Taxation and Voting

Taxation and Voting

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 129 –131, G. Manigault  explains why suffrage needs to be limited to people who pay a minimum amount of direct taxes:

The colonies quarrelled with the mother country because they were taxed by its parliament in which they were not represented, “No taxation without representation!” This sounds like a safeguard to one’s rights; yet it is but a half truth, valueless and deceptive until you add the suppressed half to it. “No representation without taxation!”

Government is a necessary agency. Society cannot do without it. But it is a costly and burdensome agent; and moreover one whose powers have often been grossly abused and perverted from their true objects. Yet its powers must be entrusted to some person, or persons, or class of persons. The only class of persons to whom the ultimate control over the government can be entrusted with reasonable hope of good results, is that which furnishes the means of supporting the government, and feels the burden of its costly maintenance. This class are the tax-payers, the holders of visible, tangible property, which cannot hide itself from taxation. This class has a direct and obvious interest in watching the government and the officials who administer its powers—in checking extravagance and enforcing economy and honesty in government expenditure; for they furnish the means. They have every motive for watching that the operations of government are directed to the protection of the rights and the redress of the wrongs of individuals, and the safety of the community — and not perverted to purposes for which it was not created. For this class have not only personal and social rights, like other people, but they possess vast acquired and vested rights peculiarly apt to suffer from the neglect or abuses, or perversion of government; rights, on the protection and security of which the welfare and civilization of the country depend. This class may be very numerous, or may consist of comparatively few, according to the circumstances of the particular country. But in every civilized country it forms but a minority, and usually a small minority of the people in it. Yet their right to be intrusted with the ultimate control over the government and its officials will not be hard to see when we have considered two other suppositions. 1st, That of one man being the imposer, collector, and expender of taxes. 2nd, That while the property-holders pay the taxes, those who hold no property and pay no taxes, should impose them. Do not say that this is an impossible case. But it is certain to prove a ruinous arrangement. These imposers of the taxes have no motive for enforcing on the government economy and honesty in its expenditures. They may become interested in its extravagance, its dishonesty, and in the perversion of its powers. Is not this what has happened in the United States? 

The individual States originally had in their political organization this safe-guard against the extravagance, dishonesty, and perversion of their governments. We believe that in every one, certainly in nearly all of them the franchise was limited to the freeholder, a basis of political power wide enough to secure attention to the protection of the personal and social rights of every citizen, choice enough to secure that all who ultimately controlled the government and its officials, should have a direct interest in preserving that government from corruption, and the perversion of its powers. Accordingly these State governments were, for many years, efficient without becoming burdensome or corrupt.

Thus, when the privilege of voting and holding public office is limited to people who pay a minimum amount of direct taxes, governments are frugal and prudent. They are limited and kept within tight bounds. As a result, liberty is protected and flourishes. However, when suffrage is nearly universal as it is today, governments grow without bounds, taxes become exceedingly burdensome, debts explode to unpayable heights, and liberty fades.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen

More political articles.

Review of Christian Race Realism

Review of Christian Race Realism

Thomas Allen

Below is a review of Christian Race Realism (Sacra Press, 2025) by Michael Spangler. I found this book to be a disappointment primarily because of its weak Scriptural arguments. Yes, he shows that the human races are real and important. However, beyond that, he mostly agrees with the Christian racial nihilists. My review of this book is posted on Amazon. 

The Achilles heel of all race realists, whether they claim to be evolutionists or, especially, creationists, is monogenesis: All humans are descendants from the same set of parents, i.e., Adam and Eve or their evolutionary equivalent. Until they abandon monogenesis for polygenesis, which the Scriptures support, they are doomed to fail.

Spangler is a monogenist and an evolutionist who disguises himself as a creationist.  Although he shows that the human races are real, he claims that they change over time. Consequently, they are only temporarily real; eventually, they will transition into another race. That is, today’s Aryan (White) and Negro (Black) races will morph into a different race within a few centuries or so. Likewise, the other races will change into different races. Accordingly, human races are malleable, which conflicts with Jeremiah 13:23 (See “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” by Thomas Allen). By claiming that today’s Negroes are descendants of Ham, who was an Aryan, he supports the mutability of the races, which is evolution. (To fit the typical biblical theory of the advocates of a young-earth and universal flood, like Spangler, Ham’s descendants have had to have evolved into Negroes within a few generations. If their theory is true, why have we not witnessed one race changing into another race during the last several millennia?) Thus, he is an evolutionist, although he asserts that he is a creationist.

One of the several errors that Spangler makes concerns Ruth. He claims that she was a Moabite by ethnicity. She was not. She was ethnically an Israelite who was born in Moab (See “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Analysis of ‘How did all the different ‘‘races” arise (from Noah’s family)?’” by Thomas Allen.).

Although he opposes interracial marriages, he does not consider miscegenation a sin (See “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Claiming that miscegenation is not a sin is another one of his errors. However, he does claim that using poor judgment is a sin, and marrying outside of one’s race is using poor judgment.

Review

Spangler argues that the various human races are real, hence race realism. The primary target of his argument is the Christian race nihilist (my term, not his). Christian race nihilists believe that human races are social constructs and, therefore, do not exist biologically, or that human races do exist but are irrelevant. 

Spangler supports his argument with Scripture, nature (physical attributes, language, culture, morality, religion, intelligence, and location), and history. He does a much better job of supporting his position with nature and history than with Scripture, which is pathetic. Nevertheless, he does show that the Scriptures treat the races as real and important.

Since Spangler’s arguments promoting race realism are directed primarily at Christian race nihilists, his Scriptural arguments should have been extremely strong, but, alas, they are weak and often agree with the Christian race nihilist. Like Christian race nihilists, Spangler is a creationist-evolutionist (to use an oxymoron), i.e., kind after different kind, like beget unlike. Also, like them, he is somewhat of a Lamarckian. One of his major problems is that he cannot free himself from the orthodoxy of all humans having a common ancestry. 

Additionally, Spangler discusses the confusion caused by the term “race.”  Among other things, it can mean all mankind, one of the major biological divisions of humans, an ethnicity, or a nationality. Thus, “race” is an almost useless term. At times, he seems to succumb to this confusion.

Spangler discusses interracial marriages in some depth, but he avoids the Scriptural condemnation of miscegenation. Instead, like Christian race nihilists, he does not consider miscegenation a sin. Nevertheless, he shows that God is a segregationist and is not an egalitarian.

Furthermore, Spangler gives an excellent explanation of the difference between civil rights and natural rights. Most civil rights granted in the last several decades have been detrimental to the common good.

