The 1860 Presidential Election Caused the South to Seceded

The 1860 Presidential Election Caused the South to Secede

Thomas Allen, editor

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 92–94, G. Manigault explains how the 1860 presidential election led to the South seceding. He writes:

An election of President of the United States was to come on late in 1860, and the whole Union was greatly agitated by the canvass. The anti-slavery party chose for their candidate [Abraham Lincoln] an until lately obscure man — of little capacity or attainments, except as what is called a stump orator. He had a genius for diverting a rude Western crowd with funny stories and coarse witticisms. Some able speeches were delivered by him, but they were prepared by another man. His own serious efforts only proved his ignorance and shallowness. But he was popular in the great North-west, and was a man whom the party knew how to use for their purposes. Another party which expressly disclaimed for the Federal government any right to interfere with slavery in the States, but claimed for it the right to prohibit it in the common territories, nominated for their candidate an eminent Northwestern politician [Stephen A. Douglas], the zealous expounder of “Squatter Sovereignty.” A third party of no definite views, except peace at any price, brought out their candidate [John Bell]. And a fourth, consisting of the people of the Southern States and such people in the North as maintained the permanence and sanctity of the terms, on which the Union had been formed, and the limitations on the powers of the Federal government, nominated their candidate [John C. Breckinridge]. The result was that the anti-slavery party carried every Northern State, and the election — the fourth party carried every Southern State, and the other parties were nowhere.  

The people of the Southern States now found that they were living under a government completely in the hands of their enemies, utterly hostile to their rights and interests, and claiming a right not only to surround and hedge them out from all right in the common territories, and reduce them to complete and hopeless subjection, but to revolutionize their internal political and social organization. This was not the confederation into which they had entered; this was not the government which they had joined in creating. Unless they could submit to be revolutionized by external enemies, and become mere tributary provinces to them, it was high time to break off all connection with utterly faithless confederates, whom the most solemn treaty could not bind. The Southern States began to secede from the Union in rapid succession, and war was made upon the South to force them back into it.

More Southern articles.

Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws

Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws

Thomas Allen

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution)

When the States became members of the United States, they agreed to return fugitive slaves. As time passed and the Puritan Yankee abolitionists became highly influential in New England, New York, and the upper Midwest, the Northern States began refusing to aid in the return of runaway slaves. In other words, they began nullifying fugitive slave laws.

After the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, several Northern States effectively nullified it. (Presumably, Illinois and Indiana had no problem with the fugitive slave laws because they prohibited Blacks from entering them.)

Not unexpectedly, South Carolina objected to the nullifications. One reason that South Carolina gave for seceding was that various Northern States had nullified the fugitive slave laws. The reason that South Carolina listed slavery as a reason for its secession was that it was a prime example of the North’s hostility toward it and the North’s refusal to live by the Constitution.

Ironically, when South Carolina seceded, the Northern States no longer had a constitutional obligation to return runaway slaves to South Carolina. Thus, South Carolina’s secession effectively ended the need for the Northern States’ nullification, as far as South Carolina was concerned, because it was now a foreign country.

For South Carolina to secede to preserve slavery was absurd. Despite Northern States nullifying fugitive slave laws, slavery was better protected in the Union than outside it. Regardless of abolitionist rant, Republicans stressed that they had no intentions of abolishing slavery (see “Slavery Not the Reason” by Thomas Allen).

If South Carolina wanted to keep slavery intact, it would not accomplish that goal with secession. When it seceded, the United States ceased having any obligation to return runaway slaves to it.

Nevertheless, New England’s Puritanism, lust for plunder, and hatred of Southerners prevented them from letting South Carolina and the other Southern States leave the union in peace. The Yankee Puritans had seen the righteous, holy light, and they were determined to ram their vision of a sinless world down the throats of the Southern States despite the desiderata of the South. Puritans must free the world of sin so that Jesus can return — postmillennialism. (While the underlying principle of  postmillennialism is that the Holy Spirit becomes stronger, the underlying principle of today’s popular premillennialism is that the Holy Spirit becomes weaker.) Moreover, they would make the South pay for their liberation from sin by stealing as much wealth from the South as possible. (To the abolitionist Puritans, the greatest sin of all was slavery, despite the Bible not condemning slavery, which is why they abandoned the Bible.)

Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, and most other proponents of nullification taught using it to void unconstitutional federal acts. Although Madison approved of nullifying constitutional federal acts that a State disliked, most of the others did not teach using it to void constitutional acts of the federal government that a State disliked.

According to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, which is quoted above, the Constitution authorized fugitive slave laws. Moreover, it obligated States to return runaway slaves. Consequently, Northern States nullified fugitive slave laws not because they were unconstitutional, but because they disagreed with them. (Since the Northern States controlled Congress, why did they not repeal the fugitive slave laws or rewrite them to address their concerns?)

Nevertheless, if a State disagrees with a federal law that is constitutional, it has the right not to participate in its enforcement. However, it has no right to actively intervene or interfere with its enforcement, as some Northern States did when they nullified fugitive slave laws. If the law was unconstitutional, which the fugitive slave laws were not, a State has the right to interfere with its enforcement.

If the Puritan Yankee abolitionists found slavery so reprehensible that they would destroy the country and its constitution and cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in the process, they could have bought the slaves and set them free much more cheaply and without destroying the country and its constitution. These abolitionists cared only about Black slaves in the abstract. They did not care for them personally as did their owners.

Reconstruction showed how little Northerners cared about Blacks. They threw the slaves into the free-labor market. Most slaves had few skills beyond farm labor, and most had little training in taking care of themselves. Their masters had provided their housing, food, clothing, tools, medical care, etc., and took care of them in old age and when they were unable to work. After emancipation, they immediately had to learn to do all these things for themselves. Many failed, and many died.

Also, the North could have provided freed slaves with farmland in the territories. Yet, it did not because the territories were reserved for Whites.

Unfortunately, too many Blacks still have not escaped the slave mentality. Through various federal and State welfare and civil rights programs, they depend on governments to take care of them, as they had depended on the master — they have enslaved themselves to governments. Worse, they have enslaved taxpayers to support them.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks were making great strides in learning how to care for themselves and to free themselves from a slave mentality. Discrimination and segregation in the North and the South forced them to become independent and rely on themselves. Then came the Civil Rights Era. Consequently, this progress was retarded and thwarted.

Appendix. The Tenth Amendment Center

The Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) is a strong supporter of nullification. However, it goes beyond the teachings of Jefferson and Calhoun. While they wrote that a State has the right to nullify federal acts that it finds unconstitutional, as far as I know, they never promoted the nullification of constitutional acts with which a State disagrees. (When the Northern States nullified fugitive slave laws, they nullified constitutional laws with which they disagreed.) 

However, TAC goes beyond nullifying unconstitutional federal acts. It not only endorses a State nullifying unconstitutional federal acts but also endorses a State nullifying constitutional federal acts that it dislikes — except for Southern States nullifying civil rights acts of the federal government, including those that are unconstitutional, such as school desegregation and integration. (I have not found TAC expressly opposing or condemning the Southern States and communities attempting to nullify federal acts outlawing segregation and forcing integration. However, it does support Communist agents and Communist-front organizations nullifying State and local segregation laws and practices. Consequently, I infer that it opposes States and communities attempting to nullify these federal acts.) Thus, TAC supports Northern States' nullifying fugitive slave laws and opposes South Carolina's objection.

TAC seems to have a low opinion of Calhoun, despite him probably being the most brilliant and original political philosopher that the Western Hemisphere has ever produced, because he supported giving nullification real teeth. Calhoun argued that a State could prevent the enforcement of an unconstitutional federal law within its borders by vetoing it and thus making it unenforceable, as did Vermont’s nullification of the fugitive slave laws, which authorized arresting and penalizing federal officials attempting to enforce the fugitive slave laws. TAC objects to giving nullification teeth — at least in practice. Consequently, TAC rejects a State enforcing its nullification by jailing federal agents who attempt to enforce the nullified act in that State. In its opinion and Madison’s, such nullification allows one State to impose its will on the other States by preventing the enforcement of a nullified act within the nullifying State but not in the other States. Yet, TAC only weakly, if at all, objects to other States imposing their will on the nullifying State. In short, while Calhoun advocates nullification-heavy, TAC and Madison advocate nullification-light.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More political articles.

