Before and After

Before and After

Thomas Allen

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment made fundamental changes to the United States and the Constitution of 1788. Although they did not alter the words of the Constitution that existed in 1860, the Constitution that was ratified in 1788, they changed their meanings. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment destroyed the fundamental principles on which the Constitution was based. Furthermore, it was illegally and unlawfully ratified (see “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen).

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment slew the Tenth Amendment. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court will occasionally resurrect it to give “we the people” of the States the illusion that they still have rights.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent, sovereign republics.[1] After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated national empire. (For the difference between Lincoln’s Constitution and the Constitution of 1788, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

Before 1860, most people who preferred a national empire to a federation of republics considered the United States as a federation of States and the federal government as having limited powers.

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment demolished the Jeffersonian tradition of States’ rights by which the people of the States were the masters rather than the servants of the federal government. Afterwards, the federal government became the master of all, and the people, other than the oligarchs, were reduced to servants, even slaves, of the ruling elite.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, most people viewed the Constitution as restraining the federal government and not the people. Even people who wanted little or no restraint saw the Constitution limiting their lust for power, which is why they had Lincoln and the Republicans change it. Afterwards, it no longer restrained the federal government; they gave it almost unlimited powers. 

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, people became citizens of the United States by being citizens of a State. Afterwards, people were citizens of a State by being citizens of the United States. (Moreover, the United States ceased to be referred to in the plural [are] and became referred to in the singular [is].) Thus, citizenship was changed. Additionally, before, only Whites were citizens. Although a State could grant Indians and Blacks certain privileges of citizenship, they were not and could not be citizens. They were aliens.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, sovereignty resided in “we the people” of each State. Afterwards, sovereignty resided in the oligarchs who controlled the federal government. Thus, the location of sovereignty was changed.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the country was monoracial. The founding fathers said so (for proof, see “The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People” by Thomas Allen; also see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen). Afterwards, it was multiracial.

As a result of the Fourteenth Amendment, the descendants of the people who built this country, i.e., Whites, Aryans, are being genocided. In 1950, 89 percent of the population was White; by 2020, only 61 percent were White.

Between Monroe and Lincoln, many of the presidents and other political leaders favored a consociated national empire and, with one exception, would not have objected to what Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment did to the country. That exception was the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country. After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, all presidents, except for Cleveland, supported a consolidated national empire, where the States were no longer independent republics but were districts of the empire. Moreover, before World War II, nearly all would have objected to the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country.

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Thus, if right to vote for judicial officers of a State is denied to any eligible voter (male citizens 21 years old and older at that time), the number of Representatives in the House of Representatives shall be reduced in the proportion to the number of male citizens denied the vote to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Only in 21 States do the voters elect all judges. In the other States, the Supreme Court and most appellate court judges are appointed or selected by the legislature. Therefore, only the 21 States where all judges are elected should have representation in the House of Representatives.

Endnote

1. Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment voided the first part of Article IV, Section 2, which guarantees States a republican form of government. Only a sovereign can have a republican form of government; only a sovereign can be a republic. Therefore, a State must be sovereign to have a republican government. As a sovereign, a State, i.e., “we the people” of that State, has the right to decide if an act of the federal government is Constitutional. If a State finds that an act of the federal government is unconstitutional, it may nullify that act and prevent its enforcement in that State. Moreover, it may withdraw from the compact, i.e., secede. However, Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment stripped the States of their sovereignty, and, consequently, they denied the States the right to have a republican form of government. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Geneses the Beginning

Geneses the Beginning

Thomas Allen

The King James Version translates Genesis 1:1–5 as follows:

        1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Most other translations render verse one “in the beginning” like the King James. A few translate it “when God began to create the heavens and the earth.” Also, with one exception, Fenton’s translation, all translate verse five as “day.” Their difference lies in that some use “the first day,” as in the King James, while others use “day one.”

In The Holy Bible in Modern English (1903), Ferrar Fenton translates Genesis 1:1–5 as follows:

1 BY Periods GOD created that which produced the Solar Systems; then that which produced the Earth.

2 But the Earth was unorganised and empty; and darkness covered its convulsed surface; while the breath of GOD rocked the surface of its waters.

3 GOD then said, “Let there be light;” and light came. 

4 And GOD gazed upon that beautiful light; and GOD divided the light from the darkness. 

5 And to the light GOD gave the name of Day, and to the darkness He gave the name of Night. This was the close and the dawn of the first age.

