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.

Another Discussion with the Imbecile

Another Discussion with the Imbecile

Thomas Allen

I responded to a comment to an article titled “Supreme Court Sides With Biden Over Border Crisis, Here Are The Conservative Justices Who FLIPPED” by Anthony T (https://wltreport.com/2024/01/22/supreme-court-sides-biden-border-crisis-here-are/). [Note: If you go to this site, you will not see my comments because it has banned me. Apparently, I objected too much about it censoring my comments telling the truth about God’s chosen people and their political movement.] A commenter wrote that federal law trumping State law was a myth. I responded to his comment, “Under Lincoln’s constitution, which is the constitution that we have now, federal law always trumps State law because the States are to the federal government what counties are to State governments.” Then the imbecile responded to my comment claiming that I was using revisionist history and that I loved slavery (see the appendix for my discussion with the imbecile).

This imbecile is enthralled with slavery. Except for Blacks trying to extort money from wimpy, woke politicians, I have never encountered anyone who is obsessed with slavery as much as he is. Obviously, he envies the antebellum slave owners and desiderates a 100,000-acre plantation with 1000 slaves. Because he cannot fulfill his dream, he has become Confederaphobic, Dixiephobic, and probably Albusphobic.

First, I will discuss revisionist history, which the imbecile despises, and its meaning. Next, I will discuss the causes of Lincoln’s War and the unimportance of slavery as a cause. Finally, I will close with a discussion of phobia.

Revisionist History

A revisionist history is a history that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment history. It is a historical account based on facts or a perspective that differs from the standard orthodox establishment history, which emphasizes a particular narrative or agenda instead of objective facts. That is, the primary purpose of the standard orthodox establishment history is to declare that the victors had the moral high ground and were not at fault or to advance an agenda of the establishment. More often than not, revisionist history is closer to the truth than is the standard orthodox establishment history.

When it comes to Lincoln’s War, the imbecile is a firm believer in the standard orthodox establishment history: The war was fought over slavery and for no other reason. The South fought to preserve slavery, and the North fought to free the slaves. Furthermore, the South started the war by firing on Fort Sumpter.

According to the imbecile, I am a victim of revisionist history. Admittedly, I do rely more on revisionist histories of Lincoln, Lincoln’s War, the Confederacy, and the South because they are closer to the truth than the standard orthodox establishment history, which idolizes Lincoln and demonizes the Confederacy and the South. To the imbecile’s small mind (if he has one), revisionist history is any history with which he disagrees. The truth is irrelevant. He ignores any facts that conflict with his historical view.

Slavery and the Cause of Lincoln’s War

The imbecile firmly believes that Lincoln’s War was fought over slavery and that the South started the war when it fired on Fort Sumter. Contrary to what the imbecile believes, slavery was much better protected within the Union than without.

With the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and the Dred Scott decision in 1857, Southerners had won their right to settle in the territories with their slaves. Outside the Union, Southerners would not have this right. The importation of slaves into the United States was illegal. If, as often claimed, slavery needed to expand into the territories to survive, then secession would have destroyed slavery without a war.

If the Southern States remained in the Union, the United States government would have apprehended runaway slaves and returned them to their owners. The most efficient and effective fugitive slave laws in the history of the United States were in force on the eve of secession. If the Southern States were an independent country, slaveholders would lack this guarantee. That the United States would enter into a treaty with the Confederacy to return runaway slaves was doubtful.

Those who claim that slavery was the cause of the War never explain why the Southern States would secede to protect slavery when slavery was better protected within the Union than without. Even the “Great Emancipator” Lincoln said in his inaugural address on March 4, 1861, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”[1]

Congress did not perceive that the war was, at least at its beginning, a war to free slaves. In January of 1861, Congress adopted a resolution declaring that it recognized: “Slavery as now existing in fifteen of the United States, by the usage and laws of those states, and we recognize no authority, legal or otherwise, outside of a state where it exists, to interfere with slaves or slavery in such states."[2]

To make perfectly clear that it did not intend to abolish slavery, Congress adopted the following constitutional amendment:

Article 13. No amendment shall be made to the constitution which shall authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish, or to interfere within any state, with the domestic institution thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said state.[3]

People who believe that Lincoln’s War was fought over slavery need to explain away the questions that H.V. Traywick, Jr. raises in “What Was the War About?” (abbevilleinstitute.org/what-was-the-war-about):

If the North was fighting a Crusade of Liberation, why didn’t she wage war on New York and Boston, the largest African Slave-trading ports in the world in 1861? Or on Africa herself and her slave-raiders — such as the Kingdom of Dahomey — the largest exporters of African slaves in the world? Or on New England and her manufacturing profits gleaned from slave-picked cotton, and from rum manufactured from slave-harvested sugar cane and distilled for trading along the African coast for more slaves?

Thus, slavery was at best a minor issue. (For more about slavery not being the cause of Lincoln’s War, see “Slavery Not the Reason” by Thomas Allen.)

The primary cause of secession was taxation via a protective tariff. Charles Adams cogently argues in his book Good and Evil, The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization that taxation, not slavery, was the primary cause for Southern secession. Freedom from oppressive taxation is what the Southern States sought through secession and not the preservation of slavery. Adams writes, “Southerners saw themselves as tribute-paying vassals of the North every time they bought Northern goods or paid import taxes.”[4]

The Republicans wanted to raise tariffs to protect Northern industries. This was accomplished in 1861 when President Lincoln signed the Morrill Tariff, which doubled the existing rate. Southerners had to make a choice. They could choose to pay excessive prices for Northern goods — thus, fatting the pockets of Northern industrialists. They could choose to buy foreign goods and pay the tariff — thus, fatting the federal treasury that Northern industrialists controlled. Accordingly, they could choose to transfer their wealth to the North (“federal taxation had an economic effect of shifting wealth from the South to the North,”[5] as Adams writes), or they could do as their forefathers had done in 1776 and choose independence.

In his summary of Adam's book, Pat Buchanan writes:

Adams thesis: Lincoln could not stand before the bar of history and say he had bathed his country in blood to deny Southerners the same right to go free their fathers had invoked 85 years before. He could not say Vicksburg and Antietam had been about taxes. So Lincoln made the abolition of slavery his great moral crusade — but only as an afterthought.[6]

As important as, if not more important than, the political, economic, and social issues, were the theological issues. The theological differences separating the North and South were extensive. The most vocal group in the North was the Unitarian Transcendentalists — man can save himself. The predominant religious belief in the South was Old School Calvinism — man is totally dependent on God for salvation. The North saw man in the abstract. The South saw man as he really was. The difference between these two religious views could not, and cannot, be made compatible. Southern clergymen vigorously supported secession to protect their theology. They were convinced that the North was becoming a godless land.

The London Times saw the war as a lust for empire by the North and a desire for independence by the South. It wrote, “The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South, and in that respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the government of George III, and the South and the thirteen revolted provinces.”[7]

To his dying day, President Davis insisted that the war was fought over two basic issues. The first was whether the federal government should be limited (the South’s position) or an unlimited government (the North’s position). Second was whether a free people had a right to withdraw from a union that they had voluntarily entered (the South’s position) or should be forced to remain in a union that they no longer desired to be a part of (the North’s position).

In summary, the North started the War not to free slaves, but to enslave Southerners.  (See “Southern History: The War” by Thomas Allen.)

About who started Lincoln’s War, the imbecile also errs. Following the standard orthodox establishment history, he asserts that the South started the war because it fired the first shot on Fort Sumpter. A Confederate prison guard adequately refuted this fallacious charge when a Union officer whom he was guarding attempted to blame the South for the war by asking, “Who fired the first gun of this war?” The Confederate private responded like a sage, “John Brown at Harper’s Ferry, sir. He fired the first gun. And Mr. Lincoln, in attempting to reinforce Sumter, fired the second gun. And the Confederates have acted on the defensive all of the time. We did not invade your country, but you invaded ours; you go home and attend to your own business and leave us to ours, and the war will close at once.”[8] Once more, the imbecile shows his ignorance, or, more correctly, he shows his stupidity because he is incapable of learning.

