Saturday, November 23, 2024

Contrasting Machiavelli and Washington

 Contrasting Machiavelli and Washington

Thomas Allen


The author of Internal Relations of the Cities, Towns, Villages, Counties, and States of the Union; re, The Municipalist: A Highly Useful Book for Voters, Tax-Payers, Statesmen, Politicians and Families, second edition (New York: Ross & Tousey, Dexter & Brothers and William Radde, 1859), pages 192-193, contrasts the political philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli as presented in the Prince and George Washington as presented in his farewell address. His contrast follows.


Machiavelli identifies a hereditary prince at the head of a consolidated monarchy as the best form of government. 

Washington identifies a federal republic under one elective executive as the best form of government.


Machiavelli treats more on subjects, and their prudent management.

Washington treats more political business, and its good organization, distribution, and performance. 


Machiavelli advises his prince how to conquer a republic by ruining it and keeping down influential men.

Washington maintains that liberty ought to be the main pillar of the Union. 


Machiavelli suggests that the prince must manage public affairs, so that in all places, times, and occasions, the people may need his administration and regimen, or that he has his hands in everything.

Washington sees the proper organization and distribution of public business as the best guarantee for the safety of both the people and the government. 


Machiavelli argues that a prince is to have no other thought or study but war.

Washington believes that by our Union we will avoid the necessity of overgrown military establishments. 


Machiavelli thinks a prince may not shun vices and infamy if he can only preserve thus his dominion.

Washington believes that honesty is the best policy.


Machiavelli claims that a prince ought not to keep his parole when it is to his prejudice.

Washington believes that all engagements should be observed in their genuine sense, justice, and good faith toward all nations.


Machiavelli holds that having all the good qualities in reality is necessary for a prince, and to play the hypocrite well.

Washington believes that honesty, virtue, and morality are necessary springs of popular government.


Machiavelli believes that the prince ought to be terrible at home to his subjects, and abroad to his equals.

Washington believes that the ideal is a life under the benign influence of good laws under a free government.


Machiavelli argues that a prince must recommend himself to the world through great enterprises and valor (of course expensive things), and monopolize knowledge.

Washington is for peace, economy, and diffusion of knowledge.


Machiavelli advises his prince never to league with another more powerful than himself.

Washington is against all entangling alliances.


Machiavelli warns the prince of the snares of women. 

Washington warns of the wiles of party and faction.


Machiavelli advocates rank king-craft.

Washington advocates undefined democracy.


The author also contrasts virtues with vices, page 301:

Virtues: Justice, self-control, attention, honesty, veracity, truth, prudence, politeness, piety, charity, modesty, simplicity, economy, patience, sobriety, pudicity, industry, conscientiousness, fortitude, glory, patriotism, righteousness, love, humanity.

Vices: Injustice, carelessness, recklessness, faithlessness, dishonesty, falsehood, calumny, intrigue, slander, hypocrisy, imprudence, inurbanity, profanity, inhumanity, avarice, impudence, extravagance, prodigality, passion, intemperance, lewdness, free love, laziness, treachery, perfidy, cowardice, bombast, treason, villainy, corruption, hatred, vengeance, cruelty, barbarism.


Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.


Tuesday, November 12, 2024

Cussons on the Hypocrisy of the Puritan Yankee

Cussons on the Hypocrisy 

of the Puritan Yankee

Thomas Allen


In  United States “History” as the Yankee Makes and Takes It (1900, third edition) pages 68–69,  John Cussons describes the hypocrisy of the Puritan Yankee. His description fits today’s neoconservatives and especially progressives and wokesters. His description follows.

These new rulers [Puritan Yankees of the 1850s] had chiefly distinguished themselves as the enemies of existing institutions — their political and social creed being, in effect, “Whatever is, is wrong.” They were fond of execrating the Union as “a league with hell,” and denouncing the Constitution as “a covenant with death.” They derided the highest courts of the land as “crimping houses of iniquity,” and vilified the old flag as “a flaunting lie!”

But on coming into power they threw off all disguise, and shamelessly started a war of conquest in pretended defence [sic] of the very principles and symbols which they had so bitterly reviled.

With paralyzing logic they mutilated the States on the plea that the States were “indestructible”; they debarred them from the Union while declaring the Union to be “indissoluble,” and they tore the Constitution to tatters while pretending that they were the only class who reverenced its “inviolability.” Having thus approved themselves the only true champions of “the sacred principle of government by consent,” they rounded out their perfect work by converting the States into satrapies, and holding them under bayonet rule until the conquered peoples consented to ratify the whole of their rump performances.