Also, Spangler explains that discrimination and prejudice are not inherently sinful. He urges praising and protecting racial differences.

Spangler offers several recommendations. (1) Race realists should read books and articles on race. (2) Race realists should defend race realism; he provides advice about how to do it. (3) He calls for completely destroying the idol of egalitarianism and repenting of the notion that races are not real and unimportant, etc. (he provides a long list of things for which Blacks and Whites need to repent). (4) People should honor their extended family, i.e., their race (the fifth commandment). (5) People should not marry outside of their extended family. He explains why. (6) Children should be taught race realism, its importance, and the importance of segregation. (7) He offers advice on several political issues: immigration, crime, segregation, employment, suffrage, and self-defense. (8) Ministers and the church should teach race realism.

Although Spangler is a race realist, he seems to want to compromise with the Christian race nihilists. Unnecessarily, he concedes many points to them rather than rebuke them.

Nevertheless, Spangler is right about one thing: Race realists must be telling the truth. If they were not telling the truth, why do they cause race nihilists, especially Christian race nihilists, to go into hysterics? After all, race realists have no power or influence in the church or government.

In conclusion, Spangler does show that the various human races are real rather than social constructs. They are important in the eyes of God, and, therefore, should be important in the eyes of man. Unfortunately, he does a mediocre job of proving that Christian nihilists are incorrect Scripturally.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution

Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution

Thomas Allen

In “When State Resistance Meets the Constitution,” January 30, 2026, Benjamin Osborn (https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/when-state-resistance-meets-the-constitution/) discusses the protest against federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota. Correctly, he argues that the protestors are acting unlawfully when they attempt to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws. Additionally, neither the governor nor city officials have any legal authority to actively interfere with federal enforcement. All that they can do legally is to refuse to aid in that enforcement. However, his argument rests on Lincoln’s unhistorical concept of the Union, and a nationalist, rather than a federalist, perspective of the Union, where the federal government is all-powerful, and the States are impotent. This analysis discusses Osborn’s disdain for States’ rights and federalism and his admiration of federal tyranny.

Osborn rejects the notion that a State has the right, duty, and authority to nullify any federal act that it, i.e., “we the people” through their legislature or special convention, finds unconstitutional. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States" by Thomas Allen.) If a State nullifies a federal act that it finds unconstitutional, that act is void in that State, i.e., does not exist in that State. Nullification is a reserved power under the Tenth Amendment. (See “Nullification and Interposition” by Thomas Allen.) Moreover, the way that the country was founded and the Constitution was ratified not only implies that nullification is lawful, but it also makes it a fundamental principle. Therefore, if any federal agent attempts to enforce a nullified act, he is violating the Constitution and his oath of office.

Before 1861, States could do what Vermont did to the federal fugitive slave law. Not only did Vermont nullify it, but its nullification also authorized the use of force to prevent the enforcement of the fugitive slave law. (See “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen.) If he were consistent, Osborne would oppose what Vermont did. 

Unfortunately, Lincoln’s War ended that option. Now, we have what is occurring in Minnesota. (See “Blue Cities’ Response to Deporting Illegal Immigrants” by Thomas Allen.)

Osborn claims, “The Founders designed a system in which states retain meaningful sovereignty, but that does not include veto over federal execution.” For a State to have meaningful sovereignty, it must be sovereign. As a sovereign, it is and has to be the final judge of compliance with any contract that it voluntarily enters into, such as the US Constitution. Thus, it is the final judge of the constitutionality of all acts of the federal government. In other words, before a State can be sovereign, it has to have the right, duty, and power to nullify any federal act that it finds unconstitutional and the right and power to enforce the nullification, including jailing any federal agent trying to enforce the nullified law, as Vermont did when it nullified the fugitive slave law (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States" and by Thomas Allen).

Osborn cites the Supremacy Clause and argues that any law enacted by Congress and not vetoed by the US Supreme Court is constitutional. He is mistaken. The Supremacy Clause applies only to laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution. Only those laws are constitutional; all other federal laws are unconstitutional. Should the creators, the States, or the creature, the federal government, decide if a law is made pursuant to the Constitution? Osborne claims that the creature decides. (He is a true Lincolnian.)

Originally, the purpose of the Supremacy Clause was to ensure that unconstitutional laws were not supreme or binding. Only federal laws implementing the specifically delegated powers of Congress were constitutional; all other laws enacted by Congress were unconstitutional.

Now, the federal government uses the Supremacy Clause to ensure that federal laws and treaties have precedence over State laws and State constitutions except in the few instances where the federal courts have declared the federal law unconstitutional. No longer do federal laws have to be made pursuant to the Constitution, i.e., be constitutional, to have precedence over State laws. (See “Four Poisonous Clauses” by Thomas Allen.) Osborn supports this usurpation of the federal government.

If a State disagrees with a federal act, it “may litigate, protest, and seek political change.” Osborne’s solution of litigation means that he supports letting the federal government decide the limits of its power; that is what litigation means, as it will occur in federal courts.

(To use an analogy, if Osborn [a State] and I [the federal government] have a dispute, he should not object to my wife [the federal courts] deciding the dispute. One branch of my marriage would be as impartial in deciding a dispute involving another branch of my marriage as one part of the federal government is impartial in deciding a dispute with another part.)

Osborn cites James Madison’s explanation of interposition. He is correct: Governors lack the authority to nullify. However, proponents of nullification claim that “we the people” of each State, through their State legislatures, do have the authority to nullify federal laws that they find unconstitutional. (Being a nationalist at heart and desiring a strong federal government, Madison, unlike Jefferson, is not the best supporter of States’ rights and nullification. His approach to nullification lacks teeth and results in failure, as the Southern States proved in the 1950s and 1960s. [See “A Nullification That Failed” by Thomas Allen.])

Osborn writes, “The American system channels disagreement into courts, elections, and legislation.” Of course, he means federal courts and federal legislation. State courts and legislatures have only those powers that the federal government allows them. They certainly have no power or authority to interfere with the federal government, no matter how tyrannical, despotic, and unconstitutional it becomes.

Osborne is a strong proponent of making the States, which created the federal government, slaves of their creator. He implies that States have only those rights and privileges that the federal government concedes to give them. He is a strong proponent of federal supremacy and States’ subservience, which is tyranny and contrary to the very foundation of the Constitution — at least the Constitution of 1788, although not of the Lincoln Constitution, which is our current constitution. (For the difference between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?”) Based on this article, Osborn prefers America after Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment to America before them. (See “Before and After” by Thomas Allen.)

