Nationalists and Federalists

Nationalists and Federalists

Thomas Allen

Since the ratification of the Constitution of 1788, nationalists and federalists have been struggling to control the government of the United States. With the possible exception of the Cleveland administration, the nationalists have controlled the US government since the election of Lincoln. (Federalists should not be confused with the early Federalist Party of Washington and Adams, which was primarily a nationalist party. As contradictory as it may sound, the Antifederalists of that era were the real federalists.) The following is a comparison of nationalists and federalists.

1– Nationalists support a living constitution where the US Supreme Court, the President, and Congress continuously change the interpretation of the Constitution to meet current needs, i.e., to satiate their lust for power. Among their favorite clauses are the Interstate Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause (which means that anything Congress deems to be for the general welfare), and the Necessary and Proper Clause. They give these and other clauses extremely elastic interpretations.

On the other hand, federalists support a strict, limited interpretation of the Constitution. They advocate interpreting the Constitution to mean what the proponents of the ratification of the Constitution explained it to mean and its intent. Records of their remarks are available in the debates of the ratification conventions, the Federalist Papers, and other writings that promoted the Constitution.

2– While nationalists advocate the consolidation of political power where the national government (a.k.a. the central government, the federal government, the US government, and the general government) has unlimited power, federalists advocate the dispersal of political power where the federal government has limited, enumerated power.

3– According to nationalists, the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of the constitutionality of federal acts (and even most State acts). Thus, the national government is the sole arbitrator of its political power.

Federalists assert that “we the people” of each State, either through their legislatures or special conventions, are the ultimate and final arbitrators of the constitutionality of a federal act. If a State finds that a federal act is unconstitutional, it is void in that State, but it may continue to be applied in the other States.

4– Nationalists maintain that all federal acts are constitutional until the Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional, which it rarely does. (Being a branch of the national government, the Supreme Court cannot be an unbiased arbitrator. Most of the time, it decides in favor of the national government and against the States.) 

However, federalists maintain that only federal acts pursuant to the Constitution are constitutional. Any federal act that does not implement or apply one of the powers expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution has not been made pursuant to the Constitution. Therefore, it is unconstitutional, i.e., it is not a law and consequently void.

5– Nationalists loathe States’ rights. They consider States to be merely administrative districts of the national government.  

Quite the opposite, federalists are ardent proponents of States’ rights. States, i.e., “we the people” of each State, are the heart and soul of the Constitution and the federal government that they created. Without the States, the Constitution and federal government would not exist. Furthermore, each State acting independently is the final judge of the constitutionality of all federal acts. Consequently, if a State finds a federal act unconstitutional, it is duty-bound to nullify that act within its jurisdiction.

6– Nationalists place the power of the national government above all. Therefore, they view secession as treason and a sacrilege.

Federalists place the welfare of their community, people, and land above the federal government. Thus, they view secession as a means of preservation.

7– Nationalists are inclined toward foreign intervention and imperialism and are, therefore, bellicostic. They seek hegemony.

Contrastingly, federalists desire not to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries and seek peace and trade with all. Consequently, they prefer peace to war.

8– Nationalists favor government-business partnerships, mercantilism, protectionism, centralized banking, easy credit (inflation), and government indebtedness. Thus, they favor big business, big labor, and the concentration of economic power. Prosperity is created through mercantilism, i.e., corporate welfare, protectionism, and central banking. 

On the other hand, federalists favor free trade, free markets, free enterprise, decentralized banking, the separation of government and banking, the stable value of money, and minimum or no government debt. Thus, they favor the dispersal of economic power. Free markets create prosperity.

9– Nationals accept the welfare state, for it increases the national government’s control over the people and, consequently, its power.

Federalists prefer private and church charities to governmental welfare. However, if a government is to be involved in welfare, it should be the local government.

10– Nationalists rely on the national government to promote and preserve the virtues of the people. Making people righteous is a primary function of the national government. (Today, perversion is often considered righteousness.)

Federalists rely on the independence of citizens to promote and preserve the virtues of the people. Making people righteous is primarily the work of churches (true churches and not today’s woke churches).

11– Nationalists construe the Constitution as a teleological document (establishing a society based on abstract principles of natural rights, equality, democracy, etc.)

