, quotas, and many other privileges and benefits that Negroes have that are denied Whites if not a denial of the birthright of Whites? In the 1960s, the righteousness of integration slew the evil of segregation. If integration is righteous and segregation is evil, why have the United States been disintegrating ever since? Now the United States are on the verge of shattering.)

King sees the end of colonialism and segregation as “the passing of systems that were born in injustice, nurtured in inequality, and reared in exploitation. They represent the inevitable decay of any system based on principles that are not in harmony with the moral laws of the universe.” (P. 113.) He views the end of colonialism and segregation as evidence of “God working through history for the salvation of man.” (P. 113.) (As noted above, Africans have benefitted more from European colonialism than have the Europeans. Moreover, segregation is in harmony with the moral laws of the universe. Integration is disharmony, which is why the integrated Western world is dying. Integration replacing segregation has nothing to do with the salvation of man. More correctly, the replacement is God working through history to chastise Whites.)

Next, King states, “God is able to conquer the evils of history.” (P. 114.) (Thus, hope exists that God will eventually conquer the evils of integration and amalgamation, which His holy book condemns.) He laments that integration is not progressing as quickly as he desires. Further, he asserts that God is walking with the Negro in his “sometimes difficult and often lonesome walk up freedom's road.” (P. 114.) (Now, Negroes have walked so far up freedom’s road that they can steal and wantonly destroy property with immunity. Moreover, Negroes have enslaved Whites to support them through welfare, job preferences [more qualified Whites have to give their jobs to less qualified Negroes], etc. If a person is unfamiliar with the demographics of the United States, watching American television would convince him that a majority of Americans are Negroes, and American television commercials would convince him that most marriages are interracial. Since the days of King, Negroes have come a long way.)

Continuing, King notes that if people disobey the absolute moral laws of the universe, these laws will break them. (Since racial segregation and separation is a moral law of the universe, the country grew stronger while practicing it. However, since America has abandoned racial segregation and separation in favor of integration and amalgamation, it has been deteriorating toward its death.)

Next, King states, “Christianity affirms that God is able to give us the power to meet them [problems and disappointments]. . . . He is able to provide inner peace amid outer storms.” (P. 115.) Then, he discusses the good times leading people away from God and the bad times drawing them back. Also, people relying on gods other than the one true God results in disasters. (America is witnessing the disastrous results of relying on King and his gospel instead of Jesus and his gospel.)

In closing, King gives a brief discussion of how the Montgomery protest affected him.

In this essay, King gives an excellent discussion on the necessity and importance of God. However, his discussion of evil begins well but ends with erroneous assertions about colonialism and segregation being evil. Colonialism has benefitted Africa far more than it benefitted the European colonial powers. Also, since the Bible teaches, endorses, and promotes segregation, it can hardly be evil.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Republicans Owned Blacks

Republicans Owned Blacks

Thomas Allen

I posted a comment on a comment on “Trump Surprises BLM Activist!” by Vince Quill (https://wltreport.com/2023/11/30/president-trump-surprises-blm-activist/). [Note: If you go to this site, you will not see my comments because it has banned me. Apparently, I objected too much about it censoring my comments telling the truth about God’s chosen people and their political movement.] My comment was “From 1865 to around 1960, the Republicans owned the slaves; then, the Democrats acquired ownership.” Not surprisingly, my comment received several negative responses. For the most part, these commenters seem to be victims of orthodox establishment propaganda that is called history.

Most of the commenters to the newsletter containing this article are anti-Democrats, anti-RINOs, pro-Republicans, especially pro-Trump, and racial nihilists who practice the new morality. (Interesting, when I commented on another article that most commenters of this newsletter were racial nihilists who practiced the new morality, that comment was censored.) Many have Dixiephobic and, especially, Confederaphobic tendencies. 

This discussion is presented in the appendix. Only the pertinent comments are given.

What caused the negative comments was that “the Republicans owned slaves.” Although this phrase is a little hyperbola, it is the truth.

During Reconstruction, carpetbaggers and scalawags, backed by the Union army, used freed slaves to aid them in their plunder of the South. As payment, Blacks filled many elected and appointed political positions and used their new power to further plunder the South. They increased the debt in some Southern States so unbearably high that these States repudiated their debts following the end of Reconstruction.

In the South, Republicans maintained control of Blacks during Reconstruction. In the North, Republicans gained control of Blacks by giving them the vote via the Fifteenth Amendment.

After Reconstruction, Republicans maintained control of Blacks, although they mostly neglected them. Moreover, Republicans left the control of race relations to the States where it constitutionally belonged.

