The US Constitution as Americans Once Understood It

The US Constitution as Americans Once Understood It

Thomas Allen

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 22–24, G. Manigault explains how Americans once understood the US Constitution. Rare is a politician who swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution knows what he is supposed to support and defend. Calvin Coolidge was the last president who even made an attempt to follow the Constitution. No Congress since the early 1930s has attempted to follow the Constitution. The following is Manigault’s explanation of how Americans once understood the Constitution.

The better to carry on the war begun in 1776 for the establishment of their independence of the mother country, the thirteen colonies had united themselves into a confederacy by a treaty called “The Articles of Confederation,” which by express agreement were to be perpetual. They continued united under this treaty through the greater part of the war, and seven years after. Becoming then dissatisfied with this treaty, the States, acting as States, set aside “The Articles of Confederation,” which were to have been perpetual, and made with each other another treaty called “The Constitution of the United States,” more precise in terms and more stringent in conditions, which created, under the form of a federal government, a common agent for each and all the States for certain specified purposes. The States endowed this common agent with certain specified powers and with no others; for the powers not granted were expressly reserved to the individual States. A year or two elapsed after this treaty went into operation between most of the states, before all acceded to it.

The purposes to be served by this agent of all the states, and which they named “The Government of the United States,” were essentially these: To secure the friendly union and intercourse between the states, and the people of the states; and to present them as one united hody, in peace and in war. to all foreign powers.

The States however did not cease to be each a sovereign body politic within its own limits, in all matters not expressly delegated to the common agent. The forming of the Union did not generate an allegiance to a government or to a country. Each citizen of each State owed allegiance to his own State. On the formation of the Union, at first under the “Articles of Confederation,” afterwards under the “Constitution of the United States,” he, as well as his State, assumed a new obligation: that of observing in good faith the terms of the treaty of Union. Not even the officials of the new government ever took any oath of allegiance to it, as a government, or to the country within its jurisdiction. The only oath taken was, to observe faithfully the terms of the treaty of union between the States. As to the perpetuity of the Union, nothing is expressly said of it in the “Constitution of the United States.” Doubtless it was meant to be as perpetual as the good faith in observing the conditions on which the States had entered into the Union, and no longer. To assume that the parties that made the compact of union on certain specified conditions, meant these conditions to be temporary, but the union leased upon them perpetual — that gross and persistent violation of the terms of the agreement, by some parties to it, would not release the others from their obligation — would be putting the most absurd and illogical construction on the contract.

Following Lincoln's War, people changed their primary allegiance from their State to the United States as a whole and often to the federal government. Allegiance to their State was a distant second. Most federal employees, especially federal judges, Congressmen, and high-ranking members of the federal executive branch, insist that the primary allegiance is to the federal government — especially when their party wields power.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Commentary on Philippians 2:6

Commentary on Philippians 2:6

Thomas Allen

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. (King James Version)

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, (Revised Standard Version)

For Trinitarians, the phrase “in the form of God” proves the preexistent equality of the Father and Jesus. It refers to Jesus’ nature before his birth. This verse along with the adjacent verses (Philippians 2: 3–11) proves inconvertibly that Jesus disrobed himself of his divinity and dressed himself in the form of a human. That is, Jesus visibly represented the essence of God the Father. Also, Trinitarians use these verses to support the Incarnation.

In his nature, Jesus is God; therefore, being fully God, Jesus did not need to grasp for equality. Thus, although he was “in the form of God,” i.e., of the same substance or essence, and, therefore, had the right to be equal to God, Jesus sought to conceal this fact by not appearing to be equal to God. Moreover, since Jesus was not inferior to God the Father, Jesus could claim the right to be treated as His equal, yet he chose to humble himself and become a man. Although Jesus was equal to God, he decided not to assert his equality — “thought it not robbery” or “a thing to be grasped.”

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary translates Philippians 2:6 as follows: “Though in his pre-incarnate state he possessed the essential qualities of Cod, he did not consider his status of divine equality a prize to be selfishly hoarded (taking harpagmos [plunder, robbery] passively).” Other biased Trinitarian translations are given in the appendix.

Unitarians contend that Philippians 2:6 does not prove the preexistent equality of Jesus and the Father. This verse is part of a passage where Paul compares the attitude and achievements of Adam to those of Jesus. Adam succumbed to his pride and sought, in a sense, to be equal to God. Contrariwise, although Jesus was the perfect expression of God’s character, he humbled himself and, unlike Adam, considered equality with God as something not to be sought or grasped. Instead, Jesus waited for God to exalt him.

This verse is part of a passage where Paul is teaching the virtue of humility by following Jesus’ example of humility. Paul is urging the Philippians to act with humility toward each other. Instead of teaching the Trinity Doctrine, this passage urges believers to be humble.

Unitarians and Trinitarians disagree about the idea that “form” conveys. While Trinitarians contend that it conveys the notion of “essential nature or essence,” i.e. the essence of God, Unitarians contend that it refers to outward appearance because the word translated as “form” was commonly used in the sense of outward appearance during and before the time that Paul wrote. Whereas Trinitarians claim that it refers to an internal quality, Unitarians claim that it refers to an external quality. Jesus was “in the form of God” in the sense that he perfectly expressed the character of the Father. It does not suggest that Jesus was of the same substance or essence as God and, therefore, possesses God’s nature.