When Did Samuel Last See Saul?

When Did Samuel Last See Saul?

Thomas Allen

According to 1 Samuel 15:35, Samuel never saw Saul again: 

And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

However, according to 1 Samuel 19:24, Saul prophesied before Samuel, which occurred after Samuel never saw Saul again:

And he [Saul] stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?

When did Samuel last see Saul?

Stenning notes that verse 15:35 is inconsistent with verse 19:24. However, according to Stenning, verses 19:18 through 19:24 are late and unhistorical. Verse 15:35 excludes the meeting between Saul and Samuel in verse 19:24. Further, Samuel being the head of the prophets is inconsistent with earlier traditions (1 Samuel 10:5). Moreover, David would have most likely headed to the South where his kinsmen were in Judea and not to the north toward Ramah. Additionally, verse 19:24 may be connected to 1 Samuel 10:10-11, which describes an event that occurred before verse 15:35.

Young disagrees with Stenning and maintains that Samuel was the superintendent of a company of prophets at Ramah. However, he does not discuss the inconsistencies between verse 15:35 and verse 19:24.

Weaver does not comment on the inconsistencies between verse 15:35 and verse 19:24. Nevertheless, he notes that Samuel being the head of the ecstatic prophets is inconsistent with the stories of Samuel in chapters seven through ten of 1 Samuel. Also, David would have fled south to Judea instead of north. Weaver believes that a collector of stories about David eventually incorporated the story that appears in verses 19:18–24.

Clarke maintains that chronologically, the events of verse 15:35 occurred before the events of verse 19:24. Yet, from Samuel’s perspective, he did not see Saul after verse 15:35 because he no longer had any connections with Saul and no longer acknowledged Saul as king. Also, Clarke states that Samuel superintended the school of prophets at Ramah.

Bennett claims that the conflict between verse 15:35 and verse 19:24 occurs because two different sources were used.

        Although the conflict between 1 Samuel 15:35 and 1 Samuel 19:24 presents little difficulty to those who claim that the Bible is infallible (trustworthiness, incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals), it does, however, present great difficulty to people who claim that the Bible is inerrant (without error or misstatement.) Obviously, inconsistencies between passages do call into question inerrancy. Often a great deal of unconvincing mental gymnastics is required to explain away inconsistencies. Two of the favorite excuses used by adherents of inerrancy are that (1) the original autographs but not copies are without error and (2) errors are not real but are things that humans do not understand, i.e., mysteries. Although proponents of inerrancy are inclined toward being absolute literalists, they also use the argument of figures of speech and using round numbers to explain away apparent errors or misstatements. (For example, the Bible states that the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference is three [1 Kings 7:23]; this is explained away by claiming that the writer is using a round number, which is true. However, if the Bible is supposed to be correct in all matters as inerrancy folks declare, should not the writer have used a much more precise number such as 3.1415926535 — especially since most inerrancy proponents argue that the Bible is 100 percent accurate about scientific matters? Moreover, nearly all young-earth, universal-flood adherents reject the flat-earth model although the Bible clearly describes the earth as flat — see “A Response to “What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?” by Thomas Allen. Thus, inerrancy adherents are highly selective about the Bible’s correctness on scientific matters.) The only time that an inconsistency presents a problem to an infallibility proponent is when the Bible conflicts with a manmade doctrine, e.g., Paul writing that “there is one God, the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6) To maintain their doctrine, inerrancy adherents must explain away inconsistencies; infallibility adherents do not.

References

Bennett, W.H. A Commentary on the Bible. Editor Arthur S. Peake. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.

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

Stenning, J. F. A New Commentary on Holy Scripture. Editors, Charles Gore, Henry L. Goudge, and Alfred Guillaume. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1928.

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

Young, F.E. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Editor Charles F. Pfeiffer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Israel-Iran War

Israel-Iran War

Thomas Allen

The following are some observations about Israel’s sneak attack on Iran and President Trump’s response.

Self-defense

Israel and nearly every Zionist use the self-defense argument to justify Israel’s sneak attack on Iran. According to Israel, for the last 45 years, Iran has been weeks away from developing a nuclear weapon. (If true, Iran must have some highly incompetent scientists and engineers to have failed to acquire a nuclear weapon a long time ago, when a country as poor and backward as North Korea managed to develop nuclear weapons years ago.) Once Iran has a nuclear weapon, Israel contends that Iran will immediately use it on Israel. Although Israel has at least 200 nuclear weapons, Iran must not have even one. (According to Iran, if one believes Iran, which Zionists and Jews do not, it has no nuclear weapons and does not plan to build any. Unfortunately, Israel’s surreptitious attack may have changed Iran’s mind.) The primary thing that Israel seems to be defending itself against is peace.

If a supposed theoretical attack by Iran on Israel justifies Israel’s sneak attack on Iran, then it justifies Japan’s surprise attack on the United States. Indeed, Japan was more justified than Israel. 

Roosevelt was trying to provoke a war with Japan. Iran’s threat to Israel has been primarily rhetorical. However, Roosevelt’s threat was more than rhetoric. He had placed an embargo on exporting vital resources to Japan. Iran’s economic sanctions on Israel are of little consequence. On the contrary, Israel and its vassal states, primarily the United States, have placed many important sanctions on Iran.

Moreover, for decades, Israel has been threatening Iran with far more vigor than Iran has been threatening Israel. If either of them is justified in launching a surprise attack, it is Iran.

Precision of the Attack

Many Zionists boast about the precision of Israel’s sneak attack. It killed mainly Iran’s nuclear scientists and military leaders. Except for family members and others who were nearby when the attack occurred, civilian casualties were minimized.

If Israel could carry out such precise attacks against Iran, why could it not have done the same in killing Hamas in Gaza? While Iran is a large country with aircraft and an air defense system, Gaza is a tiny territory with no air defense. A precision attack against Hamas in Gaza would have been much easier and cheaper than the approach that Israel took of leveling the country and genociding the Palestinians.  Instead of killing Hamas with a precise attack, Israel chose to utterly destroy Gaza with bombs and bulldozers and to genocide the Palestinians who lived there. Obviously, Israel wants to kill as many Palestinians as possible and drive the survivors from Greater Israel. The question remaining is whether Trump or the Jews will turn Gaza into a resort area.  Perhaps Israel will let Trump develop Gaza as a reward for being such a servile slave.

Trump

President Trump has become another sleazy politician. He lied to the American people when he promised not only to keep the United States out of war but also to end quickly the Russia-Ukraine War and the Israeli-Gaza War. Although he could have ended both wars within a few weeks without any threats or expenditures by the United States, he managed not only to stretch them out but also to bring the world even closer to nuclear annihilation. (Most Christian Zionists greatly desire a global nuclear war — especially the premillennialist rapture cultists — and so does a segment of Islam. Both believe that the world must be destroyed before the Messiah comes.)

As President Wilson lied America into World War I, and President Roosevelt lied the country into World War II, Trump seems to be lying the country into World War III. Wilson and Roosevelt ran on a platform to keep America out of war. Likewise, Trump ran on a platform to keep the country out of war.

However, the US Air Force defending Israel from Iranian weapons and bombing Iranian targets for Israel is Trump’s idea of keeping the United States out of war. To anyone with a functioning brain cell, these actions involve the United States in the war. (Is Trump brain dead, or has he sold his soul to Israel and Zionism?)

Further, Trump seems to have aided Israel in its sneak attack by distracting Iran with his nuclear deal negotiations. However, his negotiations were not serious. He offered Iran a deal that he knew Iran would not and could not accept. Now, he can use the excuse that he offered Iran a way to avoid war, but it rejected the offer. Consequently, the blame lies with Iran as Trump goes to war against Iran.

Furthermore, Trump has demanded Iran’s unconditional surrender, which he knows or should know is unacceptable. He followed this demand by ordering the air force to bomb Iran. Consequently, as an obedient slave of Israel, Trump has attacked Iran for Israel.

For decades, Israel had been trying to convince the United States to strike Iran. Finally, Israel got a subservient lapdog in the presidency, who is so Zionist that he will do whatever Israel orders, to fulfill its lustful dream of Greater Israel.

At least Israel does not have to attempt another USS Liberty incident to draw the United States into war against Iran. (During the  Six-Day War in 1967, Israel attacked and tried to sink the USS Liberty, which was an intelligence-gathering ship, off the coast of Egypt. Israel wanted to sink the ship and blame Egypt so that the United States would enter the war against Egypt.)

Apparently, in Trump’s mind and the minds of nearly all members of Congress, Christian Zionists, and most Zionist commentators, no sacrifice is too great to pay to and for “God’s Chosen People.”  Even the utter destruction of America and a global holocaust is an acceptable price to pay for the survival of Israel and the Jews.

Trump deserves the blame for all Americans killed and maimed by Iranian retaliation. Iran did not want war with the United States, but warmongering Zionist Trump attacked it, although it was no threat to the United States. Now, Trump has gotten the United States into another useless, no-win war.

Ever since the assassination of Kennedy, every US President, including Trump, has been a lackey of Israel. With the assassination of Kennedy, the United States became a vassal state of Israel. Since then, Israel has owned every US President and nearly all members of Congress. (Today, 100 Senators and about 430 Representatives represent Israel in Congress.) As Biden was  Zelensky’s president, so Trump is Netanyahu’s president — both of whom are Jews.

If Trump is not a slave of Israel, he needs to start acting like he is not. If he is a man of peace, he needs to stop threatening and bombing Iran and stop supporting Israel’s war machine. If he is a man for the little people, he needs to defend the Palestinians and stop Israel’s genocide of them.

Is Trump’s attack on Iran motivated in part by a desire to fulfill Bush the Younger’s police state dream? After all, Trump completed Bush’s program of the Real ID card, which is the foundation of an authoritarian police state. With his attack on Iran, Trump may have hoped to trigger Iranian sleeper cells in the United States to attack American infrastructure. Does he hope they do so that he can declare martial law and achieve Bush’s nightmare? A police state is also the vision of neoconservatives and Democrats.

If Trump were a statesman instead of a contemptible politician, he would tell Israel, “You started this war; you finish it on your own without any help from us.” Then, he would withdraw all US troops and naval vessels from the Middle East and close all the air force bases. (There is no need to give Israel American targets to attack and blame Iran and draw America into the war.)

Trump’s slogans of “America First” and “Make America Great Again” have become “Israel First” and “Make Israel Great.” As a spin-off of an old saying, “With a friend like Israel, who needs enemies?” Whereas Biden flooded the country with  queerdom and alien invaders, Trump is drowning the country in Zionism.

Jews

Most people who call themselves Jews are not true Jews. Properly speaking, only descendants of Judah are Jews. Most of today’s Jews are not descendants of Judah, and probably all of those who are are mixed with non-Jews. Some are descendants of the people of the Persian Empire who became Jews during the time of Esther for fear of the Jews (Esther 8:17). Others are descendants of the Edomites, who were prominent in Palestine during the life of Jesus. Most of today’s Jews are descendants of the people of Khazaria, who are called Ashkenazim. Yet, all these Jews are “God’s Chosen People.” Since Jews as such did not come into being until the time of the Babylonian captivity, the descendants of the northern tribes are not really Jews. Moreover, the northern tribes were not descendants of Judah.

Since both my father’s and mother’s ancestry can be traced back to Judah, does that make me a Jew? It seems to give me a stronger claim to being a Jew than most contemporary Jews have.

One final note about Jews: most people who hate Jews do not hate them because of their religion or ethnicity. They hate them because of the misbehavior of many Jews.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.