A primary reason that the country is in the turmoil that it is today is that no State has nullified any of the multitude (probably more than 85 percent) of the unconstitutional federal acts. Today, political power is centralized and concentrated in the federal government. States’ rightists’ political solution to America’s crisis is the decentralization and dispersal of political power, of which nullification is an important part.  (The major cause of America’s problems is moral decay.)

Personally, I believe the federal government has the constitutional authority to enforce naturalization and immigration laws by arresting people who are in the country illegally and deporting them, although some of the tactics being used may not be legal or constitutional. However, the constitutionality is something that "we the people" of each State need to decide for themselves.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Comparable Worth

 

Comparable Worth

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1984 for the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. The article has been slightly edited.]

“Comparable worth” is beginning to replace the chimera of “equal pay for equal work.” (The reason that equal pay for equal work is losing to comparable worth is that it has failed to transfer enough wealth from the productive to the politically powerful.) But what is comparable worth? How should wages be determined?

In a free market, the consumer determines wages. Wages are paid according to how much one contributes to society. Everyone is paid what he is worth. (If a person believes that he is underpaid, he is free to find a job that pays more.) However, government intervention distorts a worker’s real worth.

The government can distort wages in many different ways. It can do it indirectly by granting monopolistic privileges to labor unions and public utilities. Most of its economic regulations distort wages to some degree. These regulations create nonproductive and otherwise unnecessary positions. Businesses are forced to hire people who do nothing but placate governmental officials. Taxes can have both an indirect and a direct impact on wage rates.

Besides taxes, the government directly distorts wages in several other ways. The most obvious is to fix wages as was done during the wage freeze of the 1970s. Also, the government fixes a minimum wage and forbids anyone from working if his economic contribution to society falls below this arbitrary number. Further, it distorts wages by forcing businesses to hire a minimum number of politically privileged groups (commonly called minorities, although they may not be in the minority and although many minorities are not so privileged). Moreover, it dictates equal pay for equal work. (No two people do equal work because no two people are equal. No two people can be equal because no two people are identical. Only identical people can do equal work. Yet, the government does not let the facts stand in the way of its lust for power.) Now, it is pushing an idea that will give it complete control over the workers and the economy — comparable worth.

Comparable worth is an arbitrary and subjective approach that attempts to compare the tens of thousands of different occupations in the United States and to determine the relative value of each when compared with all other occupations. The comparable worth approach subjectively determines the economic contribution of each occupation to society. This means that one’s political influence determines one’s economic worth. White-collar workers develop comparable worth schemes. Not unexpectedly, these schemes always elevate white-collar jobs and lower blue-collar jobs. The subjective approach of comparable worth would replace the objective approach of the free market in determining wages. Bureaucrats would determine wages instead of consumers.

The outcome of the comparable worth approach would be economic chaos. The government would gain complete control over the lives of every worker. Class conflict, the lifeblood of democracy, would be encouraged. Thus, the blue-collar worker, who is normally discriminated against by comparable worth, would be pitted against the white-collar worker. Courts would be filled with litigation. The wealth of the politically powerful would rise, although their economic contribution to their fellow man would decline. Of course, the government would grow astronomically as it tried to administer this draconian program. All this would be the result of using the arbitrary and subjective approach of comparable worth to determine wages instead of the objective and unbiased approach of the free market.

If the desired goal is tyranny and a larger and more powerful government, then wages should be determined by comparable worth. If one should be paid according to his political influence, then wages should be determined by comparable worth. If the desired goal is liberty and justice, then wages should be determined by the free market. If one should be paid according to his economic contribution to his fellow man, then wages should be determined by the free market.

Copyright © 1984, 2026 by Thomas C. Allen.

More economic articles.

Yankees Need the South

Yankees Need the South

Thomas Allen

Yankees need the South and Southerners, but Southerners do not need Yankees. Furthermore, Southerners are better off without Yankees. 

Yankees are extremely self-righteous, arrogant, hypocritical, greedy, disagreeable, and bossy. They possess the typical Puritan attitude: they lust to remake America and the world into the perfect image of themselves. (For more descriptions of the Yankee, see “The Yankee,” “The Puritan Yankee,” and “Cusson’s Description of the Yankee” by Thomas Allen.)

Although many Northerners are not real Yankees, many, unfortunately, have become Yankeefied. Likewise, many scalawag Southerners have become Yankeefied. (Most governors of Southern States have been Yankeefied: Examples are Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Roy Cooper of North Carolina. Two recent Southern governors are real Yankees: George Bush and Jeb Bush.)

Because of their need for Southerners, Yankees could not let the South go in 1861 and cannot let them go today. Furthermore, Yankees believe that the solution to America’s problems is to rule the South with an iron fist.

Yankees have a psychological need for the “Lost Cause” of the Confederacy.  Could it be that Yankees know in their hearts that the leaders of the Confederacy were morally and ethically superior to Lincoln and the leaders of the North? Yankees needed and still need the “Myth of the Lost Cause” to reassure themselves that Southerners were and still are fiendish, diabolical, and abominable to justify their power, privilege, and amour propre.

Being void of virtue, Yankees need to steal virtue from others. Since the South is part of the American empire, stealing virtue from the South is convenient and easy. Thus, every good thing that comes out of the South is not really Southern; it is American, i.e., Northern, especially New England.

Moreover, Yankees need to belittle Southerners to feed their self-esteem. Without having Southerners to disparage, Yankees would be nothing. Thus, Yankees view themselves as righteous and Southerners as evil.

Although Yankees have lure and ideology, Yankeedom has no civilization; they have no culture. Therefore, they need the South to provide them with a culture.

Sanctimonious Yankees need Southerners so that they can have someone to whom feel superior. Condemning the South gives Yankees a sense of identity and importance because they feel superior to Southerners.

Additionally, Yankees need a scapegoat to blame for their sins and failures.  Being part of the American empire makes the South a convenient scapegoat. Consequently, every undesirable thing that happens in the North, such as racial strife in Northern cities, results from the sins of the South. Yankees blame Southerners for the racial hatred and social pathologies in the North. Moreover, they blame Southerners for the evil that Yankees have caused. Thus, all economic, social, and psychological problems are the fault of Southerners. Needing someone to blame for their failures, Yankees blame Southerners.

No Yankee is going to let the truth detour his hatred of and hostility toward Southerners, whether they are reconstructed or remain unreconstructed.

Appendix

In America, two primary branches of Protestantism compete with each other. They are the Yankee religion and the Southern religion.