Federalists construe it as a nomocratic document (bringing government under the rule of law).

12– Nationalists lean toward inclusion and, therefore, amalgamation.

Yet, federalists lean toward diversity and, therefore, separation. Moreover, 

federalists are more tolerant than are nationalists.

While nationalists promote the concentration of political, economic, and social power, federalists promote their dispersal.

Regrettably, most State governmental officials have sold their souls to the nationalists. Since most State officials prefer lucre to liberty, the nationalists have bought them with federal grant money. (Nowhere does the Constitution delegate the federal government the authority to issue grants — much less to use federal funds for bribery.)

In summary, while nationalists are centralists, federalists are decentralists (see “Centralism Verses Decentralism” by Thomas Allen.) Furthermore, while nationalists are statists, federalists are libertists (“Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen). Consequently, nationalists prefer the constitution that Lincoln and the Republicans, as further developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court, gave the United States, while the federalists prefer the Constitution of the Founding Fathers (see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen).

Federalism is achieved when more people know the names of their governors and State legislators than know the names of the President and their members of Congress.

Afterthought. Generally, nationalists divide into two major factions. One follows the attributes in the above list. The other follows the political and social attributes, although they disagree about the virtues that the national government should impose and the extent of the welfare state. However, the second faction agrees more with the federalists on economic matters. Further, some nationalists are less favorable to foreign interventionism than others.

Unfortunately, not all federalists are consistent. Many act like nationalists on economic matters. Some federalists are inclined toward the warfare state (foreign interventionism) and welfare states and support such endeavors, especially when their State receives money from the federal government for military bases and various social and welfare programs.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Boss Tweed

Boss Tweed

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 139–140, G. Manigault discusses Boss Tweed. William Magear “Boss” Tweed (1823–1878) was a politician who was the political boss of Tammany Hall, the executive committee of New York City’s Democratic Party organization. About Tweed, he writes:

When Mr. Charles O’Connor, sacrificing for a time his professional interests to his patriotism, devoted himself to ferreting out the official rascalities of the notorious “Boss” Tweed and his colleagues, by which they had robbed the city of New York of twenty-five millions of dollars, six of which millions at least went into the pocket of Tweed alone — after Mr. O’Connor had made those monstrous rascalities, and especially Tweed’s, manifest to all men, but before he could obtain his criminal conviction, Tweed’s constituents, the mob of New York, sent him back as a senator in the State senate, to Albany, the very scene of many of his most remarkable acts of corruption. Could he even now wriggle himself out of the clutches of the Law, while yet retaining some of his plunder, they are quite capable of sending him back again to fill the senatorial chair as the representative most worthy of his constituents.* [Manigault’s footnote: This was written before Tweed's death in the penitentiary.]

Boss Tweed, we believe, was originally a chair-maker, or chair painter, or of some such trade, but got his title of “Boss” by becoming a master workman in a very different line. But let no man imagine that Boss Tweed is an anomalous character, or has run an anomalous career. He is simply a well marked type of a numerous, and many of them still prosperous class of officials, to be found in every considerable municipal corporation, in every State government, in every department of the U. S. government, in the house of Representatives and the Senate, in the cabinet and the diplomatic corps. Many of them, like Boss Tweed, have come to grief. But not a few, whose tortuous and dishonest careers are well known, still retain popular favour and high place.

More historical articles.

Beware of the Satanic Dream of Nimrod

Beware of the Satanic Dream of Nimrod

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: This article was submitted in 1988 to the "Southern National Newsletter" of the Southern National Party.]

One of the greatest threats that faces the Caucasian-white (Aryan) Christian today is his ignorance of the dream of Nimrod. This ignorance has brought the South to the verge of destruction that it faces today.