In the South, States made voting difficult for Blacks primarily for two reasons. (1) During Reconstruction, Blacks had proven their incompetence at participating in government.  (2) Most Blacks would have voted for Republicans, the party that had destroyed the South.

During the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the Democrats started replacing Republicans as owners of Blacks. The Democrats acquired ownership of Blacks by offering them more booty and privileges than the Republicans were offering. President Johnson sealed the deal with the Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty.

Moving on to the founding of the Democratic Party, E claims that the modern Democratic Party was formed in 1828, and Jefferson was not a founder of it. He is deceiving with a partial truth. Apparently, he hates Democrats and does not want anything with “Republican” in its name to be associated with the Democratic Party. (You will notice from E’s comment to my comment on the founding principles of the Republican Party, that ignorance and stupidity consume him. Since he cannot refute my claim, he resorts to name-calling. He is the one who has drunk the cool aid of orthodox establishment propaganda, which is erroneously called history.)

According to Compton’s Pictured Encyclopedia (1957), The World Book Encyclopedia (1971), and Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (1983), the Democratic Party grew out of the Democratic-Republican Party, which Thomas Jefferson founded. The Democratic-Republican Party advocated a strict interpretation of the Constitution and States’ rights. In 1828, it split into two parties: the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party, which the Whig Party later absorbed. Representing the Eastern interest, the National Republican Party advocated nationalism, protective tariffs, and centralized banking (then called national banking) — policies that the Republican Party advocated after the collapse of the Whig Party. Representing the Western and Southern interests, the Democratic Party advocated States’ rights, tariffs for revenue only, and an independent Treasury — thus, it continued the original policies of the Democratic-Republican Party that Jefferson founded but under a shorter name.

When wokeism and political correctness do not consume it, the Democratic Party claims Jefferson (the first president of the Democratic-Republican Party) and Jackson (the first president of the Democratic Party) as its founders.

As for Abraham Lincoln, whom all these commenters idolize, he believed in and promoted corporate welfare (subsidies to big businesses), protective tariffs (a form of corporate welfare), internal improvements (a form of corporate welfare), national banking (now called centralized banking), and preserving the territories for Whites (Black should be kept out of them). (I suspect that these commenters oppose corporate welfare and centralized banking, although they may support corporate welfare in the form of protective tariffs.) Lincoln’s job as president was to serve big business and convert the United States from a federation of sovereign nations to a consolidated empire. In this task, he was highly successful.

Appendix

The following are the original comment I commented on and the pertinent comments that followed. The pseudonyms have been changed to protect the guilty. 

C: Yep, democrats keeping their slaves on the plantation since the end of the Civil War. Only they no longer house them on their property.

Me to C: From 1865 to around 1960, the Republicans owned the slaves; then, the Democrats acquired ownership.

E to Me: That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. You must be reading those revisionist history books.

The foundation of the Republican Party was on abolitionism (that means that a person is AGAINST slavery, and not for it), and the Democrat Party was so adamantly for it, at least one Republican Congressman was murdered on the Floor by a Democrat (but because he was a Democrat, he apparently was never charged, just like today). After losing the Civil War, the Democrat Party formed the KKK, to intimidate and kill “uppity niggers”that dared to speak up. In the 1960’s, the Democrat Party went on a new path: make blacks willing slaves, by offering them money to have babies, not marry, not get an education, and as a result, they were beholden to the Democrat Party for all "free money" and such they got.

D to E: Thank you, you explained it a lot better then I did, but I was trying to explain it as simply as I could because thats [sic] how you have to for some people that never listened in history class. About the black babies they should read about the abortionist herself Margret [sic] Sanger. And if anyone doesn’t think Librals [sic] aren’t trying to bring Socialism to us, they could read the 8 rules of socialism by Saul Alinski [sic]. Oh and lets [sic] not forget Democrats voted into Congress a good friend of Joe Biden’s The one Head Master of the KKK, ROBERT BYRD. And Hillary Clinton done [sic] her college thesis on Saul Alinski [sic] and praised how great she thought he was.