The Yankee religion is Calvinist and Puritan, that is, disciplined, communal, and focused on the purification of the community. It places evil in the object, e.g., drugs, guns, and the living environment. Thus, it seeks power and stresses social improvement. Being on the right side of history is a personal virtue. Out of the Yankee religion have come abolitionism, millennialism, progressivism, prohibition, feminism, the civil rights movement, neoconservatism, political correctness, social justice, wokeism, and Antifa. Furthermore, it is the parent of the the concept of "the city on the hill.”  Usually, the sermons of the Yankee religion are on current events.

The Southern religion is spiritually Anglican, although it is not structurally Anglican. That is, it is folkish and focuses on the individual and his soul. It places evil in the hearts of men. Thus, it seeks sanctification and manifests in a person’s private life, and goes unnoticed by intellectuals and historians. It stresses faith and piety with the notion of a Christian gentleman. A virtuous person is valuable to his fellow man. Usually, the sermons of the Southern religion are on salvation.

The Yankee religion represents worldly power and prestige more than does the Southern religion.

Reference

Wilson, Clyde N. Defending Dixie: Essays in Southern History and Culture. Second edition. Columbia, South Carolina: Stonewall Publishing LLC: 2005, 2025.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Lincoln’s Curses

Lincoln’s Curses

Thomas Allen

 

1. Lincoln’s worst curse was converting the United States from a federation of independent sovereign republics to a consolidated national empire with the States reduced to administrative districts. As a corollary to this curse, the States lost their republican form of government; their governments remain republican in appearance but not in substance. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States" by Thomas Allen.) He effectively repealed the Tenth Amendment.

2. Lincoln cursed America and most of the world with the notion that once a territory (State, province, country, or whatever) becomes part of another country, union, or federation, whether voluntarily or by conquest, it cannot leave without the consent of the country, union, or federation of which it is part. 

3. Lincoln cursed the United States with the “unquestioned mystique of might-makes-right and the coercive unitary nation-state.” This notion is the foundation of American hegemony and globalism.

4. Not only did Lincoln curse the country with an imperial president, which has grown stronger over the years, but he also cursed the country with a kritarchy. Following Lincoln, the Supreme Court began converting the country into a kritarchy. This goal was fully achieved with the Warren Court. Because of Lincoln, the United States have become a kritarchy with an imperial president and an impotent Congress. The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court declares it to mean. (Thanks to Lincoln, kakistocrats, ideocrats, and kleptocrats have ruled the United States at various times.)

5. Lincoln suppressed the freedom of the press. Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt followed his example. Biden did likewise during the COVID-19 plandemic. Now, censorship primarily applies to the internet, as the oligarchs who control the federal government also control the press outside of the internet.

6. Lincoln cursed the United States with the income tax. He gave the country its first income tax. Later, the Supreme Court ruled that the income tax was unconstitutional. This ruling was followed by the Sixteenth Amendment, which made the income tax permanent. His income tax also cursed the country with the Internal Revenue Service.

7. Lincoln normalized and made the corrupt and cartelized business-government partnerships permanent. As a result, the military-industrial complex, the security-industrial complex, Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Tech, Big Oil, Big Finance, Big Insurance, and other Big Businesses work closely with the federal government. In exchange for special governmentally granted privileges and benefits, they aid the federal government in expanding its power. (The oligarchs that control the federal government also control the collaborating businesses.)

8. Protective tariffs of Lincoln’s Republican Party were the primary cause of the secession of the States of the Lower South. Between Lincoln’s War and World War II, protective tariffs were the primary way that the federal government subsidized Big Businesses. Following World War II, Big Businesses began turning against tariffs. They discovered that they could profit more from producing goods in foreign countries and importing them into the United States.

9. Lincoln gave the United States their first legal tender fiat currency, the U.S. note or greenback. Although the country returned to the gold-coin standard in 1879, the fiat U.S. notes remained in circulation and were issued until their issuance was discontinued in 1971. (Unlike gold certificates, people were not required to turn U.S. notes in. They remained in circulation until they wore out or the banking system redrew them. One may occasionally find them in circulation. The author received one about ten years ago.) Between 1879 and 1933, when Franklin Roosevelt ended the gold standard, U.S. notes were redeemable at par in gold. 

10. With the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864, Lincoln nationalized the American banking system. In 1913, the Federal Reserve System replaced the national banking system.

11.  Other curses of Lincoln include establishing a large standing national army, legitimizing martial law even in areas where civil courts are open, ignoring habeas corpus and jailing dissidents and others without trial or due process, and establishing mostly permanent conscription (currently, conscription is out of favor; however, it can be resurrected at anytime, especially since the leaders of the United States want to subdue everyone in the world to their will).

Although Lincoln is credited with freeing the slaves, he freed no slaves. If he and the abolitionists wanted to free the slaves, they could have started by buying slaves with their own money and setting them free. Since they did not, they proved that they loved their money more than freeing slaves.

Reference

Rothbard, Murray N. “The Nationalities Question.” Mises Daily. April 18, 2022.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Observations Pertaining to Race

Some Observations Pertaining to Race

Thomas Allen

 

Discussed below are the option of racial separation, the social construct of the races, school integration, and the future of the American Negro.

Many Whites are racial nihilists and pretend to be Negrophiles. (One cannot be a racial nihilist and at the same time be a Negrophile. A racial nihilist claims that race is irrelevant, while a Negrophile claims to love Negroes, which requires the relevancy of Negroes.) In reality, White racial nihilists hate Whites and have no qualms about annihilating the American Negro if their annihilation results in the genocide of Whites.

Racial Separation Is Not an Option

In “Mamdani’s Commie Housing Official Is a Lunatic,” January 7, 2026, (https://amac.us/newsline/politics/mamdanis-commie-housing-official-is-a-lunatic/?utm_objective=website_traffic&dderh=4b6c02be5961e5a13b9d052b0611dda2), the author wrote, “There are many policy options available to the voters of this country, but communism and racial separation are not among them.” If racial separation is a policy option not available to the voters of this country, then racial amalgamation is the policy forced on the country. Racial amalgamation is genocide of the races, as the races cease to exist when amalgamated. Why does this author hate the American Negro so much that he wants to genocide them? (See “Miscegenation Is Genocide” by Thomas Allen.)

Furthermore, the author writes, “This is not a communist country, and our system is not compatible with communism’s demands.” For a country that is not communist, the United States have gone a long way toward implementing the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. The United States have adopted about 80 percent of these planks (five fully and five partially). The country may not be a fully communist country, but it is almost there. (See “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.)

Are the Races Social Constructs?