The dream of Nimrod[1] is a universal brotherhood of man with its concomitant one-world government, economy, culture, religion, and race. The dream of Nimrod is the universal one-world state with its socialist economy and totalitarian government. (Whether this government is democratic, aristocratic, oligarchic, or autocratic in form matters little. By the nature of its objective, universal brotherhood, it would have to be totalitarian.) The society of Nimrod would have one culture, language, religion, and race. The difference among men could not be tolerated.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting a political system that consolidates and concentrates political power in the hands of the majority (democracy), which is often erroneously and euphemistically called the people, a particular class or faction (aristocracy), a small group (oligarchy), a particular religious order or sect (ecclesiarchy), or an individual (autocracy or monarchy), beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting communism, socialism, fascism, mercantilism, protectionism, welfare statism, or any other economic system where political power is used to transfer wealth from one group to another, beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting a social system that accepts racial integration, miscegenation, homosexualism, adultery, fornication, licentiousness, debauchery, governmental indoctrination of children (public education), human sacrifice (abortion and euthanasia), and other forms of moral degeneracy, beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting humanity while belittling the spiritual or advocating or exalting atheism, agnosticism, Gnosticism, animism, naturalism, Marxism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Calvinism, Unitarian Universalism, Quakerism, and other forms of secular humanism, paganism, pseudo-religion, or universal religion, beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

That a person advocates one or more of the aforementioned positions does not necessarily mean that he is possessed by the dream of Nimrod. Nevertheless, the more consistent a person is in advocating these positions, the more likely that he is possessed. If a person advocates a political, economic, social, or religious system that resembles Nimrod’s, i.e., systems that concentrate and consolidate power and create uniformity, he is most likely possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

Most of today’s political, business, labor, social, and religious leaders, however, are possessed by the dream of Nimrod. They seek a satanic universal state with its one-world socialistic economy and government and its satanic society and culture of debauchery and licentiousness. They seek to destroy the Heavenly Father and His Christ.

The South is one of the few strongholds[2] of Caucasian-white [Aryan] Christians remaining in the world today. For this reason, those possessed by the satanic dream of Nimrod are diligently working to destroy the South. Only a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States can, with God’s help, save the South from the demonic dream of Nimrod. Only then will the Southern States be able to drive these modern-day Nimrods from among them. Only then will the Southern States be able to defend themselves from the dream of Nimrod and those possessed by his dream. Only then will the people of the South be able to live free and enjoy the liberties that God intended them to have. They would then become a beacon guiding their Caucasian-white [Aryan] brethren in Europe, the Soviet Empire, and the remainder of the Americas to throw off their oppressors.

Endnotes

1. Nimrod was the architect of the Tower of Babel. His goal was to rule the world and all mankind. Before God intervened, Nimrod was well on his way to establishing a universal state with one government, religion, culture, language, and race.

2. South Africa, especially the Afrikaner, is perhaps the only other stronghold of any significance remaining. This is why the world powers are trying to destroy South Africa with a race war and turn it into a Soviet colony. Unfortunately for the South African Whites, their “leaders” betrayed them. Now, the Afrikaner faces genocide as thorough as the genocide of the Indian tribes in the Americas, many of whom are now extinct. [Note: This article was written before the Afrikaners and other White South Africans were betrayed by their "leaders," who surrendered almost unconditionally to African Negroes.]

Copyright © 1988, 2025 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

Only One Race: The Human Race

Only One Race: The Human Race

Thomas Allen

The notion that only one race, i.e., the human race, exists is globalist propaganda — be it from the Catholic Church of years gone by, which many gullible or ignorant Protestants still believe, or today’s globalist elite. It meshes seamlessly into their nightmare of a one-world state with its one-world government and one-world religion. To achieve this globalist goal, humanity must be homogenized into a monochromatic, mongrel man with as little individual distinction as possible. 

Proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” which is also known as the “unity of man doctrine,” are, in essence, calling Martin Luther King a liar. King’s agenda was based on the existence of multiple human races. Fervently, he advocated giving Negroes special privileges. If the Negro race does not exist, it cannot receive special privileges. The existence of the Negro race with special privileges necessitated the existence of other races. (For more on King, go to https://tcallenco.weebly.com/social-issues.html.)

Adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” assert that all the races (or people groups, as many prefer) came into being following the Tower of Babel dispersal.  Only two actions could have caused the formation of the human races: the miraculous or the natural. The miraculous requires God to create the races. Although Acts 17:26b supports the miraculous approach, they reject it. The natural requires Darwinian principles, i.e., evolution, although they reject evolution.  (See “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” and “Analysis of ‘How did all the different “races” arise (from Noah’s family?’” by Thomas Allen.) Curiously, these adherents deny the existence of the various human races while describing how they came to be and acknowledging that various races or people groups have recognizable features.