Further, Trinitarians assert that the phrase “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” proves that in the Godhead, Jesus is equal to the Father. Namely, because Jesus was preexistent God, he could claim equality of the Godhead. On the other hand, Unitarians claim that phrase means the opposite of the Trinitarian claim. Instead of claiming Jesus’ equality with God, it means that Jesus rejected pursuing equality with God. Jesus refusing to seek equality with God is consistent with Paul urging believers to copy Jesus’ humility.

Moreover, the phrase does not mean that Jesus maintained equality with God as Trinitarians contend. It means that he did not try to become equal with God. Furthermore, if Jesus were God, to say that he “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” is absurd; being God, he already had equality with God.

If the Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2:5-11 is correct, then it refutes the origin of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Unitarians maintain that Matthew and Luke are correct and the Trinitarians are wrong. Moreover, Unitarians reject the notion that Paul is teaching the Trinity Doctrine in this and the following verses because he clearly rejects the Trinity Doctrine elsewhere. Paul taught that only the Father was God and that Jesus was a man (emphasis added):

1 Corinthians 8:6: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

Ephesians 4:5-6: 5 “One Lord [Jesus], one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” (In his exalted state, Jesus is still a man.)

Appendix

Some modern translations show an obvious Trinitarian bias in their translation of the phrase “being in the form of God”:

Christian Standard Bible: “who, existing in the form of God,”

Contemporary English Version: “Christ was truly God.”

Easy English Bible: “Christ had the same nature as God.”

Evangelical Heritage Version: “Though he was by nature God,”

Good News Translation: “He always had the nature of God,”

Living Bible: “who, though he was God,”

New International Reader's Version: “In his very nature he was God.”

New International Version: “Who, being in very nature God,”

New Life Version: “Though he was God,”

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Three Facts About the South

Three Facts About the South

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are the States’ right of secession, music, and the South was right.

States’ Right of Secession

Nowhere does the Constitution deny a State the right to secede. Secession is not expressly stated in the Constitution because the States reserved that right in the Tenth Amendment. 

Each of the original 13 States had seceded twice when they ratified the Constitution of 1787. First, they had seceded from Great Britain, and then they seceded from the Union formed by the Articles of Confederation. That the States would deny themselves the right to secede from the Union formed by the Constitution of 1787 is absurd — especially since the Constitution did not expressly deny them this right. Even New York and Virginia declared in their ratification that they retained the right to secede. Further, the New England States claimed that they had the right to secede. Moreover, the Declaration of Independence asserted that the States (the colonies) had the right to secede. Thus, the Southern States had the right to secede in 1861.

Besides, when the States drafted the Constitution of 1787 and joined the federation created by that Constitution, they retained their sovereignty. (Because the States were republics and the Constitution guaranteed each State a republican form of government, the States could not surrender their sovereignty and still remain republics. [See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.]) Sovereigns have the power to secede from any union or federation to which they have acceded.

When the Southern States seceded, they were merely exercising their right as sovereigns to leave the Union peacefully as the States did from the Union created by the Articles of Confederation. The Tenth Amendment guaranteed the right of secession.

For a more detailed discussion of a State’s right to secede, see Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States: Its Causes, Character, Conduct, and Results, volume 1, by Alexander H. Stephens, 1868.

Music

How long will it be before American music is outlawed? Why should American music be outlawed? Because, with rare exception, all neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians are Dixiephobes. They loathe the South and Southerners. Therefore, they disdain everything Southern.

What does this have to do with music? All significant genres or styles of American music of any significance originated in the South. Thus, American music is the product of slavocracy, Jim Crow, White supremacy, and their descendants. Rock ‘n roll, jazz (including ragtime, boogie-woogie, Dixieland, and swing), blues, country, bluegrass, rhythm and blues, soul, funk, Tejano, Cajun, zydeco, gospel, spiritual, sacred harp, barbershop, and more are Southern. All of them came out of the South.

Because of their hatred of the South, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians seek to destroy everything that is Southern. Consequently, American music, which is really Southern music, must be destroyed. They have to destroy Southern music before it completely contaminates the virtues of Yankeedom.

(Reference: Daniel, Tom. “Academy of Southern Music.” Abbeville Institute: The Abbeville Blog, June 1, 2021. https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/bthe log/academy-of-southern-music/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d073b88d-f677-448c-9c41-191b5e0c631f accessed June 2, 2021.)

The South Was Right

In “The Power of the Powerless” (November 4, 2020), James Rutledge Roesch provides an excellent description of the Puritan Yankee mentality that wars against the South, which proves that the South was right (https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/the-power-of-the-powerless/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c24f9d1b-a791-4b69-be6a-ca8b5d96ed4b):

In the meantime, however, we can take some bittersweet solace in the fact that despite the sadistic iconoclasm against the symbols of the American South, the polarisation/radicalisation of American politics, the dysfunction of the American system of government, the corruption of the American party system, the degeneracy of American culture, and the disintegration of American society represents the ultimate vindication of the Southern critique of American millenarianism (i.e. “The City Upon A Hill” and “The Last, Best Hope for Mankind”), American gnosticism (i.e. “The More Perfect Union” and “The Indissoluble Union”), American teleocracy (i.e. “The Proposition Nation” and “The Redeemer Nation”), American hubris (i.e. “The Exceptional Nation” and “The Indispensable Nation”), and other Hebraic-Puritan “isms” and “ologies” from the Left and the Right to which our compatriots up north have proven so susceptible throughout our country’s very young life.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.