Instead of using “in the beginning,” Fenton uses “by periods.” Instead of using “day,” he uses “age.”

To explain his use of “by periods,” he writes, “Literally ‘By Headships.’ It is curious that all translators from the Septuagint have rendered this word . . . B'reshith, into the singular, although it is plural in the Hebrew. So I render it accurately.”

Fenton’s translation of yôwm, which the King James translates as “day,” is also valid.  The word means day both in the literal sense of from sunrise to sunset or from one sunset to the next, or in the figurative sense of a space of time of unspecified duration, era, or age. For example, Genesis 2:4, “day” refers to the entire period described by the six days of creation in chapter one. (For more on “day” meaning “age,” see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Allen, pages 26-38.)

According to Unger, “in the beginning” could refer to a relative beginning rather than the original creation of the earth and universe. That is, it could refer to God’s creation of the earth at a much later period: God refashioned the earth at a later point in geological history.

About the days of creation, Unger writes:

If Gen 1:1 does not describe the original creation of the earth ex nihilo before the entrance of sin into the pristine sinless earth (Job 38:7), then the six days represent either (1) literal 24-hour days of re-creation, (2) literal 24-hour days of the divine revelation of re-creation to man, (3) or extended geologic ages or epochs preparatory for the eventual occupancy of man. Since the Genesis account itself is indecisive view (2) or (3) is possible, view (1) being sometimes assumed: untenable in an age of science. If Gen 1:1 describes the original creation of the earth out of nothing, and not the refashioning of an earth that suffered chaos in connection with the entrance of sin into the universe, then the six days represent the same possibilities, 1-3 as indicated above.[1]

Fenton’s translation solves much of the apparent disagreement between God’s word and God’s geology (see “Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth” by Thomas Allen). It eliminates the need to explain away geology that shows that the Earth is much older than 6000 to 10,000 years. It eliminates the need to try to fit the Earth’s ancient geologic history into a 144-hour week, i.e., six 24-hour days.  Moreover, it eliminates explaining away the paleontologic record as do the young-earth advocates by having it mostly created by a global flood about 4300–4400 years ago. (The geological record does not support such a flood.) Furthermore, it eliminates the need to explain away Chapter 1 of Genesis as myth or allegory to make it fit the Earth’s ancient geologic and paleontologic history. With his translation, most of the conflict between the Earth’s ancient geologic and paleontologic history and Chapter 1 of Genesis is eliminated. Additionally, the seventh day is described as God's day of rest; this day has not yet ended and, therefore, extends a long time.

Endnote

1. Merrill F Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1960), p. 38.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Nationalization of Federal Elections

Nationalization of Federal Elections

Thomas Allen

Trump and many of his supporters advocate for the nationalization of federal elections. They want to require voters to prove citizenship with governmentally approved identification.  As support for their position, they cite Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, which reads, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” Using this clause, they argue that the federal government can establish the qualifications of voters in federal elections. To prevent confusion, most States will adopt the federal standards for State elections.

However, does the Constitution authorize the federal government to set qualifications for voters even in federal elections? The delegation only allows Congress to set the time, places, and manner of holding federal elections. Congress has set the time, and most States elect their State and county officials on that date. It can identify the locations of federal elections. Finally, it can describe the manner of election. That is, Congress can require or prohibit the use of paper ballots, machine-voting, etc., for federal elections. However, this clause does not authorize Congress to establish qualifications for voters.

If Congress could establish voter qualifications, there would have been no need for the Fifteenth Amendment (extended voting to Black males), 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). Instead of going through the arduous process of amending the Constitution, Congress could have merely changed voter qualifications by statute. (Since presidents keep legislating through executive orders, the president could set the qualifications for voters with an executive order.)

Historically, the duty for setting voter qualifications rested with the States. If not, the Constitution would not have needed to be amended to establish national standards for voting qualifications.