Phobia

“Phobia” not only means to be afraid, but it also means a strong dislike of or aversion to something. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, defines “phobia” as “a strong fear, dislike, or aversion.” Merriam-Webster defines it as “intolerance or aversion for.” Dictionary.com defines “phobia” as “an aversion toward, dislike of, or disrespect for a thing, idea, person, or group.”

I do not accuse the imbecile of being afraid of the Confederacy, the South, or Whites. He gives no indication of such fear. However, his comments show that he obviously has an intolerance for, an aversion toward, a dislike of, and a disrespect for the Confederacy and the South.

Most people believe that staunch, diehard Confederates and Southerners are right-wingers. They are wrong. I have on good authority, the imbecile himself, that they are left-wingers.

Appendix

Original comment: Mythology: “Federal law trumps state law.”

This mythology contributes to a growth never ending of federal power. (It actually goes back to George Washington who secretly funded the newspapers calling for a very strong federal government.)

Truth: The states merely delegated small select powers to the federal government.

The federal------really the small government of the collective confederacy of states (conFEDERAcy=FEDERal)-----accepted responsibilities of the compact of the confederacy...in essence a contract...on border protection. Joe says, “give me more money” and I’ll do that job. It’s extortion in that it doesn’t relieve the federal government from its obligation to perform that unto itself formed the reason for its (federal) existence.

Me to Original comment: Under Lincoln’s constitution, which is the constitution that we have now, federal law always trumps State law because the States are to the federal government what counties are to State governments.

Imbecile to Me: Would you PLEASE just STOP the revisionist history already? There is no “Lincoln Constitution” that is DIFFERENT from the Constitution ratified in 1789! If you’re referring to LEGAL AMENDMENTS, the ones pertaining to the SLAVERY you so love were ratified AFTER Lincoln wss [sic] murdered by one of your southern compatriots!

Me to Imbecile: Since you reject revisionist history, that means you believe the official story of the Kennedy assassination and the official governmental conspiracy theory of 9-11.

If Lincoln did not change the Constitution, why did people refer to the United States using a plural verb before his war and a singular verb afterward? Before Lincoln’s War, the United States were a federation of sovereign nations. After his war, the United States became a consolidated empire with an all-powerful federal government, and the States were reduced to provinces. That required a significant change in the constitution even if its words did not change.

By the way, slavery ended in the Confederate States before it ended in the Union States.

Imbecile to Me:  Your last comment proves your insanity! The ONLY states that had slavery after it was abolished in the North were southern states! It’s true that four “border” states that allowed slavery did NOT join the confederates and slavery did not end in those states until a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery in the entire nation was ratified after the war, but to imply that ALL the Union states had slavery after it was abolished in the confederate states is shear lunacy! The way you say things, how do you account for parts of TEXAS, where slavery continued AFTER the war ended until the so-called “Junetenth” [sic] freedom for the remaining slaves occured [sic]? As for your insistence on calling the Civil War “Lincoln’s war,” again, shear LUNACY since it is well documented that the confederates started the war by attacking Fort Sumpter! You REALLY need to get your facts straight! [Editor's note: Juneteenth occurred on June 19, 1865; the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in December 1865. Consequently, Juneteenth occurred before the Thirteenth Amendment became effective. Furthermore, the war did not end until June 23, 1865, when Cherokee Confederate General Stand Waite surrendered, which occurred four days after Juneteenth.]

Imbecile to Me: You are nuttsiecookoo! [sic] The difference between revisionist history and getting the facts straight are like night and day! Finding out the TRUTH and disclosing it such as with the Kennedy assassination or 9/11 is NOT revisionist history! It’s simply getting the facts straight! Revisionist history is when actual facts are TWISTED to serve the writer’s agenda! YOU constantly engage in revisionist history such as when you call the Civil War “Lincoln's war” when it is well documented that the confederates started the war by attacking Fort Sumpter! As for your insane claim in your last comment, slavery was outlawed in the North for YEARS before the Civil War! Only the 4 “border states” that allowed slavery but had NOT joined the confederates still had slavery after the war, but that was quickly eliminated by Constitutional Amendment. Trying to equate these four anamolous  [sic] states with the ENTIRE North is beyond STUPID!

Me to Imbecile: You are too stupid to learn.

Imbecile to Me: IF you had any actual FACTS to teach then maybe someone could learn from you, but alas, you have NOTHING but sour grapes over LOSING an UNJUST WAR that was started and fought by the confederates to keep SLAVERY intact!

Me to Imbecile: Except for Blacks trying to extort money from wimpy, woke politicians, I have never encountered anyone who is obsessed with slavery as much as you are. Obviously, you envy the antebellum slave owner and desiderate a 100,000-acre plantation with 1000 slaves. Because you cannot fulfill your dream, you have become Confederaphobic, Dixiephobic, and probably Albusphobic.

Imbecile to Me: Now I KNOW for a fact you are a braindead lefty because only they call anyone who disagrees with their stupidity “phobic,” which basically means “afraid,” and I am not afraid of your revisionist LIES any more than I’m afraid of fairies, tran-nies [sic], vmuslimes [sic], illegal border crossers [sic], cross dressers, or any of the other perverted people out there!

THE END

Endnotes

1. Beverly B. Munford, Virginia’s Attitude Toward Slavery and Secession (Richmond, 1909), pp. 193-194.

2. Ibid., p. 194.

3. Ibid., p. 195.

4. Charles Adams, For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization (Lanham, 1993), p. 328.

5. Ibid., p. 337.

6. Pat Buchanan, “Abolition of Slavery Was Only an Afterthought,” Citizen Informer (Spring, 1994), p. 9.

7. Charles L. C. Minor, The Real Lincoln from the Testimony of His Contemporaries (1928, reprinted 1992) p. 112.

8. Michael A. Grissom, The Last Rebel Yell, (Nashville, 1991), p. 313. 

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

A Discussion with an Imbecile

A Discussion with an Imbecile

Thomas Allen

In response to an article about some people wanting to use the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent Donald Trump’s name from appearing on ballots, I posted a comment. In my comment, I noted that Lincoln and the Republicans rebelled against the Constitution, but the South did not. (https://wltreport.com/2023/09/01/president-trump-scores-huge-court-victory-election-ballot/#comment-6277814175) [Note: If you go to this site, you will not see my comments because it has banned me. Apparently, I objected too much about it censoring my comments telling the truth about God’s "chosen people" and their political movement.]

Then, an imbecile responded: “Like continuing SLAVERY?” At first, I thought that he was ignorant and was confusing the Fourteenth Amendment with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. Consequently, I replied that the Fourteenth Amendment had nothing to do with slavery. “However, it does prove that Negroes were not and could not be citizens under the Constitution that the founding fathers gave us.”

Instead of trying to refute my statement, he smeared me with today’s greatest smear word: “racist.” Thus, he proved that he lacked the intellect to refute me or that he knew that I was right and could not refute me.

Responding to his reply, I stated that “it takes one to know one.” Then, I noted that he was a racist by several of the 800 definitions of racist in “Are You a Racist?” and asked which one he was using for me. He answered with more derogatory invectiveness. Our discussion is in the Appendix.

After discussions with this imbecile in other articles, I can make more intelligent inferences about him. He suffers from the worst sort of stupidity: arrogant stupidity. Moreover, he is a Confederaphobe and a staunch Zionist. No truth is going to enter his brain. (I respond to him not to educate him because he is beyond salvation but to educate others.)

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 

It prohibits persons who had taken an oath to support the Constitution and who had engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution from holding public office.

The South did not rebel against the Constitution. Before Lincoln became President, almost everyone in the country knew that a State had the right to secede.