Most likely, adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” reject the miraculous approach because it interferes with their unity of man doctrine. If God created the human races, then obviously, He would want them preserved. Consequently, they would have to support policies that protected them: segregation and separation. However, their unity of man doctrine requires, even demands, integration, miscegenation, and amalgamation: policies that destroy them. Thus, they promote the demise of the races that God created.

Often, proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” like to ask people who reject their doctrine of the unity of man, “Is there a superior race?” or similar questions. (If races do not exist, a superior race cannot exist.) They seem to expect as a response, “Yes, the White or Aryan race,” or words to that effect. They do not expect or accept any person, especially a White, to identify the superiority of another race.

For example, in general, Negroes are superior to Whites as boxers. They have the innate advantage of thicker skulls and, therefore, can better withstand blows to the head. Also, they have longer arms and can, thus, hit a White target before a White gets close enough to hit them.

Another example is that Blacks in general are superior to other races at playing basketball. The dominance of Black players in the National Basketball Association proves this superiority. Approximately 72 percent of NBA players are Black. Likewise, since this example conflicts with their doctrine of the unity of man, they also reject it.

One more example that the proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” reject is the superiority of Blacks over Whites in surviving and reproducing in the lower latitudes. Because their pigmented skin prevents ultraviolet light from destroying vitamin B-12, which is necessary for reproduction, Blacks are superior to Whites in surviving and reproducing in low latitudes. Nevertheless, these proponents must likewise find this example unacceptable because it also conflicts with their doctrine of the unity of man.

Adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” are also proponents of the races-are-social-construct school. To any extent that distinguishable features of various people groups (races) exist, they are social constructs. They certainly are not biological.

As shown above, adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” reject everything, including all facts, that contradict or interfere with their doctrine of the unity of man. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

More Wars

More Wars

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are Trump, the peace president, and the wars that the United States have won since World War II.

Trump the Peace President

During his campaign, Trump gave the impression that he would be a peace president. Thus, he would quickly end the war between Russia and Ukraine and the war between Israel and Gaza. (What is occurring in Gaza is hardly a war. Israel, with a heavily armed army and air force, invaded a country with no army, no air force, and no navy.) 

Trump could have quickly ended these wars by ending aid to Ukraine and Israel. Yet, he has not. By aiding the continuation of these wars, he has betrayed many of his supporters. Moreover, he has started new wars with Iran and Venezuela.

Strangely, warmongering Trump believes that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. He must have gotten this idea from observing warmonger Obama. Despite carrying on existing wars and launching new ones during his presidency, Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. (Granted, he received the award shortly after he became President. However, when it became obvious that he was a warmonger, the  Norwegian Nobel Committee lacked the fortitude to revoke the award, and Obama lacked the integrity to return it.)

As for the war between Russia and Ukraine, Trump is working hard to cause Russia to attack a NATO country. If he succeeds, the United States and its NATO puppets will be at war with Russia. A high probability exists that the war will quickly become a nuclear war. As a result, Western Civilization will cease to exist. Moreover, the White race will be reduced to nonexistence. Satan will rejoice because his demonically possessed Western leaders will have succeeded in eradicating the White race, the race created in God’s image (see "What Race Was Adam?" by Thomas Allen). [This was written before Trump's latest peace proposal between Russia and Ukraine; now, he seems to be trying to defuse the situation.]

Has Trump joined the Bushes, the Clintons, Obama, and Biden and become demonically possessed?

Wars that the United States Have Won Since World War II

Many people believe that the United States have not won a war since World War II. They are wrong. The United States have won three wars. Since World War II, the United States have defeated three of the world’s greatest superpowers: Arkansas, Alabama, and Grenada. 

In 1957, Eisenhower defeated Arkansas. Following this great victory, Kennedy defeated the great superpower of the South, Alabama, in 1963. In 1983, Reagan defeated the great superpower of the Caribbean, Grenada.

Contrary to what many people believe, the United States have won some wars after World War II. Since their defeat, these three formerly great superpowers have not been a threat to world peace — only the winner has been. They have been reduced to insignificance.

Nevertheless, Arkansas did avenge its defeat by cursing the country with the Clintons. One even became President, who used war as a cover for his improprieties.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.