Many left-wingers and brainwashed right-wingers who want to be politically correct claim that the human races are social constructs and do not exist biologically. If the human races are social constructs, how can dogs distinguish a Black person from a White person without ever seeing the person? Furthermore, bacteria, which know even less about human racial constructs than do dogs, can distinguish a Black person from a White person. Different odor-causing bacteria grow on Blacks than grow on Whites. For this reason, dogs can differentiate between the races.

Furthermore, and even more shockingly, computers can identify a person’s race from medical images. Computers must be identifying some kind of biological features that distinguish one social construct race from another, which means that races are biological rather than social constructs. (Rachel Gordon, "Artificial intelligence predicts patients' race from their medical images/' MIT News, May 20, 2022:[https://news.mit.edu/2022/artificial-intelligence-predicts-patients-race-from-medical-images-0520] and “AI recognition of patient race in medical imaging: a modelling study” [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35568690/].)

Amazingly, the blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen) and skeletons (see “Skeleton Differences of Human Races”) of these socially constructed races differ. Even more amazingly, they differ in nonphysical characteristics. (See “Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen.) 

Miraculously, socially constructed races correspond almost perfectly with biological races — both physically and physiologically. It must be one of those great, inexplicable coincidences.

School Integration

Northerners and especially Yankees supported school integration in the South primarily for two reasons. First, they, especially Yankees, supported it because they hated Southerners and wanted to use Blacks to destroy them and their way of life. Second, they wanted to keep Blacks where they belonged — in the South. If they integrated schools in the South but not in the North, fewer Blacks would migrate to the North. (Initially, federal integration laws were written to apply only where segregation was statutory [in the South] and not where segregation was customary [in the North]. Unfortunately for the North, judges started doing what they always do and ignored the parts of the law with which they disliked and started applying integration laws in the North.) Almost no Northerners, especially Yankees, were concerned about the welfare of Blacks. Blacks were merely weapons to destroy the South. Now, the monster that they created is destroying all of White America, as Whites have become second-class citizens in the country that they created.

Future of the American Negro

When Hispanics allied with East Asians and South Asians reach critical mass, Whites will, most likely, remain second-class citizens. However, Blacks will be demoted to fifth-class citizens. Unfortunately for Blacks, they will not be able to control this alliance with false guilt, as they have controlled Whites. The typical Hispanic, East Asian, and South Asian has less use for Blacks than the stereotypical Klansman.

Under White supremacy, Blacks were at least allowed on the bus, although they were usually restricted to the rear of the bus. Under the nonwhite-nonblack supremacy, they may not even be allowed on the bus.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Iran’s Hostility Toward Israel

Iran’s Hostility Toward Israel

Thomas Allen

In “The Iran War: A Background of Decades and Centuries,” Beyond Today, May–June, 2026, pages 18–21, Scott Ashley discusses Iran’s hostility toward Israel and the United States. My comments are enclosed in parentheses.

Ashley blames the current Iranian war on Hamas’s invading and killing some 1200 Israeli civilians. (He fails to mention that Israel and the United States created Hamas. Furthermore, he neglects to reveal that the Israeli armed forces killed many of the 1200 people.)

According to Ashley and many others, this war with Iran began in 1979 with the overthrow of the Shah, the taking of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, and the capture of 52 U.S. embassy employees, who were held for 444 days. He identifies several other Iranian attacks against the United States since then. Thus, Iran has been at war with the United States for almost 50 years. (However, he ignores the United States being at war with the Iranian people since the early 1950s when they started meddling in the internal affairs of Iran. The United States sided with the despotic Shah against the despotic prime minister. Apparently, the regime of the Shahs became so unbearable that most Iranians rejoiced at the arrival of Khomeini in 1979.)

Ashley discusses Iran’s nuclear weapons program. As he notes, the ostensible reason for the war with Iran is to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. (Protecting and advancing Israel’s Greater Israel agenda is the real reason. That the United States destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities in a sneak attack in 2025 — that is what President Trump told the world — seems to be forgotten. Did Trump lie in 2025 or is he lying now?)

Ashley implies that the United States initiated this latest attack on Iran. He asks, “Why did Israel join in joint attacks with the U.S. military?” (In reality, the United States joined Israel. Israel was going to attack regardless of the U.S. participation. In an attempt to reduce American casualties, the United States joined Israel in the attack. They knew that Iran would strike American bases in retaliation for an Israeli assault.)

Quoting two passages from the Quran, Ashley shows that anyone who practices any religion other than Islam is an idolater — hence, the Muslim antipathy toward non-Muslims, i.e., Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc. Iran’s religious leaders have adopted and applied this animosity toward non-Muslims. (Yet, Jews have synagogues and Christians have churches in Iran. Moreover, Christians seem to have just as much religious freedom in Iran as they have in Israel — if not more.)

According to Ashley, the reason for Muslim abhorrence of Israel is that Muslims cannot accept the notion of territory once controlled by Muslims coming under the control of Christians or Jews. (If true, why do Muslims not display the same degree of hostility toward Spain, Portugal, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Romania, which Muslims once ruled? Could it be that the primary cause is Israel’s malevolent treatment of Palestinians? Since 1948, it has driven most Palestinians from their homes and stolen their land. Now, it seeks to genocide the Palestinians.)

Finally, Ashley discusses the “end times” theology of Iran’s religious leaders. (It closely resembles the end times theology of Christian Zionists.) The Islamic messiah, Mahdi, will arise at a period of end-time tribulation (the Great Tribulation of Christian Zionists) and establish Islam as the dominant religion of the world (similar to Jesus returning to establish his religion as the global religion).

According to Ashley, Iran’s leadership wants nuclear weapons with which to attack Israel to precipitate a nuclear war to hasten the appearance of Mahdi. (Likewise, many Christian Zionists want to start a nuclear war with Iran to hasten the return of Jesus.)

(Whether the current war with Iran leads to a global nuclear war and the appearance of Mahdi or Jesus remains to be seen. May God bring humility, sanity, and wisdom to the world’s leaders so that they will act like adults instead of narcissistic, psychopathic, spoiled brats.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Aryan as a Racial Name

Aryan as a Racial Name

Thomas Allen

Although many people objected to using “Aryan” as the name for the White race  (or more correctly, the White species, Homo albus), it is an appropriate term. Caucasian, which is commonly used for the White race, suffers a major problem. It covers both White Caucasians, who should be called “Aryans,” and Brown Caucasians, who should be called Melanochroi (H. brunus).  Thus, “Caucasian” generally includes many people, such as the inhabitants of India and Ethiopia, who do not properly belong to the White race. (They are part of the Melanochroic species.) Similarly, “European” also suffers from problems and is even more misleading and confusing when used to refer to people in the Middle East and northern Africa who are White Caucasians. 