The Constitution that the Confederacy adopted was similar to the US Constitution but with some improvements. These improvements included:

1. The President served a six-year term and could not be reelected for another term.

2. The President had a line-item veto of appropriation bills.

3. The House or Senate could require cabinet secretaries to appear before it to answer questions.

4. Bills that Congress passed could only address one subject.

5. It prohibited protective tariffs.

6. It prohibited subsidies to private companies and corporate welfare.

7. States could enter treaties with other States to regulate waterways.

8. States could levy taxes on ships using their waterways.

9. States could impeach certain federal officials.

Also, States were allowed to issue bills of credit, paper money, which was regressive. The US Constitution prohibited the States from issuing bills of credit.

On the other hand, Lincoln and the Republicans did rebel against the US Constitution. They uprooted and overthrew the very foundation of the Constitution.

Before Lincoln’s War, the United States were a federation of sovereign nations. After Lincoln’s War, the United States became a consolidated empire with the States subjugated to provinces. The United States became what Lincoln declared them to be in his Gettysburg Address.

Completing this conversion from a federation of sovereign nations to a consolidated empire was the Fourteenth Amendment, which was illegally and unlawfully ratified. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, a person was a citizen of the United States by being a citizen of a State. After the Fourteenth Amendment, a person was a citizen of a State by being a citizen of the United States. Negroes were not citizens under the original Constitution. (For more on the Fourteenth Amendment and citizenship, see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen.)

Except for Coolidge, especially Cleveland, and possibly Harding, no President has even attempted to keep his oath of office since Buchanan. Therefore, with these three exceptions, all Presidents since Buchanan, including Trump, rebelled against the Constitution if they swore their oath to the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the United States. However, if they swore their oath to the Constitution that Lincoln gave the United States, then no President rebelled against the Constitution. Rebelling against Lincoln’s Constitution is difficult. (For the difference between the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the United States and the Constitution that Lincoln gave the United States, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

If Trump’s name is removed from ballots according to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, then Biden’s name and most other candidates who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution ought to be removed.

Appendix

Me: “The way Section 3 reads, Lincoln and the Republicans rebelled against the Constitution and overthrew it. The Confederates fought to preserve it; their Constitution was almost identical with some improvements.”

Imbecile: “Like continuing SLAVERY? You’e [sic] a brain-dead revisionist!”

Me: “The 14th amendment has nothing to do with slavery. However, it does prove that Negroes were not and could not be citizens under the Constitution that the founding fathers gave us.”

Imbecile: “. . . and a disgusting RACIST!!”

Me: “It takes one to know one. By several definitions of racist, you are also a racist. Which of the 800 definitions of racists are you using (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2016/04/are-you-racist.html)”

Imbecile: “It’s impossible to argue with the brain-less, the brain-washed, and/or the brain-dead, and you, sister, are all three, so adios!” [He did not attempt to argue his point; he immediately resorted to name-calling. He called me “sister” because my user name is Cassandra, who is a mystical Greek character who could see the future, but no one would believe her.]

Me: “At least I did not resort to insults and name calling.”

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles

Two Letters: The South and Secession

Two Letters: The South and Secession

Thomas Allen and Deborah Allen

[Editor’s note: the following are two letters sent to the Durham Morning Harold in 1988 addressing attacks on the South, Southerners, and secession by Mr. Curtis Frantz.]

Letter 1
    In his letter of March 25, 1988, Mr. Frantz is correct in that the South did provide an enormous, easily accessible market for the North. (Sounds like an imperialistic remark, doesn’t it?) That is a major reason that the North sought to subject the South even if it meant destroying the South. The North wanted a protected market and supported protective tariffs and import restrictions. The South wanted free trade. Tariffs were to raise revenue and not to limit imports.  (The more effective a protective tariff is, the less revenue collected.) Lincoln ran on a protective tariff platform, which benefitted the North at the expense of the South. In effect, the industrial North wanted to enslave the agrarian South. The protective tariff versus free trade issue had more to do with the South seceding than slavery.
    As for a democratic society, the majority rules. Numerical might makes right, as Mr. Frantz implies. If the United States were a democracy, the Whites, being a majority, could agree to exterminate all Blacks. Living in a democracy, Blacks, according to Mr. Frantz, could not object and secede, for the will of the people had spoken. If he were a good democrat, Mr. Frantz would abide by the will of the majority and accept the extermination as the proper, legal, and moral action to take.
    As for Northern racism, Indiana prohibited blacks from entering that State. The reason that the people of Kansas Territory opposed slavery was not that they abhorred slavery per se. They opposed slavery because slavery meant bringing blacks into their territory. They did not want blacks in their territory. This attitude was typical of the Free-soilers, who were predominantly Northerners.
    As for the abolitionist majority’s concern with the rights of all men, the abusive treatment that White Southerners received during Reconstruction refutes this claim. White Southern political and military leaders are the only group of people in the United States ever to be denied by constitutional amendment the right to hold public office.  The only concern that the abolitionists had about the rights of men was that which contributed to their Nimrodic dream (nightmare!) of universal brotherhood with its one world government, religion, economy, language, culture, and race. The abolitionists had to destroy the South because the South was the principal bulwark to their demonic goal.

Letter 2
    Mr. Curtis Frantz’s letter, which appears on the March 30 editorial page, needs some amplification.
    Slavery could have been abolished by law. But it was not except in the sense of laws enacted to carry out the results of the war. When the Northern States abolished slavery, Northern slaveowners generally sold their slaves to Southern slaveowners instead of setting them free. Many of the Northern emancipating laws had grandfathering clauses such that if the Thirteenth Amendment had not been adopted, there could have been slaves in some Northern States into the 1870s. If the North had desired to abolish slavery, it could have followed England’s example and emancipated slaves without bloodshed. The Northern industrialists, abolitionists, and reformers, however, wanted no part of a peaceful solution. They wanted to destroy the South and her agrarian way of life. And that is what they did. Slavery was just an excuse.
    As Mr. Frantz claims, the Confederacy did represent an antidemocratic movement. In a democracy the majority rules. The will of the majority is law. A democracy is a political system based on the concept that might makes right, where might is expressed in terms of numbers. Mr. Frantz implies as much when he writes that a democratic country cannot exist if any part thereof is free to withdraw. Hence, might makes right. In a democracy numerical might makes right.  (If the U. S. were a true democracy, the whites, being a majority, could agree to exterminate all blacks. Living in a democracy, blacks could not object and secede, for the will of the people has spoken. If he is a good democrat, Mr. Frantz would have to abide by the will of the majority and accept the extermination as the proper, legal, and moral action to take.) Yes, the Confederacy was an antidemocratic movement. The peoples of the Southern States fought to keep the numerically superior North from oppressing them and destroying their way of life.
    To the limited extent that he addresses the right of secession, Mr. Frantz shows his ignorance of the founding of the United States. The States existed before the United States. They created the United States. When ratifying the U.S. Constitution, several States, principally Virginia and New York, explicitly reserved the right to withdraw. Nearly all the leaders of any note of the United States, both North and South, until Lincoln became president acknowledged that States had the right to secede. Most of the Supreme Court rulings that addressed issues arising out of the war implied that the Southern States had the legal right to secede. The war did not prove who was legally or morally right. It did prove that might makes right, which is the lifeblood of a democracy.
    As far as racism is concerned  — and Blacks are as racist as Whites — the Negro has not fared any better in the North than the South. Have not nearly all race riots occurred in the North where Old Glory has always flown?
    I agree with Mr. Frantz that to display and honor the Confederate flag as a symbol of racist feelings is wrong. For the most part, Northerners fighting under the Stars and Stripes had the same, if not a lower, opinion of the Black man as Southerners fighting under the Confederate flag. Therefore, racism could not have been much of an issue or cause of the war.
    Being an antidemocratic person, I do believe that political and social minorities, as well as political and social majorities, should have the right to display their symbols.

Copyright © 1988 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

A Letter: Comparison of Secession of the Baltic States to the Southern States

A Letter: Comparison of Secession of the Baltic States to the Southern States

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1990 responding to Mr. Howard Ruff about an article that he wrote for his newsletter, “The Ruff Times.”]