Puritan Yankees favored secession and nullification until the Southern States used them. For most of the Jefferson and Madison administrations, the New England States, the home base of the Puritan Yankee, threatened secession. Massachusetts threatened to secede because of the Louisiana Purchase and argued that it had the right to secede. When Jefferson attempted to embargo trade with Europe during the Napoleonic War, the New England States threatened to secede. Several New England States discussed secession during the War of 1812. Connecticut and Massachusetts nullified Congress’ call for State militias.

Moreover, Puritan Yankees did not oppose slavery until the importation of slaves became illegal after 1808. Yankees had been the primary importers of slaves. Later, many Yankees became ardent abolitionists. As a result, like many other Northern States, the New England States nullified fugitive slave laws.

However, when the Southern States seceded and ended the “league with hell,” these abolitionists did not want to let them go. By then, the Puritan Yankees had gained control of the federal government. Now, they were going to use their newfound power to force their utopia on the world, starting with the South. They were going to save Southerners from their evil, heathen ways and convert them into the image of the Puritan Yankee. They started their conversion in the South and have metastasized across the world. America’s attempt to create American hegemony across the world is nothing more than the Puritan Yankee trying to remake the world in his own image.

One thing that Cussons seemed not to have anticipated was that most Southern leaders would lose their moral fortitude. Most Southern political, business, academic, and religious leaders would become scalawags. They would sell their souls to the Puritan Yankee and then genocide the Southerner, their own people. What the scalawags have not done, the carpetbaggers have. The genocide of the Southerner is mostly completed. (This genocide has been mostly cultural instead of physical. However, the United Nations considers the deliberate destruction of a people’s culture to be genocide. Destroying an ethnicity’s culture destroys the ethnicity.)


Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Saturday, November 2, 2024

Commentary on John 10:30

Commentary on John 10:30

Thomas Allen

I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

[Note: most translations since 1900 use “the” instead of “my.” Contrary to the assertions of some Trinitarians, whatever word is used makes no difference.]

John 10:30 is one of the strongest proof texts of Trinitarianism. According to many Trinitarians, this verse proves that Jesus is of the same substance or essence as the Father. Namely, Jesus is claiming to be one with his Father in substance or essence and by that, his deity. He is claiming that he is one of the persons of the Triune God. Thus, these Trinitarians understand this verse to mean that Jesus and the Father are equal and are persons of the same God.

Some Trinitarians claim that the “are” in this verse proves the plurality of persons, i.e., God consists of multiple persons. For Trinitarians, God consists of three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Further, the “one” in this verse proves the unity of God, i.e., the three persons are one God. Consequently, Wesley claims, “Therefore, if He [Jesus] was not God, He must have been the vilest of men.” Thus, if Jesus is not God, he is guilty of blasphemy. 

If this verse proves that Jesus and the Father are both God, it supports modalism just as easily as it supports orthodox Trinitarianism.  It implies that Jesus and the Father are the same God, but are different manifestations, modes, or aspects of God. That is, a modalist understands this verse to mean that Jesus and the Father are the same person but are different manifestations of that person.

Unitarians understand Jesus to mean that he and his Father are united in will and purpose; they are of one mind and purpose. Their conclusion is supported by John 17:11: “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” (Emphasis added.) Jesus prays that as he and his Father are one, his followers may be one, i.e., united in purpose. He was not praying that his followers would become one being or substance.

Not only do Unitarians have this understanding, but so do some Trinitarians, such as Erasmus and Calvin. Calvin argues that Jesus is speaking of his agreement with the Father; he is not speaking of the unity of substance. Likewise, in The Layman’s Biblical Commentary, volume 6, Floyd Filson writes about this verse, “Jesus and the Father are one in purpose and in love for the sheep.”

Some Trinitarians take both sides. If the verse is connected to the text that precedes it, it means oneness of purpose. However, if it is connected to the text that follows it, it means oneness of essence, and, therefore, affirms Jesus’ deity.

When this verse is read in context, it is in the context of the good shepherd (Jesus) caring for his sheep (his followers). Jesus is talking about the unity of purpose. He is not talking about the unity of substance or essence. 

A good Christian claims, “I and the Father are one.” However, he is not claiming that he is equal to the Father, of the same substance as the Father, or God. He is claiming that he is in union and agreement with God. This is what Jesus means in John 10:30. What separates him from his followers is that being the Son of God, he is in perfect union and agreement whereas they are not.

Unity can exist without equality. Unity of purpose and enterprise are examples. Another example is the soldiers of an army; an army has a unity of goals and objectives but is hierarchal in structure (no equality).

Thus, John 10:30 refers to the perfect unity of action and purpose between God the Father and Jesus the Messiah. It does not refer to both Jesus and the Father being of the same essence or substance or to the intrinsic deity of Jesus.


Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More religious articles.