A major objection to using “Aryan” is that it is a name for a language group, a subclass of the Indo-European language family. This argument is fallacious, and those who use it are inconsistent. Many racial types have the same name as the language that they speak. Examples of language names used as names of races or racial types are Celt, Semitic, Berber, Tungus, Chinese, Turk, Mongolian, Malay, Polynesian, Lapp, Eskimo, Bantu, Hamite, Arab, Khoisan, and Melanesian. 

Nearly all people identified as Aryan speak an Indo-European language, which in former times was referred to as Aryan. (The notable exceptions are the Basques, Finns, Hungarians, Southern Mediterraneans of North Africa, and various peoples of the Caucasus and Middle East.) Except for Melanochroic Indians and various peoples who have acquired Aryan languages in recent centuries from Aryan imperialism, Aryan languages are spoken only by Aryans. Another advantage of using “Aryan” as the name for the White race (H. albus) is that no nationality or geographical area is known by this name. Thus, the use of this name prevents confusion with a particular nationality or geographical area. These facts make “Aryan” preferable to “Caucasian” as a name for this species. (A minor disadvantage to using Aryan is that some people limit it strictly to Nordics or Alpines. Also, Aryan was the name of an ancient but now extinct tribe that invaded India several thousand years ago.) “Aryan” was commonly used in the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century as a racial name. Further, the word rolls off the tongue better than other names for this species. For these reasons, among others, “Aryan” is the preferable name for the White race (species), although the primary reason is to prevent confusion with what “Caucasian” has come to represent.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More anthropology articles.

American Freedoms

 American Freedoms

Thomas Allen

The 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence has arrived. Now is the time to reflect upon the liberties, freedoms, and rights that the Founding Fathers fought for and sought to preserve. Unfortunately, Americans have lost many, even most, of these liberties, freedoms, and rights. Sadly, people born in recent decades never had a chance to enjoy most of them. A short list follows.

1. Bill of Rights. People enjoy all the rights guaranteed and protected by the Bill of Rights unless the federal government disagrees. The Founding Fathers believed that the rights identified in the Bill of Rights were absolute and transcended and existed before government. However, today’s ruling oligarchs consider them relative, that is, governmentally granted privileges that can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason.

2. Freedom of Travel. The Ninth Amendment and its equivalent in State constitutions prohibit the federal and State governments from preventing or otherwise hindering the popular means of travel. In the early days, travel was by means of horses, boats, and then trains. Now, it is by automobiles and airplanes. Today, Americans are free to have governments hinder and even prevent travel by the present popular means (automobiles and airplanes). People need the government’s permission to travel by automobile; they need a driver’s license, insurance, etc. 

Additionally, they are free to travel on commercial airliners if the federal government allows them. Moreover, if they travel by air, they are treated like criminals but with fewer rights than a criminal. The federal government presumes all passengers are terrorists until proven otherwise, i.e., passengers are guilty until they prove their innocence. Also, the federal government violates their right to privacy with unconstitutional searches. (What would people have done in the nineteenth century if the federal government required stagecoach passengers and their luggage to be searched before they were allowed on a stagecoach? They probably would have beaten, if not killed, the agent.)

3. Freedom to Promote One’s Heritage. People are free to defend and promote their heritage and culture if that heritage and culture are not White, especially Southern. White, especially Southern, heritage and culture do not have the right to exist.

4. Schools. People are free to send their children to public schools where they can graduate with a high school diploma, despite some graduates being so illiterate that they cannot read their diplomas. Moreover, people are free to have public schools indoctrinate their children to be obedient slaves of the ruling oligarchs. Sadly, most do not even realize that they are slaves.

5. Welfare. The unproductive are free to enslave the productive to support them.

6. Corporate Welfare. People are free to be forced to bail out banks and other companies run by incompetent or greedy managers who have political influence or are deemed by the federal government to be too big to fail.

7. Money. Instead of deciding for themselves how much money the economy needs, the people have the freedom of the federal government, in collaboration with banks through the Federal Reserve System, to decide the quality and quantity of money. Moreover, people are free to be forced to use debt, Federal Reserve notes, as money instead of commodities like gold and silver that are no one’s liability. Thus, people are free to live with and use money that continuously loses purchasing power.

For additional lost freedoms, see “Freedom” by Thomas Allen.

The Founding Fathers would rebel against the above freedoms and rights. They would be ashamed of their descendants for throwing away the liberties, freedoms, and rights for which they fought.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Eating Pork

Eating Pork

Thomas Allen

I posted a comment to a comment on “TikToker Fired After Exposing How Plastic Is Getting In Pig Feed” by Anthony T (https://welovetrump.com/2022/09/08/tiktoker-fired-after-exposing-how-plastic-is-getting-in-pig-feed/#comment-5976483530). I argued that, according to the Scriptures, we were no longer obliged not to eat pork. My comment caused some discussion, with most commenters siding with the prohibition against eating pork. I call them Old Testament Christians because they seem to place more weight on the Old Testament than on the New Testament. Yet, none claimed that we are compelled to keep all the Old Testament laws; apparently, we are only required to keep the dietary laws. One claims that I did not know the difference between laws, statutes, and ordinances. Yet, when I asked him to explain the difference,  he refused.

Of all the conservative websites where I have posted comments, with rare exceptions, the commenters at this site have the least intelligence and knowledge. Most of them can only parrot back the Republican, neoconservative, and establishment conservative propaganda that they have managed to absorb. When they lack any good counterargument, they often resort to name-calling.

This discussion is presented in the appendix. The names have been changed to protect the guilty. I have added an afterthought to one comment.

Appendix

B: There are many reasons God forbids eating swine, add this to the list.

M to B: Pigs will eat anything, including humans. We need to run China out of this               country. Never buy Smithfield. Democrats would make good pig feed. Or, maybe                 we’ll find out there are some things pigs just won’t eat.

Me to M:  Most pigs eat a more nutritional diet than nearly every human in this                    country.

M to Me: Regardless, they will eat anything and Smithfield is owned by                                China. I eat bacon, just not any brand.

W to M: No worries. If I get hungry enough to eat Swine I’m already doomed.                      I’m not a Jew but when it comes to pigs, I’m Kosher.

Besides, God tells us that it is naughty to sup on Pigs!

M to W: But you can’t have a BLT without bacon. If we feed the democrats                          to the pigs i’m [sic] done with bacon.

Me to B: In Mark, Jesus declared all food, which would included [sic] pork, clean.