The proponents of nationalizing federal elections argue that nationalization is necessary to prevent fraud. It is not. (In “Trump Calls to ‘Nationalize’ Elections. The Constitutional Solution Is Local,” February 5, 2026, Veronika Kyrylenko identifies many steps that States and local governments can take to reduce corrupt and fraudulent elections. She also discusses some major flaws in the proposed legislation; one is that it will become part of the federal government’s digital surveillance of Americans. [https://thenewamerican.com/us/trump-calls-to-nationalize-elections-the-constitutional-solution-is-local/?mc_cid=abab48bd20]) They claim that presenting some kind of federally approved identification to vote is necessary to prevent or at least reduce fraud, which is true. However, should the federal government undertake such action? If Trump succeeds in nationalizing federal elections, he will set a dangerous precedent that the Democrats will use to their advantage when they regain control of the federal government. They can amend the law to prohibit voter ID. Moreover, they can require that all federal elections be held by mail-in ballots and that only Democrats can count the ballots. If federal elections are nationalized, all federal elections can become as corrupt and fraudulent as the 2020 presidential election in Fulton County, Georgia. 

(Personally, I believe that requiring voter identification would reduce corrupt and fraudulent elections. However, the States should impose the requirement rather than the federal government. The more centralized voting becomes, the easier it is to corrupt.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Separation Versus Integration

Separation Versus Integration

Thomas Allen

After reading some of Martin Luther King’s works, I discovered that I, a racist bigot, have a much higher opinion of and more confidence in the American Negro than King did. King believed that Negroes were incapable of raising themselves without altruistic White aid. That is, King believed that Whites were solely responsible for raising Negroes from their unpleasant conditions; Negroes had no responsibility. Whites were to give Negroes everything, and Negroes were to take everything.

Like  Malcolm X and Roy Innis, I believe that Negroes are capable of raising themselves independently of Whites. Unlike King, who was an integrationist, they were separationists. Also, unlike King, who promoted the destruction of Negro culture and even the Negro race, they advocated the preservation and enhancement of Negro culture and the Negro race.

According to King, Negroes were blameless for their condition and, thus, had no responsibility for improving their condition. Whites were solely responsible for improving the conditions of the Negroes. However, under separation, Negroes have the primary responsibility for improving their conditions. Consequently, separation would have taught Negroes responsibility, independence, and self-reliance. It would have freed them from the slave mentality. Ironically, Jim Crow was teaching these lessons to Negroes and freeing them from the slave mentality until the civil rights movement killed Jim Crow. Unfortunately, under integration, most Negroes have failed to learn responsibility, independence, and self-reliance, and thus, the slave mentality continues to possess them.

If the country had followed the separationist road instead of the integrationist road, race relations would be much better than they are today. Now, race relations are so great that they are tearing the country apart.

Under separation, Negroes would know that what they have, they earned by their own efforts. Under integration, Whites have given Negroes much of what they have today. Consequently, Negroes do not know whether they earned what they have or whether they have been given what they have. Knowing that they earned what they have would give them more self-respect and the respect of others.

Moreover, under separation, the country would not have wasted trillions of dollars on the War on Poverty. (According to one study, the United States have spent more money on the War on Poverty than all other wars combined.)

Further, under separation, diversity, inclusion, and equity (equality of outcome and discrimination against Whites) would not have torn the country apart as they are doing today. (Ironically, inclusion destroys diversity. To be preserved, diversity requires segregation and separation. Inclusion requires integration and amalgamation.)

Another result of separation is that the White race would not be filled with self-hatred and the uncontrollable urge to genocide itself. Whites would not have opened the borders to third-world colonists, who are mostly Turanians from Asia and Latin America (Indians and mestizos) and Melanochroi from India, Pakistan, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Horn of Africa. Not only are these colonists destroying Whites, but they are also destroying Negroes.

Under integration, most Whites have become racial nihilists and practice the new morality of sacrificing the White race on the altar of humanity. Under separation, most Whites would have continued to practice the old morality of preserving, protecting, and promoting their race and would have become racial preservationists. 

Under integration, Negroes have become Black supremacists and practice the old morality. However, under separation, Negroes would have become racial preservationists while practicing the old morality.

Life in America under separation would not be a utopia. However, it would not be the dystopia that it has become under integration. Most likely, Negroes would have advanced further under separation than they have under integration. Under separation, their advancement would not have required bringing down the White race as has happened under integration. Moreover, wokeism would never have been born, and queerdom would have remained in the shadows.

Separation would have led to a society similar to that envisioned by Booker T. Washington. The races would be separated socially; little social interaction would occur between them. However, economically, the races would be interconnected; they would interact with each other economically.

Separation accords with God’s law, while integration rebels against God’s law.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.