    In your speech for Bush to give Gorbachev, your analogy with the Southern States fighting for freedom and independence fails on all points. Gorbachev is correct. He is analogous to Lincoln. The Soviet Union is analogous to the United States. The Baltic States are analogous to the Southern States.
    True, South Carolina voluntarily entered the Union. It had the right under the Tenth Amendment to voluntarily leave the Union. Nowhere did (and nowhere does) the United States Constitution deny a State the right to secede. Moreover, both Virginia and New York entered the Union on the expressed condition that they could leave it at will. Until 1861, almost every political scientist and political philosopher in America believed that a State had the legal right to secede freely in peace.
    True, South Carolina did not subject its ordinance of secession to a plebiscite. Some Southern States did, although their plebiscite would not qualify under your criteria because they were undemocratic in that they did not allow women or Blacks to vote, but what State or country did allow women and Blacks to vote in the mid-nineteenth century? South Carolina’s secession convention was popularly elected to consider secession as were all the other secession conventions in the other Southern States. Even without a plebiscite, the support, sacrifice, and loyalty shown by a majority of the woman and Blacks of the South for the cause of Southern independence showed that secession did have popular support even among the disfranchised.
    If denying women and Blacks the right to vote is to deny legitimacy to political action, then the action undertaken by Lincoln and the North would have to be illegal because neither woman nor Blacks were allowed to vote for or against Lincoln or other Northern political leaders. In fact, following your theory that secession is illegal unless supported by a plebiscite in which women and Blacks are allowed to vote, the founding of the United States was (and remains) illegal and unacceptable. The secession of the colonies from Great Britain was not supported by any plebiscite. Not only were women and Blacks not allowed to vote on the question, but neither were white male property owners. To follow your democratic argument to its logical conclusion, everything that the United States did politically before 1920 was illegal because women did not have the right to vote.
    False, Lincoln did not wage war to end slavery. Midway through the war when ending slavery became politically expedient, he did issue his Emancipation Proclamation. However, not only did he not have any legal authority to issue the proclamation, he did not free a single slave with it. His proclamation proclaimed freedom to slaves in areas under the control of the Confederate army while excluding slaves in areas under the control of the Union army.
    Lincoln opposed secession by the Southern States for many of the same reasons that Gorbachev opposes secession by the Baltic States.  Both lusted for power and empire. Still, more important, both wanted the wealth of the seceding States. Lincoln said that he did not care if the Southern States seceded if the United States continued to collect the taxes (tariffs).
    The modern Baltic States came into being in 1917/1918 when they seceded, with the help of Germany, from the Russian Empire just like the Southern Confederation came into being when several Southern States seceded from the United States and then formed the Confederate States of America. During World War II, Russia conquered her lost provinces of the Baltic States and reincorporated them into the Soviet Union just like the United States conquered the Southern States and reincorporated them into the United States. After 1940, the Baltic States became conquered territories just like the Southern States after in 1865. The Baltic States had less of a legal right to secede in 1917-1918 than the Southern States had in 1860-1861. The Baltic States have just as much or just as little right to secede as the Southern States have today.
    If the United States were to support the Baltic States, they would have to admit, if they were at least slightly honest, that they were wrong in subjugating the Southern States in 1861–1865. The Southern States had (and still have) just as much right to leave the United States as the Baltic States have to leave the Soviet Union.
    Another reason that the United States offer no support to the Baltic States is quid pro quo. Russia supported the United States in their suppression of Southern independence. Now the United States can return the favor by supporting the Soviet Union in its suppression of Baltic independence.
    Perhaps the most important reason that the United States refuse to support the Baltic States drive for independence is that the official foreign policy of the United States has been since World War I, and still is, to support and expand communism and the Soviet Empire at all cost to freedom. [With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States have replaced their support of the Soviet Union with support of China and have made China an industrial giant.]
    The United States should show the Soviet Union and the rest of the world by example how to treat secession. They should let the Southern States create a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern State and let them go in peace and friendship. Then the Soviet Union could learn how to let go of the Baltic States. All that the United States have shown the Soviet Union and the rest of the world is how to stifle freedom and independence by stifling secession. [As events turned out, the reverse is true. The Soviet Union allowed the Baltic States to secede in peace and friendship. Thus, it gave the United States the example to follow in the treatment of seceding States. Will the United States learn from the now-defunct Soviet Union about the proper treatment of secession?]
    Gorbachev is correct in claiming that he is acting like Lincoln. The argument that he is not acting like Lincoln is an untenable, unconvincing, and invalid argument. To admit that Lincoln was a despot and his suppression of Southern independence was tyrannical and to argue that when Gorbachev emulates Lincoln, he is nothing more than a despot copying Lincoln’s tyrannical methods, is much more tenable, cogent, and valid.

Copyright © 1990, 2019 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

A Letter: The War Has Not Finished

A Letter: The War Has Not Finished

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1989 responding to an article by Mr. Murray about an article that he wrote for Civil War Times Illustrated.]

        Mr. Murray’s article “The War We Never Finished” is interesting. However, I do disagree with some of his statements and his advocacy of genocide. There are also many omissions and errors in his article.
        He asserts that “the fundamental reason behind secession and the establishment of the Confederacy was the desire to keep the South a white man’s country through the perpetuation of Negro slavery.” If true, slavery was much better protected within the Union than without in spite of the Republican platform.
        With the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and, more important, the Dread Scott decision in 1857, Southerners had won their right to settle in the territories with their slaves. Outside the Union, Southerners would not have this right. The importation of slaves into the United States was illegal. If, as often claimed, slavery needed to expand into the territories to survive, then secession would have destroyed slavery without a war.
        If the Southern States remained in the Union, the United States government would have apprehended runaway slaves and returned them to their owners. The most efficient and effective fugitive slave laws in the history of the United States were enforced on the eve of secession. If the Southern States were an independent country, slaveholders would lack this guarantee. That the United States would enter into a treaty with the Confederacy to return runaway slaves was doubtful.
        Ulrich Phillips describes the fire-eaters, the advocates of Southern independence, as guided by “the conviction, false or true, that an overpowering North was going to use federal authority sooner or later to impose Northern will for the promotion of Northern advantage and the indulgence of Northern impulse, mulcting the South financially and destroying the Southern industrial and social order quite regardless of local consequences.” Hence, the avant-garde of secession were guided as much, if not more, by economic and political reasons as social reasons. This assertion is from a person who averred that the force keeping slavery alive in the South was a desire to protect white civilization and culture.
        The main threat of the Republican Party to slavery was its opposition to slavery in the territories, which was contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling. Anyway, Southerners gave up this right when they seceded. That platform (the platform of the Republican Party) acknowledged the right of each State to control its own domestic institutions.
        The Republican Party’s position had little to do with an abhorrence of slavery and nothing to do with egalitarianism. It had everything to do with the North’s version of white supremacy. Northerners, as well as many Southerners, who moved to the territories, were opposed to slavery in the territories because slavery meant blacks, and they did not want blacks around.
        I have some disagreement with Mr. Murray’s assertion that slavery was the South’s solution to the race problem and the protection of white civilization. He fails even to mention the North’s solution. The North’s solution was to segregate and ostracize blacks to the very lowest rung of society. Although blacks were ostensibly free, they were not much better off than the slaves of the South. Many were materially worse off. Mr. Sidney Fisher, a Philadelphia lawyer and Maryland planter, described the plight of the black man in the North as follows:

But though the negro in the North is not a slave, he is made an outcast and a pariah. . . . He may not lay a finger on one of those three wonderful boxes, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box, . . . by which freemen defend their rights. . . . The spirit of caste drives the negro out of the churches, theatres, hotels, rail-cars, steamboats, or assigns to him, in them, a place apart. It drives him into the cellars, dens and alleys of towns, into hovels in the country; and it does all this without laws. . . .

        The solution to the race problem and the preservation of white civilization often endorsed by many Northerners and by even more Southerners before the advent of the abolitionist was repatriation. Lincoln also supported this solution. If the Confederate’s principal motivation “was the desire to keep the South a white man’s country,” then repatriation would have certainly achieved that goal much more permanently and effectively than slavery.
        General Lee probably summed up the primary reason for secession when he stated, “All the South ever desired was that the Union would continue to be administered as it was originally constituted, in purity and truth.”
        President Davis offered to the Confederate Congress this explanation:

By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as majority to govern the minority. Without control, they learn to listen with impatience to the suggestion of any constitutional impediment to the exercise of their will, and so utterly have the principles of the Constitution been corrupted in the Northern mind that, in the inaugral address delivered by President Lincoln in March last, he asserts a maxim which he plainly deems to be undeniable, that the theory of the Constitution requires, in all cases, that the majority shall govern. And in another memorable instance the same Chief Magistrate did not hesitate to liken the relations between States and the United States to those which exist between the county and the State in which it is situated, and by which it was created. This is the lamentable and fundamental error in which rests the policy that has culminated in his declaration of war against these Confederate States.

        Thus, Confederates feared that Lincoln and the Republican Party were going to subvert the republican government of the United States into a democratic government and destroy the United States as a federation by corrupting them into a consolidated empire. These fears were not ill-founded because both of these evils came to pass when the South was conquered.
        While quoting an abolitionist’s vow to enforce the emancipation proclamation, Mr. Murray fails to comment on its illegality and hypocrisy. The President had no legal authority to issue such a proclamation. He proclaimed freedom to slaves in areas under the control of the Confederates while offering no freedom to slaves in the areas under the control of the Union.
        Mr. Murray also fails to inform the reader that these holy abolitionists were the founders of modern-day terrorism. Their paragon of sainthood, John Brown, is the father of modern-day terrorism.
        As for the Unionists, they exceeded all in duplicity and hypocrisy if they were fighting to preserve the Union. As soon as they fired the first shot — or historically more correct, made the firing of the first shot necessary — they destroyed the Union. As an editorial in The Daily Picayune so aptly put it:

The favorite form of expression in which these resolves are clothed is that, it is the first and highest duty “to maintain the Union.” But a Union upheld by a war, which is made necessary by the revolting of many large and powerful States from an unfriendly and oppressive Government[,] is condemned at once by the act. When armies and fleets are employed to keep a confederation of States together, it is a mockery to send them forth as messengers of union. It is for the subjugation of the minority section to the will of the majority, and every element which makes it a circle of consenting States in a harmonious Union disappears under the crushing process. To talk of war, therefore, as the means of perpetuating a Union is a mockery. It might perpetuate a Government, but that Government will cease to be a federative one, and will contain within itself essential traits of a military despotism — the retention, by superior force, of an unwilling people in political bondage, to a Government which they had unanimously risen to throw off. The Government so established, if such a monstrous thing could ever be established, would have no principles remaining in common with those which make the theory of the constitution of the present Government, a departure from which has brought on the present convulsion. A war to “maintain the Union” is simply, therefore, a war to extinguish the Union, and to maintain a Government such as was never contemplated by any of the States which compose it, and which would not be tolerated by any State now, if there were a question of creating or restoring a Government.

        H. L. Mencken, who may be accused of being an iconoclast, but who can hardly be accused of being a fire-eating unreconstructed rebel, put it more succinctly when commenting on the battle of Gettysburg and the Gettysburg Address:

Think of the argument in it [the Gettysburg Address]. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination —'that government of the people, by the people, for the people,' should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to image anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States: The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country — and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.

        Mr. Mencken answers Mr. Murray’s question about what rights were Southerners denied. They were denied the right of political self-determination. They were denied the ultimate States’ right — the right to secede peacefully. The right of political self-determination and the right to secede were the primary rights and reasons for which the Upper South fought. The States of the Upper South did not secede until President Lincoln made the suppression and denial of these rights perfectly clear by calling for troops with which to invade the States of the Lower South.
        The peoples of the States of the Upper South agreed with Alexander Stephens’ statement:

Under our system of government, as I view it, there is no rightful power in the General Government to coerce a State, in case any one of them should throw herself upon her reserved rights, and resume the full exercise of her Sovereign Powers. Force may perpetuate a Union. That depends upon the contingencies of war. But such a Union would not be the Union of the Constitution. It would be nothing short of a Consolidated Despotism.

        In 1863, a French writer appropriately and descriptively wrote, “Russia and the United States proclaim the liberty of the serf and the emancipation of the slave, but in return both seek to reduce the slavery all who defend liberty and independence.”
        As a result of the War, the Constitution was nullified — or at least its underlying principles were if not its words although the Fourteenth Amendment went a long way toward nullifying its words. The Union was changed from a federation of States to a consolidated empire of provinces.
        The actions of the Unionists just prove Abbot C. Martin’s observation: “A Nazi is simply a Yankee carried to the logical conclusion.”
        Mr. Murray fails to point out that the Black Codes were modeled after New England labor codes. If blacks comprised as large a percentage of the population in the North as they did in the South, undoubtedly most Northern States would have had black codes. Except perhaps for Indiana and Illinois, which made it illegal for Negroes to enter them.
        Mr. Murray notes that the Confederates discovered that “slavery was not necessary to safeguard white supremacy.” He then proceeds to describe discrimination in the South.
        He fails to say, although he hints at it, that the Confederates learned to treat blacks as they were treated in the North — institutionalization of segregation. The difference between the North and the South is that in the North blacks were such a small minority that there was little need to legalize segregation whereas in the South because of the large numbers of blacks, it was — hence the “Jim Crow” laws.
        Perhaps the South’s imitation of the North is why it took the North eighty years to become greedy enough and hypocritical enough to condemn the South for doing exactly what the North was doing. Besides, with mass migration of blacks northward, something had to be done to protect white supremacy in the North by keeping the Negro in his place, i.e., keeping him in the South. So along came minimum wage laws and other labor laws restricting the employment of labor to price the black man out of the Northern labor market. Along came a host of “civil rights” laws, which were intended to be enforced primarily in the South and for the most part have been. Appease the black man in the South, and he will stay there, away for the white Yankee.
        These civil rights laws were written to apply only where there was segregation by statute, hence the South, and not where there was segregation by custom, hence the North. However, the South was not allowed to imitate the North this time. The South was not allowed to replace statute with custom. If the South continued to discriminate against blacks, there would be little incentive for them to remain in their place. Thus, blacks were to be forced on white Southerners as equals while segregated, except for a token here and there, from white Northerners. The only problem the North has had with this strategy is the occasional renegade judge who forgets or ignores the purpose of these laws.
        This time the egalitarians found their allies in the Northern white supremacists and greedy Southern politicians and businessmen.
        Mr. Murray seems to accept and endorse the position of the egalitarians without any critical analysis. The solution offered by the egalitarians during the War and the First Reconstruction is the same solution that they offer now during the Second Reconstruction. Their solution, the solution the Mr. Murray seems to endorse, is genocide through integration. Genocide is hardly a viable solution.
        I am aware of no place or time when two or more races were allowed, or in our case forced, to integrate that the races involved did not proceed to breed themselves out of existence. I hardly believe that breeding the black man out of existence, which is nothing less than genocide, is a solution to any “white supremacy” problem, real or perceived. Is the destruction of the black man through the genocide of integration in the name of equal rights as the egalitarians want to do any better than his destruction through the genocide of mass execution in the name of white supremacy as the egalitarians claim that the Klan wants to do? In the long run, the future that the black man faces under the egalitarians is worse than any offered by any white supremacist. The egalitarians offer him extinction through genocidal integration. At least under the white supremacist he survives, for without the black man the white supremacist would become extinct for want of anyone to be superior to.
        The only really viable solution is the one offered by Lincoln, which is geographical separation. It is the only solution that destroys racial supremacy without genocide.
        That great North Carolinian, Chub Seawell, summarized the whole egalitarian movement of the Second Reconstruction when he said, “The Ku Klux Klan comes marching down the street with a big banner saying ‘white power,’ and the media has a sort of running fit and yells ‘racism.’ Then the NAACP comes marching down the street with a big banner saying ‘black power,’ and the media calls it ‘human rights.’”
        Those who condemn the Confederate flag as being a symbol of slavery, racism, white supremacy, etc. should with more vigor and vehement condemn the Unites States flag. The United States flag flew over slavery, segregation, and white supremacy in the North before the Confederate flag did, while the Confederate flag did, and after the Confederate flag cease to in the South.
        Blacks have shown no hesitation, concern, or sensitivity about imposing, nay forcing, their company on people who do not want to associate with them. They should not be surprised at the lack of sensitivity about their feelings towards the Confederate flag. Some of those who love that flag see black hostility towards it as just another attempt to impose the black man’s will on them to deprive them of one of their few remaining liberties in the black man’s attempt to establish black supremacy. If blacks find the Confederate flag offensive, then they should avoid associating with those who display and revere the flag. But, I guess, after spending a lifetime trying to outlaw freedom of association by forcing their company on others, such an obvious solution cannot be accepted. The Confederate flag must bow to their prejudices.
        We unreconstructed Southerners keep the War alive for a number of reasons. Among the most important are as Alexander Stephens wrote, “Time changes and men often change with them, but principles never!” and as T. S. Eliot wrote, “We fought for lost causes because we knew that our defeat and dismay may be the preface to our successor's victory . . . we fight rather to keep something alive than in the expectation that it will triumph.”

Copyright © 1989, 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

Confederate Memorials

Confederate Memorials

Thomas C. Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter-to-the-editor on removing a Confederate monument. The editor of the local newspaper stated that if the legislature could change the law to allow a hospital in one county to own a hospital in another county, it could change the law to allow local governments to remove Confederate memorials. (A State law prohibits local government from removing Confederate monuments. Also, a State law prohibits a hospital in one county from owning a hospital in another county. Consequently, a special or local law had to be enacted to allow a hospital outside the county of this newspaper to buy the closed hospital in the county of this newspaper.) This letter follows.]

    There is a vast difference between monuments and hospitals — a difference far greater than between the proverbial apple and orange. After all, apples and oranges are both fruits. Hospitals are businesses; monuments are not. (The reason for prohibiting hospitals in one county from operating in another county is to reduce competition and, by that, drive up prices.)
    Confederate monuments commemorate those, including Blacks, who sacrificed to defend their homeland from an invading horde. (A union officer asked a Confederate prisoner why he was fighting. The Confederate soldier replied, “We are fighting because you are here. If you leave and go home, we will stop fighting.” They were not fighting to defend slavery.) To honor those who defend their homeland is why the Confederate monuments were erected — not slavery, which was much better protected in the Union than outside it, or racism.
    If Confederaphobes want to eliminate a symbol of racism and slavery, they need to remove the US flag. It flew over slavery decades before the Confederate flag did, while the Confederate flag did, and after the Confederate flag did. Moreover, the US flag flew over the genocide of the Plains Indians. Also, it flew over the racist Spanish American War, the racist World War II, and the racist Vietnam War. Is there a symbol more racist than the US flag?

✽✽✽✽✽✽✽

    Some more observations follow.

    Having flown over both slavery and Jim Crow, the Stars and Stripes, the US flag, is obviously a racist flag. Therefore, it needs to be replaced. Ideally, the replacement flag would be a red flag with a black image in the center of Martin Luther King, who has been deified and placed above Jesus Christ. (Proof: One may blaspheme Christ without repercussions and often with accolades. If one says anything less than complimentary about King, the best that he can hope for is permanent ostracism.)

    Only in America can a Communist frontman who left a trail of blood and destruction as he fornicated across the country be deified while men who sacrificed their lives to defend their country from an invading horde are demonized.

    Confederate monuments symbolize liberty, limited government, and localism. Thus, they stand for everything that Confederaphobes abhor. Confederaphobes adore the concentration and consolidation of political, economic, and social power into the hands of a few.

    What would happen if Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and allied groups were convinced that the K in a circle on food packages meant “Klan approved?” Furthermore, what would happen if they were convinced that the reason the item was “Klan approved” was because it was made with Black slave labor?  When the mentality of the members of these groups is considered, convincing them of such nonsense should not be difficult. If these people were convinced that the K in a circle meant “Klan approved,” it would be interesting to see how the Jewish controlled media would react.

    If a statue honoring Commander James Waddell (1824 – 1886) were erected on the courthouse grounds in Pittsboro, North Carolina, and if Confederaphobes attempted to remove it, would the “save the whales” folks rally to save the statue? Or, would they join the Confederaphobes in demanding its destruction? As most “save the whales” folks are typically liberals with an anti-Confederate mentality, they would have to make a difficult choice. Why would they rally to save Waddell’s statue? As captain of the CSS Shenandoah, he destroyed the whaling fleet of the United States — a worthy goal for any “save the whale” person.

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

A Conspiratorial View of the War for Southern Independence

A Conspiratorial View of the War for Southern Independence
Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: To reduce the length of this article, the footnotes in the original have been omitted.]

Our story begins in 1845 when Giuseppe Mazzini, an Italian revolutionist, came to the United States and organized the Young American movement. The Young American society was modeled after his Young Italy, a secret society whose objective was to overthrow the established governments of Italy and unite Italy under a republican government.

Mazzini was an Illuminist of the highest degree, probably the highest Illuminist in the world at this time. He was a believer in violent revolutions and a forefather of Communism. He organized the Revolution of 1848, whose purpose was to overthrow the monarchs of continental Europe and replace them with a communist state. Lord Palmerston, the British Foreign Minister, backed Mazzini and his revolution with British diplomacy and money. After the failed Revolution of 1848, Palmerston replaced Mazzini as the head of the Illuminists. Mazzini went on, along with Garibaldi, to unify Italy 1860. (Lincoln offered Garibaldi command of the Union army.)

Illuminists are today’s globalists and supporters of world government and the New World Order. They include international financiers, Trilateralists, Bilderbergers, Communists; Talmudic Jews and Fabian Socialists; members of the Skull and Bones and the Council on Foreign Relations; and the inner most circles of the New Agers, Freemasonry, Rosicrucians, and Zionists.

In 1845, Mazzini organized the Young American movement in the United States, which he directed for some years afterwards. This movement was primarily active in rural areas as a farmer’s movement. It also was active in the abolitionist movement. Mazzini became the godfather of the antislavery campaign. The abolitionists became front men for the Illuminists, who wanted to destroy the United States and their Constitution. Years before the War for Southern Independence, the Young American Masonic conspiracy was active in the South promoting the abolitionist cause.

Also, involved in the founding of the Young America movement was Edwin DeLeon. DeLeon became an adviser to President Jefferson Davis and the chief propagandist of the Confederacy in Europe. While DeLeon led the expansionist wing of the Young America, William Lloyd Garrison, a spiritualist, led the abolitionist wing.

Garrison was a leading abolitionist and a friend of Mazzini. Garrison published the abolitionist newspaper The Liberator, which he started in 1831. Unnamed backers financed his paper, so it could be distributed free through the South.

The abolitionist movement was in effect an undeclared war against the Southern States. (Until the War for Southern Independence, most Americans viewed the United States as a "confederation of states associated under the provisions of a compact, the Constitution of the United States.")

Agitation over slavery, which many in the South had been working to eliminate, would be used to cause the war that the Illuminist wanted. This agitation was to conceal the drive for total control of the economy of the United States. Lincoln knew that the war was over the economy and not slavery, so did most Southerners. (Charles Adams goes as far as to describe the war as one large tax revolt by Southerners. They opposed the high protective tariff that Lincoln promised, which would make Southerners pay proportionally a much larger share, upwards to 80 percent of the total tariffs collected, than did Northerners while Northerners received proportionally a much higher benefit from federal expenditures.) Intelligent people in both sections knew that technological advances would end slavery. However, the Illuminists wanted war. They did everything that they could to cause war while remaining concealed in the background. They succeeded.

The abolitionist movement grew out of the Essex Junto of New England. (The Essex Junto was the New England secessionist movement that calumniated in the Hartford Convention of 1814.) Associated with the abolitionist movement were the pseudo religious cults of Unitarianism and Transcendentalism, which were often called "the New England religion." Both sects reduce Jesus to a mere human albeit an extremely good man. They also rejected the bodily resurrection of Jesus from death.

Transcendentalism was based on the Jewish Cabala. It invalidated the Bible by claiming that no final authority in any religious matter existed. Thus, the abolitionists like Garrison could deny any authority for slavery in the Bible in spite of the many passages to the contrary.

Fervently worked the abolitionists to thwart the Southern emancipation movement. They wanted a destructive war against the South. Emancipation was irrelevant except as an excuse for war.

In 1859 John Brown, the father of modern-day terrorism, led an armed invasion of the South. His objective was to promote a slave revolt. Prominent abolitionists financed his invasion: Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe, Rev. Theodore Parker, Franklin Benjamin Sanborn, Gerrit Smith, and George Luther Stearns. This group became known as the Secret Six. Other leading New Englanders who aided Brown were Samuel Cabot and John Murray Forbes.

Higginson was from a leading New England banking family and a national leader of American Freemasonry. He funneled money from British radicals to abolitionists in Massachusetts who agreed with his goal of abolishing the United States Constitution and dissolving the United States. Stephen Higginson, who had been involved in the Essex Junto, was his grandfather.

Howe was from a wealthy banking family and husband of Julia Howe, who wrote the anti-Southern song the "Battle Hymn of the Republic." Howe and his wife, Julia, founded The Commonwealth, an antislavery tabloid.

Parker was a leading Transcendentalist and Congregationalist minister and an activist in the Masonic tradition. He married into the Cabot family. He was the principal organizer of the Secret Six to finance John Brown’s raid.

Sanborn was a disciple of Parker and Ralph Waldo Emerson. In 1857 he became Brown’s chief agent in New York.

Smith was the first to finance Brown. He was the son of John Jacob Astor’s business partner. Holding more than a million acres, he was the largest land owner in New York. Smith was also a financial backer of Mazzini.

Stearns was the leader of the Free Soilers (the Free Soilers were antislavery agitators in Kansas). He provided Brown and his terrorist gang money and a farm in Kansas from which to operate.

Cabot paid for rifles for Brown to use in Kansas. Later his bank, Cabot Bank, lent Brown money for his terrorist operations. This loan was never repaid, and no attempt to collect it was made.

Forbes was a wealthy railroad builder and a member of the Republican National Committee. Forbes was also a financial backer of Emerson.

Plans for the Harper’s Ferry raid were laid at the Massachusetts State Disunion Convention, which Higginson called in 1857. Its objective was to split the United States. This convention was little more than a continuation of the Essex Junto. However, instead of New England States leaving the Union, the Southern States would be driven out of the Union.

After Brown was executed, he became a martyr of the abolitionists. Emerson, ideological leader of the abolitionists conspiracy, eulogized him and promoted him as a saint. Emerson was a Young America supporter and an agent of the British imperialists.

Years before the War for Southern Independence, Illuminists had sent agents to the South to take control of key positions and to agitate for secession. These agents included John A. Quitman, John Slidell, and Albert Pike. Thus, Illuminists were behind the abolitionists and others in the North provoking the Southern States to secede and the provocateurs in the South advocating secession.

Quitman, a New Yorker, moved to Mississippi and married into a prominent Southern family. He carried a warrant to form a Scottish Rite organization in Mississippi. By 1848 he had been inaugurated as Sovereign Grand Inspector General of the 33rd degree, and all lodges in the South were directed to obey him. Quitman became an outspoken leader of the secessionist movement in the South. (Freemasons controlled the secessionist movement.) He also promoted the annexation of Mexico and financed an invasion of Cuba, which was a goal of Young America. (For his involvement in the planned Cuban invasion, he was indicted.)

Slidell, an agent of the Rothschilds, led the secessionist party in Louisiana. He was from New York and a Masonic protégée of Edward Livingston, Grand Master of New York. (Livingston, who was President Jackson’s Secretary of State, was a coconspirator with Aaron Burr.) Slidell became a commissioner to Europe assigned primarily to the Court of France. After the War, he went to England. Here he became one of the Queen’s Counsels in London and lived the remainder of his life in luxury.

Slidell’s second in command in Louisiana was Judah P. Benjamin, a Jew. Benjamin and Slidell were partners in the same law firm. Like Slidell, Benjamin was also an agent of the Rothschilds. Benjamin became the Attorney General of the Confederate government. Later President Davis appointed him Secretary of War and then Secretary of State. After the War, he too went to England and became one of the Queen’s Counsel for Lancashire.

Albert Pike moved from New York to Missouri in 1831 and then to Arkansas in 1833. He received 4th through 32nd degrees of the Scottish Rite in 1853 and the 33rd degree in 1857. Pike was then tasked with organizing Freemasonry for the political leadership of secession. Pike, a brigadier general, became Indian commissioner for the Confederacy and was sent to Oklahoma. Here he raised an army of Indians, which was so barbarous that President Davis disbanded it. After the war, Pike was convicted of treason (war crimes), but President Johnson soon pardoned him. (Pike was also a speaker and an official at the Republican Party convention in 1855. Freemasonry organized the Republican Party.) After his pardon, Pike would climb to the very pinnacle of Freemasonry and eventually become the most powerful man on Earth as the head of the Illuminists.

Howell Cobb was the chairman of the convention held at Montgomery, Alabama, that officially established the government of the Confederacy. He was the Scottish Rite Supreme Commander.

After the North had pushed the South beyond any reasonable forbearance, the Southern States sought independence. The Northern States were determined to reduce them to provinces to be exploited for the benefit of the North—primarily the banking and industrial interest in the North. Finally war broke out. To provoke a war, Lincoln sent a fleet to reinforce Fort Sumter.

Lincoln was an agent of the Illuminists if not an Illuminist himself. The Illuminist wanted war, and Lincoln gave it to them.

Thus, the Illuminists maneuvered the people of the North and the South into a war that neither wanted. With this war, the Illuminists achieved much of their goal of destroying the United States Constitution. The Reconstruction amendments, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, especially the last two, overturned much of the original Constitution and reduced the States to administrative provinces subservient to the United States government. Perhaps more importantly in furthering the Illuminists’ goal was the precedence set by the imperial presidency of Lincoln during the war and by the Radical Republicans in Congress and the Johnson and Grant administrations during Reconstruction.

Some people claim that a goal of the Illuminists was to split the United States into two small, weak countries that the Rothschilds could easily control. However, Russia prevented such foreign intervention by sending two fleets to the United States, one to San Francesco and the other to New York. This maneuver by the Russians prevented the French and Spanish troops in Mexico from entering the war for the Confederacy. Thus, James de Rothschild lost his domain of Mexico and the Southern States, and Lionel Rothschild lost his domain of the Northern States. Because Russia spoiled this Rothschild dream, it was chosen for the communist revolution and decades of brutal communist rule.

A flaw in this claim is Great Britain. At this time the Rothschilds had as much influence over the British as they did over the French. If they had really wanted to split the United States in two countries, Great Britain would have entered the war as an ally of the Confederacy. The Russian fleet would have been no match for the British fleet, which ruled the oceans. Furthermore, with British rule of the seas, Russia could not send troops to the United States. It could have only aided the United States by marching across Europe. Such action would have been highly unlikely. That Russia could have defeated the combined armies of Prussia and the other German states, Austro-Hungary, and lesser European powers on its way to invade France is highly unlikely. Great Britain, France, Sardinia, and Turkey had just defeated Russia in the Crimean War.

More important, Lord Palmerston was Prime Minister of Great Britain during the War for Southern Independence. At this time, he was a member of the inner most circle of the Illuminists and probably was the highest ranking Illuminist in the world. If the Illuminists had desired an independent Southern Confederation, Great Britain would have come to the aid of the South in spite of any domestic opposition. After all, Lord Palmerston had recognized the government of Louis Napoleon in 1852 in spite of opposition from his party, the Prime Minister, Parliament, and the Queen. He did have the support of the press as his Masonic brothers control the press.

Contrary to what many conspiratorial historians believe, the War for Southern Independence was not fought to split the United States into two or more countries. Members of the Knights of the Golden Circle, Young America, and descendants of the Essex Junto may have believed division was the objective. The objective, however, was not division, but the consolidation of power. True, the Illuminists wanted war, but they did not want war to divide the United States into multiple countries. They wanted war to destroy the United States Constitution and the sovereignty of the States. They wanted war to consolidate political power in the federal government (one government is easier to control than many, which is why the Illuminists want to consolidate all political power into a one world government) and to make the United States a great military power that they would control. All these goals they accomplished. If division were the objective, surely the European powers, which the Illuminists controlled, would have guaranteed a division by direct intervention instead of relying on the Confederate army, which they knew was no matched for the Union army over time. (The Union army essentially had the resources of the world behind it. The Confederacy had barely more than the resources of the Southern States.)

The war ended, like all wars, as a great blood sacrifice to Lucifer. On the altar of Illuminism, 365,000 Yankees and 258,000 Confederates had been sacrificed. Most of them were Aryans.

Southerners had fought to preserve the God-given unalienable rights and liberties of mankind embodied in the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. They fought for the dispersal and decentralization of power as opposed to the illuministic goal of the concentration and centralization of power. The South had the highest concentration of anti-Illuminists of any place in the world. The great Christian revival and conversions that occurred among the Confederate soldiers during the war accented this anti-Illuminism. The Illuminists had to destroy the South. Destroy her they did.

When the War for Southern Independence concluded with the surrenders of Robert Lee, Joseph Johnston, Richard Taylor, Kirby Smith, and Stand Waite and the capture of President Jefferson Davis, Reconstruction began. Reconstruction was merely a continuation of the war on a different level. Reconstruction continued the plundering and destruction of the South.

During Reconstruction, the United States army occupied the South. State governments were not allowed to function without the consent of the federal government. While the newly freed slaves, who knew nothing of government, were allowed to vote, many Aryans were striped of their franchise. A coalition of Negroes, carpetbaggers, and scalawags backed by the United States army controlled the governments of the Southern States during much of Reconstruction. These antisouthern governments imposed ruinous taxation, acquired enormous debts, and in general improvised the South so greatly that more than one hundred years were needed to recover. Furthermore, the United States government undertook a policy to deny Southern Aryans justice.

For the Illuminists, the purpose of the war and Reconstruction was to punish Southerners because they had the audacity to oppose a basic principle of Illuminism—Oriental despotism. Southerners saw in Lincoln an Oriental despot, and his conduct during the war proved them right. Once in office Lincoln ignored the United States Constitution and establish a dictatorial central government. After his assassination, the Radical Republicans in Congress led by Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts and Representative Thaddeus Stevens (Stevens was a bachelor, who lived with a female mulatto) of Pennsylvania continued his and the Illuminists’ program of destroying the South.

How much involvement that the Radical Republicans had with Lincoln’s assassination may never be fully known. They certainly were not disappointed with his death. He showed that he would treat the Southern States much less harshly than the Radical Republicans desired. His death, which the Radical Republicans blamed on the South, was a propaganda victory for them. They used it to whip up popular support in the North and to squash any organized opposition to their draconian Reconstruction program. If high-level Illuminists did not actually order his association, they almost certainly consented to it.

The weapon that the Radical Republicans undertook to use to destroy Southern Aryans was the Negro. They promised Negroes social and political equality, which both President Lincoln and President Johnson opposed. White Northern scum was sent South to fraternize with Negroes in their shacks. Many freed slaves adopted the life of idleness—the United States government had become their new master and was supporting them, as it does even to this day. Many were vagrants, drunkards, and criminals. When the Southern States attempted to bring order by adopting antivagrancy work codes and laws proscribing immorality, miscegenation, and the like, Radical Republicans condemned them. Although these laws copied almost verbatim similar laws in the North, they were not appropriate for the South. The South needed destroying.

Furthermore, the United States government forced the Southern States to enfranchise Negroes while most Northern States did not allow them to vote. To increase the political power of the Negroes, and those who controlled them, many Aryans were denied the vote. Thus, Southern haters could easily manipulate ignorant Negroes to the disadvantage of the Southern States and Southern Aryans.

Negroes were organized into Union Leagues and Loyal Leagues. These societies had elaborate ceremonies, passwords, and solemn oaths. Members spent much time marching and drilling. Stern discipline was imposed. Members were intimidated and promised death if they voted for a Democrat. Negroes who deviated from the society’s directives were often whipped. Northerners filled them with inflammatory speeches promising them land owned by Aryans. Thus, racial hatred was instilled in Negroes.

The destruction of the South and the imposition of martial law on the Southern States were carried out, in part, through the Reconstruction Acts. Under the threat of military might, the Southern States were coerced into ratifying the three Reconstruction amendments to the United States Constitution. Samuel P. Chase, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, supported the Reconstruction Acts and resisted all challenges to them. He led the Court in declaring them constitutional.

Chase was a New York banker. Between 1830 and 1860, he actively aided fugitive slaves in Ohio. He was Lincoln’s Secretary of the Treasury. As Secretary of the Treasury, he developed the national banking system and issued the first paper money of the United States not backed by gold.

Reconstruction formally ended in 1877, but efforts to reconstruct the South into the image of Illuminism continue to this day. One of the most odious elements of Reconstruction still found in the South today is federal supervision of elections.

ReferencesAdams, Charles. For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization. Lanham, Maryland: Madison Books, 1993.

Allen, Gary. None Dare Call It Conspiracy. Seal Beach, California: Concord Press, n.d.

Allen, Thomas Coley. Albert Pike: A Brief Introduction to the Greatest Freemason of the Nineteenth Century. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co., 2007.

Chaitkin, Anton. Treason in America From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman. New York, New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984.

Cuddy, Dennis L. Now Is the Dawning of the New Age New World Order. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2000.

Dunning, William A. Reconstruction, Political and Economic 1865-1877. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1907, 1935.

Fahey, Denis. Grand Orient: Freemasonry Unmasked as the Secret Power behind Communism through Discovery of Lost Lectures Delivered by Monsignor George F. Dillon, D.D. at Edinburgh, in October 1884. New and Revised Edition. Metairie, Louisiana: Sons of Liberty, 1950.

Henry, Robert Selph. The Story of Reconstruction. New York, New York: Grosset & Dunlap: Publishers, 1938.

Hoar, William P. Architect of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History. Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1984.

Johannsen, Robert W. Reconstruction 1865-1877. New York, New York: The Free Press, 1970.

Kelly, Clarence. Conspiracy Against God and Man: A Study of the Beginnings and Early History of the Great Conspiracy. Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1974.

Marrs, Jim. Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids. New York, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2000.

Mullins, Eustace. The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History. Staunton, Virginia: Revelation Book, 1987.

Preuss, Arthur. A Dictionary of Secret and Other Societies. St. Louis, Missouri: B. Herder Book Co., 1924.

Roberts, Archibald E. Emerging Struggle for State Sovereignty. Fort Collins, Colorado: Betsy Ross Press, 1979.

Scott, Otto J. The Secret Six; John Brown and the Abolitionist Movement. New York, New York: Time Books, 1979.

Still, William T. New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies. Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990.

Wardner, James W. Unholy Alliances: The Secret Plan and the Secret People Who Are Working to Destroy America. James W. Wardner, 1996.

Copyright © 2009 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on history.