B to Me: No he didn’t

Me to B: Mark 7:19 — because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and                  goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.

Pork is a meat; therefore, Jesus declared it clean. Your argument is with Jesus,                     not with me.

Cs to Me:  Yeah, no food can deflie [sic] you. Spiritually. Thats [sic] what Jesus                    was talking about. If you read the whole chapter, thats [sic] the topic. Read the                      next verse for clarification. Mark 7:20 

But God the Father did give us dietary guidelines on what to eat and not to eat, as                  it pertains to the body. Why would he repeat himself and say ‘Eat honey’ if later                    on he’s just gonna say, “Just kidding. Eat whatever you want.”

Its [sic] wisdom not legalism.

It wasnt [sic] about phyiscal [sic] health but spiritual. If the rabbis touched pigs,                    they were ceremonially unclean and couldn’t attend their services, etc.

Jesus was saying thats [sic] nonsense.

Now when it comes to health, pigs eat crap. Eat pigs and you;re [sic] likely to get                 worms Youre [sic] decision.

If you just go by Mark 7:19, it sounds like there’s no such thing as junk food.

Hope that makes sense.

Me to Cs: In Galatians 3:23–25, Paul writes that Christians are no longer                              under the law. “23 But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the                              law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 So that                            the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be                                      justified by faith. 25 But now that faith is come, we are no  longer under a                              tutor.”

Animal sacrifices were a major part of the law. Do you still follow the law                            by sacrificing animals, or did God repeal that law for Christians? If He                                  repeals one law, why can He not repeal another law?

“Now when it comes to health, pigs eat crap. Eat pigs and you're likely to                             get worms.” Obviously, you know little about modern-day pig farms. What                            you say may be true for pasture raised pigs. However, nearly all pork sold                              today comes from pigs whose hoofs never touch the ground from the time                              that they are born to the time that they are slaughtered. These pigs live in an                          environment more sterile than almost every human household. Moreover,                              chickens eat crap, and there is no scriptural prohibition against eating                                    chickens. (An old farming book that I have gives the following advice for                              maximizing a pasture. First, run cattle across it. Then, run pigs across it to                              eat what passes through the cattle. Finally, run chickens across it to eat what                          passes through the pigs.)

B to Me: Matt 5:18 (Jesus’ words) says he will not change the law. Lev. 11                            (entire chapter but focus on v 46-47). The clean and unclean foods are LAWS,                      Jesus didn’t change the law. You are misunderstanding an interpretation.

Me to B: Then, according to you, Jesus lied. Both statements cannot be true.                          If he did not change the law, why are we not doing animal sacrifices as the                           Old Testament commanded? [Afterthought: Jesus did not change the law; he                         fulfilled the law by completing its purpose and meaning. He was saying that                         nothing would pass from the law until he fulfilled it.]

B to Me: You don’t know the difference between laws, statutes and                                        ordinances. Jesus never changed the law.

Me to B: Please explain the difference between the three and                                                  provide a list of laws, statutes, and ordinances.

B to Me: II Tim. 2:15

Me to B: 2 Timothy 2:15 King James Version

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a                                                                        workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly                                                                      dividing the word of truth.

Uh! Your response avoids answering my question.                                                                    Please explain the difference between the three and                                                                 provide a list of laws, statutes, and ordinances.

B to Me: Study yourself, i’m [sic] not going to                                                                        spoon feed you

Me to B: My studies show that I am right and                                                                           you are wrong. Moreover, most of the                                                                                       theologians and clergy that have consulted                                                                               agree with me and not with you. Also, I                                                                                    must conclude that you do not know the                                                                                    difference between laws, statutes, and                                                                                        ordinances and that you cannot provide a list                                                                            of them.

B to Me: Keep tooting your horn and                                                                                        puffing your chest out and eating that                                                                                        swine.

O to B: go outside both those books there were multiple                                                          references and (ellen g white is not a second god or                                                                 prophet... just a shrewd Mormon clone and a diet nazi                                                             [sic]) 1 Timothy 4:1-5 “Now the Spirit speaketh                                                                     expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from                                                           the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines                                                             of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their                                                                   conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry,                                                           and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath                                                        created to be received with thanksgiving of them which                                                        believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is                                                          good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with                                                              thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and                                                         prayer.” KJV

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Results of Israel’s and the United States’ War with Iran

Results of Israel’s and the United States’ War with Iran

Thomas Allen

Below are some dire prognostications resulting from Israel’s and the United States’ war with Iran.

Israel will cease owning Congress. More and more Representatives and Senators will turn against Israel or be voted out of office. Except for the Christian Zionists, Zionist Jews, the chicken hawks like Senator Graham, people who get rich off war, and dimwits, the American people do not want the United States to participate in this war. Additionally, as the number of Americans who have actually died and been wounded for Israel becomes public, Americans will become more vigorous in their opposition to the war and Israel.

After its defeat in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now Iran, the world will no longer see the United States as the world’s dominant military power. Most, if not all, of America’s military bases in the Middle East will be abandoned. (Eventually, all will be because of a lack of funds.)

Iran will eventually get its nuclear weapons. Also, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will acquire nuclear weapons.

Moreover, American global hegemony and Israeli Middle Eastern hegemony are dead. Also, British colonialism is finally finished. A multipolar world will return.

Furthermore, the petrodollar (the US dollar) will no longer be the world’s reserve currency. As a result, prices in the United States will rise sharply as foreign central banks unload their excess US dollars. These dollars have nowhere to go except to the United States to buy goods and services. 

Moreover, prices will soar globally. Because of the petroleum shortage that this war has created, the prices of fuel, food, plastic products, circuit boards (which need a special coating, most of which comes through the Straight of Hormuz), and most other products will soar. As the COVID shutdown caused prices to soar globally, so will the petroleum shortage caused by this war cause prices to soar globally. The United States get hit with not only prices rising because of the death of the petrodollar, but also because of prices rising as a result of the global petroleum shortage.

With the death of the petrodollar and the concomitant rising interest rates, the federal government will be forced to curtail its spending; demand for federal debt securities will drastically shrink. The United States will have to withdraw from its overseas bases and cease its imperialism. Most likely, America will become like Russia with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Lacking the resources for foreign interventionism, the federal government will have to focus on the legitimate needs and priorities of the United States. Lacking the funds to fight unnecessary wars to make the warmongers richer, far fewer Americans will die in war, such as the Iranian war to make Israel great.

The ruling elite and their lackeys and toadies will fight vigorously to retain their power, privileges, and influence to control the people and extract wealth from them. Unfortunately, like the common Russians when the Soviet Union collapsed, the average American will suffer greatly from the changes that the war with Iran is going to cause. Hopefully, they will not witness what happened in Russia when many miscreants, reprobates, and unscrupulous people, a disproportional number of whom were Jews, plundered what little wealth the people had.

Zionism will receive a fatal blow, which means that Christian Zionism will die. With the death of Israel (Israel may cease to exist as a Jewish country), the current end-time religious teachings will be abandoned as just another false doctrine. Televangelists will lose so many of their followers that most will go out of business, and evangelical pastors will lose many in their congregations for teaching a false doctrine.

One of Trump’s arguments for attacking Iran and embargoing its oil exports was to weaken China. Ironically, as a result of this war against Iran, China will replace the United States as the world’s dominant economic power for decades to come. 

Because of Trump’s unconstitutional war with Iran for Greater Israel, the Democrats will regain control of the federal government. Once in control, they will amplify the economic disaster caused by the war by reinstituting the green energy programs and the woke agenda and by again flooding the country with legal and illegal immigrants. Thus, they will hasten the death of America.

The United States are destined to go the way of the British Empire and Soviet Union. Zionism and Israel have already brought down three great empires: the British Empire, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union. Now, they are bringing down the American Empire. (See “The Results of Supporting Zionism and Israel” by Thomas Allen.)

As Gorbachev oversaw the collapse of the Soviet Union, so Trump is overseeing the collapse of the American empire.

Fortunately, I am a mediocre forecaster. Hopefully, most of these predictions will not come to pass — especially those related to the economy and the dollar and the Democrats regaining control of the federal government. Yet, the demise of the American empire and hegemony is highly desirable. Furthermore, reducing Israel to insignificance is also highly desirable.

References

Baldwin, Chuck. “The World We Knew Is Gone Forever!” April 16, 2026. https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/5014/The-World-We-Knew-Is-Gone-Forever.aspx. Accessed April 17, 2026.

Barton, Philip. “Bomber Trump’s Folly.” March 30, 2026. https://timesofgold.com/2026/03/30/bomber-trumps-folly/. Accessed May 2, 2026. 

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Republican Form of Government

Republican Form of Government

Thomas Allen

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution, guarantees each State a republican form of government.  Ty Bodden describes the attributes of a republican form of government in “Restoring a Constitutional, Republican Form of Government: States Push Back Against Direct Democracy and Bureaucratic Rule,” January 16, 2026 (https://thenewamerican.com/us/restoring-a-constitutional-republican-form-of-government-states-push-back-against-direct-democracy-and-bureaucratic-rule/).

Each State should be a constitutional republic with a republican government. A republican government is “grounded in constitutional limits, representative lawmaking, and the rule of law.” It “requires clear lines: Legislatures make the law, executives execute it, courts interpret it.” Moreover, a “republican government demands transparency and public accountability — not self-perpetuating appointment systems.”

A constitutional republic is governed “by law, exercised through elected representatives, with safeguards that protect God-given rights against both mob passions and unelected bureaucrats.” Thus, States “ have a duty to structure their institutions in ways that preserve representative lawmaking, checks and balances, and protections from majoritarian tyranny.”

Under a republican government, “major policy decisions remain accountable to the people through their elected representatives.” Legislators cannot evade their responsibilities by delegating legislative authority to executive boards and commissions. Consequently, unelected rulemaking boards and commissions are incompatible with a republican government. If they exist at all, rulemaking “administrative bodies must remain subordinate, not function as a fourth branch.” 

The purpose of a constitution is “to restrain government and protect rights.” Bodden notes, “A constitution is not meant to be a running policy notebook, rewritten whenever a slim majority is persuaded by slick advertising.” Thus, it should not be changed on a whim of a bare majority, or else “liberty becomes temporary and rights become negotiable.”

Consequently, amending State constitutions should require a supermajority, e.g., 60 percent. State constitutions should not allow amendments through ballot initiatives. Furthermore, the amendment process should require more than just a statewide majority. It should also require majorities in various districts throughout the State, e.g., congressional districts. Such requirements ensure that the amendment has broad support. If both of these approaches are combined, which Bodden does not do, before an amendment becomes part of the constitution, it would need 60 percent of the vote statewide and would have to receive a majority vote in each congressional district or, alternatively, in two-thirds of the districts.

Bodden concludes, “Will states be governed as republics, under the rule of law, or as democracies, under the whims of shifting majorities and unelected managers? A republic restrains power to protect the people. A democracy too often unleashes power — first against the minority, and eventually against everyone.”

Bodden fails to address two important issues. One is that today the States are not republics and cannot become republics; therefore, they cannot have a republican form of government merely by making the changes that he recommends. The other is the electorate.

As a result of Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, no State today is a republic (See “Before and After” by Thomas Allen). Although the governments of the States appear to be republican in form, they are not. Only a republic can have a republican form of government (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen).

For a State to have a republican form of government, a State must be a republic. Before a State can be a republic, it must be sovereign, and as a sovereign, it is the final judge of the constitutionality of acts of the federal government. In other words, before a State can have a republican form of government, it has to have the right, duty, and power to nullify any federal act that it finds unconstitutional and has the right and power to enforce the nullification, including jailing any federal agent trying to enforce the nullified law, as Vermont did when it nullified the fugitive slave law (see “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen). Until States regain their sovereignty, they cannot have a republican form of government.

Who is the electorate of a State? It is “we the people” of that State, i.e., it is the body politic that ultimately wields political power (see “Meaning of ‘We the People’” by Thomas Allen). Today, almost anyone more than 18 who breathes is part of the electorate. (As Landslide Lyndon in 1948 and Biden in 2020 have shown, even dead people are part of the electorate.)

When the US Constitution and the constitutions of the original States were ratified, the electorate was limited to people who had a vested interest in the community. That is, only White males who owned a minimum amount of real property were members of the electorate. During the Jacksonian Era, most White males more than 21 received the vote. The Fifteenth Amendment extended voting to Black males, and the Nineteenth Amendment gave women the vote. The Twenty-fourth Amendment removed the requirement to pay taxes, and the Twenty-sixth Amendment lowered the voting age to 18. (Every time suffrage was expanded, liberty declined.)

An important component of returning a republican form of government to the States is to restrict suffrage to people who have a vested interest in the community. Only people who own a minimum amount of real property or pay a minimum amount of direct taxes (property, income, and capitation taxes) would have the right to vote and be part of the body politic.

Most States already have the governmental structure in place to have a republican form of government. What they are lacking is the sovereignty of “we the people” and restricting “we the people” to those who have a vested interest in the community.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.