Me to E: The foundation of the Republican Party was to keep Blacks out of the territories, to subsidize big business, and to establish central banking, which it did with the national banking law. The Republicans could have aided the freed slaves by giving them land in the territories. However, since the territories were preserved for Whites, they didn’t. They wanted them to stay in the South as punishment for Southerners. Moreover, Lincoln stated that he had no intention of freeing the slaves until he could use freeing the slaves as war propaganda. He always said that he was fighting to preserve the Union, which is why nearly all Northerners fought. His Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves because it only applied to slaves in places that the Union army did not control. It exempted places under the control of the Union Army. Moreover, if Lincoln had gone to war to free the slaves, he would not have had much of an army because Northerners would have rebelled. Most Northerners despised the abolitionists almost as much as Southerners despised them. Northerners feared if slaves were freed a significant number of them would migrate to the North, and they did not want Blacks in the North. Further, the slaves were freed in the Confederate States before they were freed in the Union States. The KKK was created to protect Southerners from an occupying army as the French did during WWII. Unfortunately for the Blacks, they were the tools that the carpetbaggers and scalawags used to pillage the South, and thus, they received the brunt of the retaliations. The people who formed the KKK disbanded it a few years later. However, the KKK was later resurrected, and in the 1920s, it was stronger in the Republican North than in the Democratic South. This will surprise most of these people who cannot think beyond “Democrats created the KKK” and “all are Democrats evil,” Jefferson is the father of the Democratic Party, and the last truly Jeffersonian president was a Democrat, Cleveland.

E to Me: Oh, my God; you drank the whole jug of Cool-Aid! Just where did you get this claptrap? From the Democrat Party website? I suppose that next, you’ll inform us, that the Democrat Party was really the party of Black Freedom, and it was the Republican Party that wanted to keep the slaves, right?

Stop trying to greenlight us, and try to convince us that a turd is really a Baby Ruth bar.

For everyone’s edification, the modern Democrat Party was formed in 1820, not by Jefferson; he was long-dead by then.

Me to E:  Revisionist history books are often closer to the truth than are establishment orthodox history books. Examples are the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and 9-11.

Me to Me: Those who give the down votes on this comment [on revisionist history] must believe the official story of the Kennedy assassination and the official governmental conspiracy story of 9-11 because they are the orthodox history of these events. If they are consistent, they believe that the COVID so-called vaccine saved millions of lives while killing almost no one because that the establishment orthodox history.

D to Me: Such BS . Guess history wasn’t one of your strong subjects. This is a little bit of history, Abraham Lincoln - A REPUBLICAN writer of the emancipation to free the slaves. DEMOCRATS FOUGHT AGAINST IT. AND has had the blacks under their thumb for 200 + years later and a commie loving Democrat in office again that’s letting every TOM, DICK and HARRY cross their open border, has every Communist country pointing nuclear weapons at us, has depleted our oil supplies, and our military, there’s no way we’d ever win. I’m glad blacks are waking up.

H to Me: You need to catch up on your history. Democrats have been changing the history so know one will know the truth about what they did. The civil war proves that the Republicans wanted freedom of slaves and the democrats did not. The democrats started the KKK, THEY WERE SYMPATHIC [sic] TO THE Nazis, THEY SUPPRESSED THE BLACK COMMUNITY AND TREATED THEM LIKE 2ND CLASS CITIZENS FROM THE GET GO. Blacks mostly voted Republican from after the Civil War and through the early part of the 20th century. That’s not surprising when one considers that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, and the white, segregationist politicians who governed Southern states in those days were Democrats. Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku, WAS A BLACK BUSINESS MAN WHO SOLD SLAVES!!!! Nwaubani Ogogo's slaves were sold through the ports of Calabar and Bonny in the south of what is today known as Nigeria. IMAGINE THAT.

Me to H: Much of my information comes from the time that the Republicans were in charge of writing history. Your sources of the civil war, which was not a civil war, seem to come from the Democratic, liberal, progressive, and neoconservative sanitized version of that war. How could the KKK be sympathetic to the Nazis when the Nazis did not arrive until about 70 years later? By that time, most KKK organizations were governmental sting operations to entrapped dimwits. Lincoln was a racist bigot who wanted to repatriate all Blacks. Since slavery was better protected within the Union than outside the Union, slavery was not the cause of the war. (Here are some comments that Lincoln said about Blacks: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2019/10/lincoln-on-negro-race.html. Here is what the typical antebellum Northerner thought of Blacks: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-antebellum-northerners-opinion-of.html. Here is evidence that slavery did not cause the war: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2012/12/slavery-not-reason.html. Of course, you are too lazy and opinionated to read them.)

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. (https://tcallenco.blogspot....[?])

Moreover, the Democratic-controlled Confederate states freed their slaves before the Republican-controlled Union States freed theirs. Further, Blacks received the vote in the South before they received it in most of the Northern States.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues.