Republicans, Democrats, and Populists

Republicans, Democrats, and Populists

Thomas Allen

Following Lincoln’s War, the Republicans used the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment to debilitate the Democratic Party and destroy the South, which was the backbone of the Democratic Party. (Ironically, following World War II, both the Republicans and Democrats used them to destroy what remained of the South.) Before the Populists captured the Democratic Party following the last Cleveland administration, the South and the Democrats opposed most of the Republican Party’s policies and agendas.

Later, the Republican Party would use the Fourteenth Amendment to destroy the United States as a whole. (After World War II, Democrats joined the Republicans in using it to destroy the country.) This destruction began during the Eisenhower administration with the Warren Court. With the arrival of the Lyndon Johnson administration, the Democrats began surpassing the Republicans in bringing down the country and have now left the Republicans far behind in their mayhem.

In general, the Republican Party supported and mostly still supports a strong central government, government-business partnerships, mercantilism, protective tariffs,[1] internal taxes, corporate welfare, centralized banking, profligate spending, large-scale public works, growing federal debt, a large standing army, expansionism and imperialism, and a loose, expansive interpretation of the Constitution. It opposed States’ rights, free trade, and a limited, prudent, frugal federal government. Furthermore, it opposed State sovereignty and maintained, in practice, that sovereignty resides in those who really control the federal government. Hamilton is the forefather of the Republican Party.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party supported States’ rights, a small, limited federal government, little or no federal debt, free markets, free trade, tariffs for revenue only, decentralized banking with the States regulating banking, personal freedom, a strong emphasis on the Bill of Rights, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. It opposed a strong centralized government, corporate welfare, protective tariffs, internal taxes, centralized banking, a large standing army, and a large federal debt. Moreover, it supported State sovereignty, i.e., “We the People” of each individual State were sovereign. Jefferson is the forefather of the Democratic Party. (By the time of the Wilson administration, the Democratic Party had abandoned Jefferson for Hamilton.  President Wilson was an admirer and imitator of Lincoln. Both were imperial presidents.[2])

During the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the Democratic Party became the image of the Republican Party. Most of the programs that Roosevelt adopted were extensions of Hoover’s programs. Following World War II, the Democratic Party became more Republican than the Republican Party. After the Republicans brought the country integration, affirmative action, and quotas, the Democrats pushed integration, miscegenation, and amalgamation with more vigor than did the Republicans.  Consequently, the Democratic Party promoted genocide of the White race with more ferocity than did the Republican Party. Additionally, the Democratic Party moved on to promote political correctness, wokeism, diversity-equity-inclusion, queerdom, and other perversions. Today’s Democratic Party is the logical conclusion of Lincoln’s Republican Party.

Ironically, today, the political philosophy of many rank-and-file Republicans is closer to that of the traditional Democratic Party than to the philosophy of the traditional and contemporary Republican Party.

In general, Populists agreed with the fundamental principles of the Republican Party. Their primary disagreement was that they wanted to use the power of the federal government to favor farmers and workers instead of big business. Like Progressives, they favored the envy-driven progressive income tax (the Sixteenth Amendment) and the direct election of US Senators (the Seventeenth Amendment), which weakened the States. Moreover, Populists favored cheap credit, cheap money (low-quality money), inflation, and cheating creditors by paying off debt with less valuable money. Unlike today’s Democrats and most Republicans, Populists want to restrict immigration.

Endnotes

1. Following World War II, the Republican Party abandoned advocating protective tariffs because most major American corporations had become international corporations. Protective tariffs no longer suited their needs. They wanted managed foreign trade. As a result, the Republican Party supported free trade agreements such as NAFTA, which USMCA replaced, and GATT, which managed trade to benefit multinational corporations.

2.  Like Lincoln, Wilson supported and promoted centralized banking and government-business partnerships — only Wilson was more fascist than Lincoln. Additionally, both had little regard for the Constitution of 1788, which they largely ignored. Furthermore, like Lincoln, Wilson suppressed free speech and imprisoned political opponents. Both were warmongers who led the country to an offensive war that could have easily been avoided. However, Lincoln had a more aggressive approach to the racial issue. While Lincoln wanted to ship Blacks out of the country, Wilson settled for segregating the races. Ironically, Glenn Beck ranks Lincoln as the best or second-best President and Wilson as the worst or second-worst president (Jackson is his rival). However, their similarities far outweigh their differences.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People

The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People

Thomas Allen

In “National Constitutionalism: An Originalist and Structuralist Analysis of Border Policy, Immigration and Naturalization Law, and the Fourteenth Amendment,” Preston Terry Damsky argues that the US Constitution that was ratified in 1788 was written for Whites and only for Whites. To support his argument, he uses quotations from the proponents of the Constitution. Some of these quotations follow.

Damsky writes, “Crucially, national constitutionalism rests in large part upon an originalist analysis of the meaning of the phrase ‘the People.’ The theory posits that although the People were an identifiable entity capable of political action prior to the ratification of the Constitution, the ratification process itself — and the political advocacy which propelled ratification forward — produced the controlling definition of the People for the purposes of constitutional interpretation.” Then, he proceeds to quote proponents of ratification of the Constitution.

In The Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes that the Americans are “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” Also, in The Federalist No. 2, Jay writes, “To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people . . . As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.”

In The Federalist No. 14, James Madison writes that “the kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed in defense of their sacred rights, consecrate their Union, and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies.” Additionally, he urges Americans to “[h]earken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that [Americans], knit together as they are by so many cords of affection, can no longer live together as members of the same family; . . . [and] can no longer be fellow citizens of one great, respectable, and flourishing empire.”

The authors of The Federalist spoke with admiration about the people possessing an exclusive ancestral identity that should be jealously guarded. Thus, Americans were one race, the White race. (Blacks and Indians were not true Americans in the sense that the founders used the word.) Moreover, they believed as Alexander Hamilton wrote, “[H]uman nature . . . that its affections are commonly weak in proportion to the distance or diffusiveness of the object;” (The Federalist No. 17.), and thus, “a man is more attached to his family than to his neighborhood, to his neighborhood than to the community at large.” (The Federalist No. 2.)

Another supporter of the Constitution, John Dickinson, remarked, “[T]he people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners and customs, undisturbed by former feuds or prejudices.”

Damsky writes, “In the debate over the slave trade during the constitutional convention of 1787, Roger Sherman opposed the introduction of African slaves into the United States on the grounds that Black slaves ‘prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country.’”

In the 1821 congressional debate on the Missouri compromise, Charles Pinckney, who wrote the Privileges and Immunities clause of the US Constitution, stated that “at the time I drew that constitution, I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could ever have existed in it; nor . . . do I now believe one does exist in it. . . .” Then, he explained “that belonging to the White race was an enduring prerequisite for becoming an American citizen.”

Although he supported abolition, Thomas Jefferson “believed that Blacks could not be made citizens due to the risk of interracial conflict and miscegenation.” Further, he dreamed that the United States would “cover the whole Northern, if not the Southern continent with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms, & by similar laws.” Additionally, he could not “contemplate, with satisfaction, either blot or mixture on that surface.”

Thus, the authors of The Federalist and other supporters of the Constitution were clear that the Constitution was written for one people, i.e., one nationality, i.e., one race. That intent is expressed in the Preamble. When the drafters wrote in the Preamble “‘ourselves and our Posterity’ (with ‘ourselves’ plainly being synonymous with ‘the People’ and ‘our Posterity’ being the posterity of ‘the People’), they conceived of the Constitution applying only to their race, the White race. To them, preserving as a racial matter, a common ancestry and the blood of the People was of great importance. Consequently, the Constitution was drafted and ratified by and for Whites and only for Whites. (Also, see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” by Thomas Allen.)

The great importance that the founding fathers placed on race is shown in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the immigration law of 1803. They placed great importance on Americans sharing a common ancestral heritage, i.e., a common race.  Furthermore, they desired that Americans continue to share that common heritage. 

The first naturalization act passed by Congress enshrined this goal. The Naturalization Act of 1790, which the first Congress passed, limited naturalization to “any alien, being a free white person, who . . . is a person of good character” upon their “taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States.” It was well understood by the members of the Constitutional Convention that a “uniform Rule of Naturalization” would be tied to race. “Thus, the 1790 Naturalization Act ‘discouraged the immigration of non-White people from other countries by creating legal barriers to their economic and political participation.’”

Similarly, the first permanent federal regulation of immigration, which passed in 1803, punished the importation of “any . . . person of colour . . . into any port or place of the United States, which port or place shall be situated in any state which by law has prohibited or shall prohibit the admission or importation of such . . . person of colour.”

Regardless of their support for slavery, most of the founding fathers “unambiguously conceived of the United States as a White country.” Thus, the views of the leaders of the founding generation can safely be assumed to reflect the views of their constituents. Consequently, the original meaning and original intent of “the People” and “posterity” refer to Whites and only to Whites.

Damsky shows that “The People” is synonymous with “nation.” A “nation” or “nationality” is a people who have a common genetic ancestry (of the same biological race [species]), culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country or nation-state.

(Damsky seems to imply there was only one “We the People” when the Constitution of 1788 was ratified. If that is what he meant, he errs. Then, there were 13 “We the People.” Each State was a “We the People.” The Fourteenth Amendment, which brought Lincoln’s constitution into effect, consolidated the 37 “We the People” in 1869 into one “We the People.” More egregiously, it transferred the sovereignty of the 37 “We the People” to those who controlled the federal government, which was not and still is not “We the People” in the aggregate. For more on “We the People,” see “Meaning of 'We the People'” by Thomas Allen.)

The Fourteenth Amendment

Furthermore, Damsky reasons that the Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional because it is incongruent with fundamental principles of the Constitution that it amended. By changing the Constitution from being monoracial to being multiracial by making Negroes citizens, it fundamentally altered the Constitution. Moreover, it was ratified illegally and unlawfully (see “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen).

Because of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States were changed from a White country for Whites only to a multiracial country. Moreover, it usurped the sovereignty of the people of each State and gave it to those who controlled the federal government.

(Although Damsky does not discuss it, another aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment that makes it incompatible with the Constitution is that it changed the fundamental principle of citizenship. Before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, people were citizens of the United States by virtue of being citizens of a State. After the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, people were citizens of a State by virtue of being citizens of the United States.)

Furthermore, because it is contrary to the fundamental intent of the Constitution of 1788, the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave Black males the vote, is also unconstitutional. It supports the Fourteenth Amendment in converting the United States from a monoracial White country to a multiracial country.

Thus, these two amendments dismember the Constitution, and are, therefore, incompatible with its existing framework because they seek to achieve a conflicting purpose. Also, Article V authorizes the amendment of the Constitution; it does not authorize fundamentally changing it, as do the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. As noted above, they changed the United States from a White country to a multiracial country. The United States were founded as a race-based country “for the preservation and betterment of White Americans (the People).” This objective is clearly stated in the Preamble and revealed by the country’s history. Therefore, it is difficult to see how the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments “do not amount to unconstitutional, revolutionary usurpations by the constituted government power.”

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

A Letter: Tariffs

A Letter: Tariffs

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1986 responding to two articles published in The New American magazine, which is associated with the John Birch Society.]

    There seems to be some disagreement between two articles in your April 21 issue. Chamberlain argues correctly that tariffs, especially protective tariffs, are detrimental to the economy. Lockman, apparently in agreement with Ellis and Kurowski, whose book he reviews, argues in favor of tariffs as a primary source of revenue for the U. S. government. He evens favors protective tariffs.
    Lockman surely favors taxing imported oil heavily to subsidize domestic oil producers. U.S. industry and military run on oil. They certainly should not rely on foreign supplies. Let us have autarky for everything that the U.S. government considers essential — especially chrome, platinum, and other strategic metals for which there is little or no domestic sources.
    Certainly, not all the Founding Fathers favored protective tariffs. John Taylor of Caroline and many other leading Southern statesmen and agriculturalists realized that tariffs made the farmer a serf and the agricultural Southern States colonies of the Northern bankers and industrialists.
    To rely on Hamilton’s arguments in The Federalist Papers is to rely on the representative of the bankers and industrialists. Hamilton, the author of the federal deficit, was part of what the JBS [John Birch Society] would call the Insiders.
    Another fallacy of Lockman is that tariffs on imports are paid by foreigners. Tariffs on imports are no more paid by foreigners than sales taxes are paid by retailers. If the objective is to get foreigners to support the U.S. government, an impost on exports would be much more effective.
    Tariffs may be an acceptable source of revenue for government — as long as the tariff is uniform without favor to product or country and is no more than about five percent. Once a tariff becomes protective in nature, it subsidizes inefficiency, incompetence, and the politically powerful. It injures the economy in the ways Chamberlain points out — and worse.
    The Southern colonies have but one hope of regaining their lost liberties, free trade, and low taxes. That hope is to follow the example of the Founding Fathers, who seceded from England. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Copyright © 1986 by Thomas C. Allen.

More economic articles.

Four Poisonous Clauses

Four Poisonous Clauses

Thomas Allen

Since the end of the American Revolution, two political factions or philosophies have fought each other for supremacy: the centralists and the decentralists. For the most part, the centralists have prevailed.

With the adoption of the Constitution, the centralists gained dominance. Lead by James Madison, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris, the centralists maneuvered the people of the States (the bodies politic) as represented in State conventions to ratify the Constitution. The goal of the Federalists, the centralists of that time, was to consolidate all power into the federal government, called the general government in the Constitution, and to reduce the States and the people thereof to insignificance.

(Those who favored adoption of the Constitution were called Federalists, and those who opposed, Antifederalists. Ironically, the Antifederalists, who were decentralists, were true federalists, and the Federalists opposed true federalism.

Later, the Federalists became the Whigs, such as Daniel Webster and Henry Clay. Following the Whigs were Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans. After them came the Progressives, such as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Following the Progressives were the liberal Democrats beginning with Franklin Roosevelt and followed by all Presidents since including Republican Presidents.)

Fortunately, for people who value and love liberty, the Antifederalists got the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution. The first nine amendments prevented (in theory) the federal government from encroaching on the unalienable rights of the people. The tenth amendment limited (in theory) the federal government to those powers that the States delegated it by reserving all powers not delegated to it to the States or the people thereof (bodies politic).

(Some argue that the second through the ninth amendments apply to the States as well as to the federal government. However, federal courts did not apply them to the States until the 1920s when federal courts began to apply them to the States with the incorporation doctrine via the fourteenth amendment. Since then, federal courts have applied the second through the ninth amendments to the States with much more vigor than they have applied them to the federal government. Although the first amendment is worded clearly and strictly to apply to Congress, federal courts have applied it to the States. Thus, federal courts zealously apply the first through the ninth amendments to the States. However, federal courts are reluctant to apply the first through the tenth amendments to the federal government — especially the tenth amendment. Since all State constitutions contain a bill of rights, the only reason for federal courts to apply the first nine amendments to the States is for the federal government to gain more control over the States and the people thereof.)

Despite the Antifederalists’ attempts to restrain the federal government, the Constitution contains four clauses that have achieved the Federalist goal of concentrating all power in the federal government and reducing the States and the people thereof to insignificance. These four clauses are the General Welfare Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Supremacy Clause. (Antifederalists objected to these clauses but they failed to eliminate or modify them to protect the States and the people thereof from a metastatic cancerous federal government.)

General Welfare Clause

Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

“General Welfare” is also mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution. However, preambles do not and are not intended to grant any authority or power. Preambles serve to state the purpose of a document in broad strokes. Consequently, the Preamble of the Constitution cannot be used as a grant of power to the federal government.

Expanding the General Welfare Clause beyond its intent, the federal government has established the welfare state and everything else that it claims benefits the welfare of the people. This clause has been used to extend the powers of the federal government far beyond those explicitly listed in the Constitution.

Contrary to popular beliefs and court rulings, the General Welfare Clause was intended to restrict the powers of the federal government — not to expand them. This Clause was never intended to give the federal government boundless, unspecified powers. According to Madison, the purpose of the General Welfare Clause was to restrain Congress in the exercise of the powers delegated to it — primarily the power to regulate commerce with foreign countries and taxation. According to Hamilton, the General Welfare Clause did not grant the federal government any powers beyond those specifically listed.

Thus, any law enacted was to benefit all the States and the people thereof. Consequently, no law was to benefit one State, region, or group of people more than another. For example, protective tariffs and import quotas benefit the protected industry at the expense of others. Likewise, subsidies to agriculture benefit one segment at the expense of others. Other examples are guarantying loans; making loans; forgiving student loans; unemployment insurance; preventing people injured by vaccines from suing vaccine manufacturers; replacing the gold-coin standard with a fiat-money standard; bailing out banks; constructing roads, waterways, and airports; giving grants to States, universities, and private organizations and businesses; pursuing foreign interventionism; and favoring some States, regions, or groups over others. All these benefit one easily identifiable segment at the expense of others. Even welfare-state programs violate the General Welfare Clause because they forcibly take from producers and give to nonproducers, and, by that, they benefit some at the expense of others.

According to Roger Sherman, who got the General Welfare Clause inserted in the Constitution, its purpose was to clarify that taxes could only be collected to carry out the specifically delegated powers in Article 1, Section 8. Thus, the intent of this Clause was to limit the power to raise money by taxes, duties, and imposts. According to Madison, the intent of this Clause was also to limit spending money to carrying out the powers delegated to Congress.

The General Welfare Clause requires that federal laws benefit all the States and the people thereof — not to expand the power of the federal government. Its intent was to preserve State governments and not to govern individuals. Its purpose was to keep the federal government within narrow limits.

  If the General Welfare Clause was as broad as the expansionist claim, the enumeration of powers that follows it would not be needed. Moreover, if citing the General Welfare Clause can justify any purpose, then the entire Constitution is reduced to this one phrase; the remainder of the Constitution becomes merely a redundancy.

As can be seen from the above discussion, the General Welfare Clause has come to mean the opposite of its original intent. Before the twentieth century, federal courts interpreted the General Welfare Clause narrowly. Beginning in the 1930s, federal courts began giving it a broad, nonrestrictive interpretation. Now, the General Welfare Clause justifies the federal government taxing and spending on whatever it desires. Moreover, this Clause can be and has been used to force States to comply with whatever national standard of which the federal government can dream. Thus, the General Welfare Clause has been used to further reduce the States to insignificance and to further limit the liberties of the people.

Commerce Clause

Article I. Section 8. Paragraph 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

One of the most misconstrued and misapplied clauses of the Constitution is the Commerce Clause. This Clause has been expanded to cover not only intrastate commerce but also personal activities that do not involve trade or exchanges for value. With this Clause, the federal government has usurped the power to regulate every conceivable activity in the country.

Part of the problem in understanding the intent of the Commerce Clause is that the terms “regulate” and “commerce” have changed meaning.

“Regulate” as used in the Constitution means to “make regular,” i.e., to remove conditions that have a negative impact. Now, most people use “regulate” in the sense of control, restrain, or subdue, i.e., to impose conditions that have a negative impact.

When the Constitution was written, “commerce” was understood to mean “trade” or “exchange” of goods. As such, it did not cover manufacturing, agriculture, mining, and other means of producing goods for trade or exchange. Moreover, it did not cover consuming, discarding, or doing anything else with goods besides exchanging them. (The States retained the authority to regulated these production and consumption activities.) Thus, the Commerce Clause covers the exchange of goods, but it does not cover the production or consumption of goods. Now, the federal government uses this Clause to regulate every conceivable economic or gainful employment.

The original purpose of the Commerce Clause was to prevent the States from restricting trade across state lines and to authorize the federal government to restrict international trade for the benefit of domestic businesses. Domestically, the intent of the Commerce Clause was to create a free trade zone between the States and, by that, encourage commerce between States. As for foreign trade, the Clause enabled the federal government to enact trade barriers against countries that restricted shipping and imports from the United States. Thus, the intent of the Commerce Clause was to promote trade by preventing the States from restraining interstate commerce and by authorizing the federal government to retaliate against countries that restricted trade with the United States.

However, federal courts, especially in the twentieth century, have corrupted the Commerce Clause to justify the federal government enacting all sorts of laws that restrain commerce. Examples are minimum-wage, price controls, limitations on the production of crops, preventions of farmers raising crops for personal use, criminalization of growing cannabis for personal use, endangered species laws, and environmental laws. It has also been used to create most federal regulatory agencies, such as the FTC, SEC, EPA, and FDA. Constitutionally, these activities come under the jurisdiction of the States.

Necessary and Proper Clause

Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

With a long history of misinterpretation, the Necessary and Proper Clause has become one of the most transformed parts of the Constitution. Federal courts have used this Clause to justify nearly everything that the federal government wants to do — especially in conjunction with the General Welfare Clause. Giving this Clause a broad interpretation, federal courts have given Congress extensive power to enact any law that it fines convenient or useful. With the blessings of the federal courts, Congress has used this Clause to enact any law that it claims is necessary and proper.

The Necessary and Proper Clause was never intended to create any new powers or any implied or inherent powers. (If Congress has implied powers, no one would know where Congress’ powers stopped, and constitutional restrictions on Congress’ power become meaningless.) Its intent was to allow incidental acts that were necessary for implementing the powers delegated to Congress.

Nevertheless, federal courts have interpreted the Necessary and Proper Clause to vest complete and unlimited legislative power in the federal government. Using this Clause, the federal government has seized private property in the interest of historical preservation, has restricted the medical use of alcohol, has detained indefinitely lawbreakers, and has even established centralized banking.

Although the Necessary and Proper Clause was not intended to destroy the States, it has been used to reduce the significance and importance of the State by expanding the power of the federal government far beyond its constitutional bounds.

Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Paragraph 1: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which they shall make, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

With the Supremacy Clause, the federal government has reduced the States and the people thereof to insignificance. Using this Clause, especially in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government has nullified the tenth amendment.

Originally, the purpose of the Supremacy Clause was to ensure that unconstitutional laws were not supreme or binding. Only federal laws implementing the powers specifically delegated to Congress were constitutional; all other laws that Congress enacted were unconstitutional (today, the vast majority of the US statutes are unconstitutional).

Now, the federal government uses the Supremacy Clause to ensure that federal laws and treaties have precedence over State laws and State constitutions except in the few incidences where the federal courts have declared the federal law unconstitutional. No longer do federal laws have to be made pursuant to the Constitution, i.e., be constitutional, to have precedence over State laws. Using this Clause, the federal government has preempted or limited States regulating healthcare, medicine, banking, securities, transportation, labor, employment, meat inspection, and a host of other activities that are constitutionally reserved for the States. Thus, Congress, the President, and the federal courts have used this clause to impose their predilections on the States and people thereof.

Unlike today, the Supremacy Clause originally acknowledged that the Constitution was a compact among the States. It acknowledged that the federal government had only the few powers that the States delegated to it. All other powers, the States retained. Now, the federal government uses this Clause to subordinate the States and the people thereof to its whims.

Using the Supremacy Clause to justify the doctrine of judicial review, federal courts have declared a monopoly on deciding which laws and acts are constitutional and which are not. However, this Clause does not give the federal courts such a monopoly. It merely requires federal courts to uphold the supreme law of the land. Consequently, the States individually also have the right to rule on the constitutionality of a law — and even more so because they created the federal court system.

(Oddly, the US Supreme Court has ruled that although when a statute of Congress does not preempt a State’s law, regulations of regulatory agencies can preempt State laws. Apparently, regulations of federal regulatory agencies trump both Congressional laws and the Constitution.) 

Conclusion

With these four clauses, the centralists have expanded the federal government beyond the wildest dreams of the Federalists. Using these four clauses, federal courts, Presidents, and Congresses have greatly concentrated power in the federal government. Along with the fourteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth amendments, these four clauses have reduced the States and the people thereof (bodies politic) to insignificance. Now, the States have only those powers that the federal government condescends to give them. Likewise, the people have only those freedoms that the federal government condescends to allow them. Thus, liberty dies! The spirit of 1776 is no more. The spirit of 1984 has risen.

References

Abbott, Greg. Restoring the Rule of Law with the States Leading the Way.

Benner, David. Compact of the Republic: The League of States and the Constitution. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Live & Liberty Publishing Group, 2015.

Rothbard, Murray N. Conceived in Liberty: The New Republic, 1784–1791. Volume V. Editor Patrick Newman. Auburn, Alabama: Mises Institute, 2019.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Statists Verse Libertists

Statists Versus Libertists

Thomas Allen

    Throughout the history of America, two political and economic philosophies have competed for control of America. They are the philosophies of the statist party or Hamiltonians and the libertist party or Jeffersonians. Today, the statist party has clearly won the contest. A third but insignificant philosophy, anarchism, also exists.

    Below is a description of the statist party, the libertist party, and the anarchist party and a comparison of the philosophies of the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians.

Statist Party
    The statist party is the party of the pietists (remaking man in the image of the pietist: hence, public schooling, anti-drug and anti-smoking laws, prohibition [ever lowering of driving under the influence standard], democratizing the world, etc.);  the progressive (remaking man in the image of the progressive: hence public schooling, welfare state, governmentally provided healthcare, democratization of the world, globalism, foreign interventionism, etc.); Hamiltonians (protection and promotion of big business: hence, mercantilism, commercialism, central banking, protective tariffs and import quotas, fair trade, managed trade, globalism, extensive regulation of manufacturing and commerce, agribusiness, warfare state, etc.), hence:

    ‒ adherents and advocates of ever-growing government,
    ‒ concentration and centralization of political power,
    ‒ welfare-warfare state,
    ‒ military-industrial complex,
    ‒ large standing armed force,
    ‒ socialism, state capitalism, corporatism, fascism,
    ‒ empire building, imperialism, globalism,
    ‒ fiat money,
    ‒ civil rights movement,
    ‒ parental government,
    ‒ false diversity and amalgamation,
    ‒ rule of man although statutes and regulations abound, etc.

    Statists trust politicians and bureaucrats and distrust the people.

    It is the party of mainline Republicans, Democrats, progressives, populists, modern liberals, New Left, neo-conservatives, living constitutionalists, socialists, fascists, communists, authoritarians, totalitarians, Zionists, etc.

    Government is the answer: What is the problem?

Libertist Party
    The libertist party is the party of the Jeffersonians (agrarianism, local business, artisanism, decentralized banking, voluntary markets [free enterprise, free markets, free trade], limited government, etc.), hence:

    ‒ adherents and advocates of small government (government restricted to the protection of life, liberty, and property from theft, fraud, and trespass; remaking man is not a proper function of government),
    ‒ dispersal and decentralization of political power (states’ rights),
    ‒ personal liberty (but not libertinism) and freedom,
    ‒ personal responsibility,
    ‒ individualism,
    ‒ self-reliance,
    ‒ home and private schooling,
    ‒ commodity money,
    ‒ laissez-faire economics,
    ‒ nationalism, localism,
    ‒ noninterventionist foreign policy,
    ‒ small standing armed force with well-armed local militias,
    ‒ true diversity and preservation,
    ‒ rule of law although statutes and regulations are sparse, etc.

    Libertists trust the people and distrust politicians and bureaucrats.

    It is the party of paleo-conservatives, Old Right, classical liberals, strict constitutionalists, libertarians, etc.

    Freedom is the answer: What is the problem?.

Anarchist Party
    The anarchist party adheres to and advocates the abolition of all governments and governmental authority, which are replaced by voluntary cooperation among individuals and groups and ranges from extreme individualism (adherents of economic freedom) to collectivism (rejecters of economic freedom). Anarchism is highly unstable and has seldom existed. It generally and quickly degenerates into some form of statism imposed by the stronger internal factions or by external conquering powers.

Hamiltonians Verse Jeffersonians
    Hamilton was a statist. Jefferson was a libertist. Since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, two philosophies, that of Hamilton and that of Jefferson, have competed to control the political and economic views and policies of America. The following compares the philosophy of the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians.

Government.
    Hamiltonians trust politicians and bureaucrats and believe that:
    ‒    government should be highly centralized and unlimited and unrestrained;
    ‒    the best government is that which governs most;
    ‒    the purpose of government is national greatness;
    ‒    citizens are servants of the government; the government is the master of the people;
    ‒    taxes should be high with an abusive and arbitrary tax collection system and a standing army of tax collectors; taxes should be pervasive and confiscatory;
    ‒    governmental debt should be large;
    ‒    executive power should dominate;
    ‒    judicial activists should centralize all power into the U.S. government and then into the imperial president.

    Jeffersonians trust the people and believe that:
    ‒    government should be limited, restrained, and decentralized;
    ‒    the best government is that which governs the least;
    ‒    the purpose of government is to protect the lives, liberties, and property of its citizens;
    ‒    citizens of the States are the masters of the government; the government is the servant of the people;
    ‒    taxes should be minimal, and tax collection minimized with the least intrusion possible;
    ‒    government should be frugal and debt-free;
    ‒    the executive power should not dominate; the branches of government should be equal with the legislative branch being first among equals;
    ‒    judges apply the law instead of making it and ensure that laws comply with the Constitution interpreted as it is written, strictly and expressly.

Constitution.
    Hamiltonians believe that:
    ‒    the Constitution is  living, dynamic, and flexible;
    ‒    the Constitution is a grant of power;
    ‒    the Constitution grants the U.S. government implied powers;
    ‒    original sovereignty is in the nation and not the States; the U.S. government is sovereign;
    ‒    the “general welfare” clause authorizes the U.S. government to enact whatever it wants if it claims that it is for the general welfare; Congress may spend money on anything that it declares to be for the general welfare;
    ‒    the interstate commerce clause authorizes the U.S. government to regulate anything that it deems may affect commerce including intrastate commerce and allows the U.S. government to plan every economic enterprise;
    ‒    the U.S. Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means; it is the final arbitrator of the constitutionality of a law;
    ‒    no State may leave the union; any that attempt to must be forced back in.

    Jeffersonians believe that:
    ‒    the Constitution is to be construed strictly;
    ‒    the Constitution is a restrain on the powers of the U.S. government;
    ‒    the Constitution does not grant the U.S. implied powers; it only grants specific and expressly delegated powers;
    ‒    original sovereignty resides in the States; the people as States are sovereign; the U.S. government has only delegated sovereign powers;
    ‒    the “general welfare” clause grants no powers; it authorizes Congress to spend money on the enumerated powers and only if it is for the general welfare as opposed for the benefit of a specific group or region;
    ‒    the interstate commerce clause authorizes the U.S. government to regulate interstate commerce to promote free trade among the States and to prevent States from enforcing protective policies;
    ‒    the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion does not decide the meaning of the Constitution; the President, Congress, and States are equal to the Supreme Court in deciding the meaning of the Constitution; the people themselves, usually but not necessarily acting through their respective States, are the final arbitrator of the constitutionality of a law;
    ‒    States may peacefully leave the union.

Federalism.
    Hamiltonians oppose real federalism and believe in:
    ‒    nationalism with the U.S. government being supreme;
    ‒    opposition to states’ rights;
    ‒    the U.S. government being the master of subordinate puppet States;
    ‒    the States being administrative units of the U.S. government;
    ‒    the consolidation of political power;
    ‒    the people being citizens of and owing their allegiance to the United States.

    Jeffersonians support real federalism and believe in:
    ‒    State governments being as strong as if not stronger than the central government;
    ‒    supporting states’ rights;
    ‒    the States keeping the U.S. government from exceeding its bounds;
    ‒    the States being free and independent sovereigns;
    ‒    dispersal of political power;
    ‒    the people being citizens of and owing their allegiance to their respective States.

Economics.
    Hamiltonians lack confidence in the market economy and believe in:
    ‒    subsidizing business in general and the affluent in particular;
    ‒    corporate welfare; mercantilism; fascism; business-government partnership;
    ‒    governmental (centralized) economic planning;
    ‒    protective tariffs;
    ‒    centralized and highly regulated banking; banking and government partnership;
    ‒    politically controlled money supply; politics driving monetary growth;
    ‒    the government and central bank manipulating the economy, thus creating the boom-bust cycle;
    ‒    government being the best judge of excellence in manufacturing.

    Jeffersonians have confidence in the market economy and believe in:
    ‒    laissez-faire economics without subsidies or centralized planning;
    ‒    government and business remaining separate with the government functioning as an umpire to ensure all follow the same rules; no corporate welfare or subsidies;
    ‒     free trade;
    ‒    decentralized banking with minimal regulation; separation of banking and government;
    ‒    market controlled money supply; economics driving monetary growth;
    ‒    the consumer being the best judge of excellence in manufacturing.

Foreign policy.
    Hamiltonians advocate:
    ‒    interventionism and imperialism;
    ‒    a mercantilist empire;
    ‒    a foreign policy that advances the interest of the politically powerful and politically connected, i.e., multinational corporations and international financiers;
    ‒    a large standing army;
    ‒    foreign military alliances;
    ‒    foreign aid to buy and control foreign governments.

    Jeffersonians advocate:
    ‒    nonintervention (do not interfere in the affairs of other countries);
    ‒    no empire building;
    ‒    a foreign policy that defends America;
    ‒    no standing army;
    ‒    no foreign military alliances;
    ‒    no foreign aid.

Freedom.
    Hamiltonians believe in:
    ‒    the government granting, permitting, and limiting freedom;
    ‒    the welfare state, i.e., making as many people as possible dependent on the government.

    Jeffersonians believe in:
    ‒    the government guaranteeing and protecting freedom;
    ‒    the separation of charity and state; making as many people as possible independent of the government.

Copyright © 2011 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on politics.

Some Early American Conspiracies

Some Early American Conspiracies
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in original are omitted.]

In the first three decades following the American Revolution and the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation, several important conspiracies occurred. Among them were the Illuminati Conspiracy, the Genet Conspiracy, the Burr Conspiracy, and the Essex Conspiracy.

Illuminati Conspiracy
Before the Bavarian Order of the Illuminati had disbanded in Europe, it had established 15 lodges in the United States. Among these lodges was the Columbian Lodge of the Order of the Illuminati established in 1785 in New York City. Its members included Governor DeWitt Clinton, Charles Dana, Horace Greeley (a spiritualist), and Clinton Roosevelt (an ancestor of Franklin Roosevelt).[1]

Several American leaders during the era of the founding of the United States were Illuminati or at least closely allied with the Illuminati. Among the founding fathers who can be counted as an Illuminatus is Thomas Jefferson. (He belittled those who saw danger in the Illuminati and praised Weishaupt when the Illuminati swept the country in 1797.) He was so high in the organization that he had the insignia of the Illuminati inscribed on the back of the Great Seal of America.[2] Another prominent Illuminatus was Thomas Paine.[3]

The Genet Conspiracy
After the American Revolutionary War had concluded, the French government, which the Illuminists controlled, sent Edmond Genet as its first ambassador to the new republic of the United States. Genet arrived in Charleston in 1793. Upon his arrival, he began acting like a monarch, and his fellow Freemasons treated him as such. He came seeking repayment of America’s debts to France. (France needed money for war with England and revolution). He pursued allowing French privateers to use American crews. As Genet’s insolence grew, Jefferson, who was Secretary of State, was pressured to rescind Genet’s credentials. Jefferson, who was an ardent supporter of the French Revolution and a Rosicrucian and Freemason himself, refused. Rather than act against a fellow Freemason, he resigned. Washington then appointed Edmund Randolph as Secretary of State.

Genet and his American supporters organized Democratic Clubs throughout the United States. These clubs supported the French revolutionists and opposed the Federalists, even to the point of using mobs to threaten supporters of Alexander Hamilton. They were modeled after the Jacobin clubs that had been advocating revolution in France.[4] The objective of the Democratic Clubs was to subvert orderly traditions of the United States. Washington believed that these clubs were behind the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. After Washington openly denounced them, most seemed to have disbanded.[5]

Genet began organizing an army to invade Florida and Louisiana. (According to Mullins, the objective was to take these territories from Spain and set up an independent country from which to invade and reconquer the United States for England.) When President Washington learned of this scheme, he ordered his Secretary of State, Randolph, to seize Genet’s credentials and send him back to France. However, Randolph delayed taking any action. Meanwhile, the French government sent a new ambassador, Joseph Fouchet, and recalled Genet. (Genet belonged to the Girondist faction, which Marat had defeated.)[6] As Genet’s return to France would have meant his death, Washington allowed him to remain in the United States.

In 1795, Washington obtained documents on Randolph’s financial dealings with Fouchet. These documents evidenced bribery and treason. Washington demanded Randolph’s resignation.[7]

The Burr Conspiracy
In the United States, British intelligence worked closely with John Jacob Astor, a Freemason, and Aaron Burr. Astor was the treasurer of the Grand Lodge of New York between 1798 and 1800. In 1800, the East India Co. gave Astor free entry to all the ports that it controlled throughout the world. Thus, he gained an enormous financial advantage over his competition. Astor began making his fortune trading furs. Later as an agent for British intelligence before and after the American Revolution, he received part of the British opium trade with China. His brother, Henry Astor, who had become rich during the American Revolutionary War by selling to the colonists cattle that the British had taken from the colonists, provided the initial funds for his business. Later, John Astor would make a fortune selling opium to the Chinese. To repay this favorable treatment by the East India Co., he funded Aaron Burr’s plot to replace President Jefferson.[8]

During the Revolutionary War, Burr had worked as a double agent for the British. Later he became the attorney for Astor’s commercial activities.

In 1790, Governor George Clinton appointed Burr Attorney General of New York. That same year, the legislature made him Land Commissioner when it enacted into law the sell of state-owned land at a low price to encourage settlers. As Attorney General and Land Commissioner, Burr allowed land speculators with whom he was associated to buy millions of acres at an extremely low price and on long-term credit.[9]

Through his Masonic connections, he fixed elections in New York. In 1798, he gained control of the Society of St. Tammany in New York City, which had been incorporated in 1789. (This society became the infamous Tammany Hall, which corrupted and controlled the politics of New York City from the time Burr gained control until the 1930s.)

Hamilton and Burr founded the Manhattan Company in 1799. This company was chartered to provide water for New York City. However, Burr turned the company into a bank, the Bank of Manhattan Co.

In 1801, Burr became President Jefferson’s Vice President. He persuaded Jefferson to appoint Albert Gallatin as Secretary of the Treasury. Gallatin was a Swiss banker and cousin of Jacque Necker, whose financial policies help cause the French Revolution. Like Burr, Gallatin was an agent of British intelligence during the American Revolutionary War and continued to serve as a British intelligence agent during the Jefferson administration. Gallatin was a friend of Voltaire, who was his father-figure.[10]

In 1804, in a duel with Alexander Hamilton, Burr shot and killed Hamilton. Hamilton had caused Burr to lose his election for governor of New York and had supported Jefferson over Burr for President. If Burr were ever to succeed in dividing the United States for the British, he had to eliminate Hamilton.

After killing Hamilton, Burr fled New York with money from John Astor. (For several more years, Astor continued to give money to Burr.) He went to Philadelphia where he met with Colonel Charles Williamson of British intelligence, who was Burr’s client and confidant. Burr offered his services to the British in setting up a country made from the territory west of the Appalachians.[11]

Williamson had returned the United States following the American Revolutionary War as an agent of a consortium of London financiers who had bought large tracts of land in New York. To acquire the land for his principals in England, he had become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Williamson was also an agent of Henry Dundas (Viscount Melville) and William Pitt (Prime Minister). Dundas, a close associate of Shelburne, was the political boss of Scotland. While serving as the British Secretary of State, Dundas wrote in 1787 a master plan to extend the opium traffic into China, which the East India Co. had been pushing since the American Revolutionary War. He also authorized and instructed British warships to seize American vessels suspected of trading with French colonies and to impress their crews into the British navy, which eventually led to the War of 1812. (Later he became Minister of War [1794-1801] and Lord of the Admiralty [1804-1805].)

Through Williamson, Burr became an agent of Dundas.[12] With covert aid from the British, Burr established his new country. This scheme became known as the “Western Conspiracy.”

James Workman, a British intelligence officer, drew up a plan in 1800 for Dundas to bring the Western Hemisphere under British control. This plan was the basis of Burr’s Western Conspiracy. The plan called for the conquest of the Spanish colonies starting with Louisiana, which was then a Spanish colony, using Irishmen, and then resettling the Irish in these territories.[13]

Workman and Edward Livingston aided Burr in his conspiracy to take the western territories from the United States. (John Jacob Astor had financed Livingston’s move to Louisiana, where Livingston became Grand Master of the Louisiana Masonic Lodge.) These two became the leaders of the Mexican Association. The purpose of this Association was to raise an army. Then with the aid of the British, this army would seize the Louisiana Territory, which the United States had recently obtained from France.[14]

The conspiracy began to unravel as people began to expose it. Burr was later tried for treason and was acquitted. Edmund Randolph, former Grand Master of Virginia, was his attorney. Chief Justice John Marshall, then Grand Master of Virginia, presided over the case. In spite of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, Marshall got him acquitted.[15] After the trial, Burr fled to Canada and then to England with money that John Jacob Astor had given him. In the end, all the main conspirators escaped conviction. Shortly before the War of 1812 began, Burr returned to the United States. Through the influence of Albert Gallatin and Dolly Madison, President James Madison’s wife, the charges against him were forgotten.[16]

Edward Livingston, one of Burr’s coconspirators later became President Andrew Jackson’s Secretary of State. Just before his appointment, Livingston became Grand High Priest of the Masons of the United States.

Essex Conspiracy
After the collapse of the Western Conspiracy, the Essex Junto, which began in 1798, grew in intensity. A group of conspirators in and around Essex County, Massachusetts, worked with agents of British intelligence to cause the secession of the New England States. Massachusetts Senator George Cabot led this conspiracy.[17] Others involved in this conspiracy were Stephen Higginson (a merchant and brother-in-law of judge John Lowell), judge John Lowell, John Lowell (son of judge John Lowell), Theophilus Parsons (Massachusetts supreme court justice), Timothy Pickering (Massachusetts senator and previously Postmaster General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State), and judge Tapping Reeve (Aaron Burr’s brother-in-law). Senator James Hillhouse of Connecticut, Senator William Plumer of New Hampshire, Senator Uriah Tracy of Connecticut, and Roger Griswold were also involved in the conspiracy.[18] Working for the British to foment this conspiracy were Henry Dundas (chief of British special operations) in Great Britain and Charles Williamson in the United States and Williamson’s two agents, Aaron Burr and General Francisco de Miranda.[19] However, the most important British agent involved in starting this conspiracy was Sir John Robinson, who was one of the highest ranking agents in British intelligence. He came to the United States between 1796 and 1797 and laid the foundation of what became the Essex Junto.[20]

The conspiracy suffered a setback in 1808 when John Quincy Adams exposed it to President Jefferson. However, the events leading to the War of 1812 and the war itself revived it. Throughout the war, these conspirators thwarted the United States government’s war effort. While raising money for the British in Canada, they threatened people who purchased bonds of the United States government. They were also involved in smuggling war materiel into Canada.

The Essex Junto conspiracy culminated in 1814 in the Hartford Convention, which sought secession of the New England states. Their endeavors eventually resulted in the Southern States declaring their independence.

Endnotes
1. William Guy Carr, The Conspiracy to Destroy All Existing Governments and Religions, p. 10. Salem Kirban, Satan’s Angels Exposed (Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania: Salem Kirban Inc., 1980), p. 151. Eustace Mullins, The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History (Staunton, Virginia: Revelation Book, 1987), p. 132. William T. Still, New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990), pp. 92-93.

2. Carr, p. 10. Nesta H. Webster, World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization (Editor Anthony Gittens; seventh edition; Palmdale, California: Omni Publications, 1994), p. 87.

3. James W. Wardner, Unholy Alliances: The Secret Plan and the Secret People Who Are Working to Destroy America (James W. Wardner, 1996), p. 47.

4. Jim Marrs, 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), p. 220.

5. William P. Hoar, Architect of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History (Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1984), pp. 9-11.

6. Hoar, p. 9. Mullins, p. 185.

7. Mullins, pp. 185-186.

8. Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman (New York, New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984), pp. 26, 66. Mullins, p. 137.

9. Chaitkin, p. 27.

10. Ibid., p. 21.

11. Chaitkin, pp. 69ff. Mullins, p. 138.

12. Chaitkin pp. 27-31.

13. Ibid., pp. 56-63.

14. Ibid., pp. 72-73.

15. Chaitkin, p. 75. Mullins, p. 139.

16. Chaitkin, p. 80.

17. Mullins, p. 136.

18. Chaitkin, pp. 67, 92, 116.

19. Ibid., pp. 66-67.

20. Ibid, p. 95.

[Editor’s note: The list of references in the original is omitted.]

 More articles on history. 

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Secret Societies and Conspiracies in the Founding of America

Secret Societies and Conspiracies in the Founding of America

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in original are omitted.]

Secret societies and conspiracies were highly involved in the founding of American. Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry were heavily involved. Two of the most important conspiracies were the Arnold conspiracy and Randolph conspiracy.

Rosicrucians
In 1693, a movement began in Europe to establish a colony of European Rosicrucian leaders. The objective of these colonists was to establish Rosicrucianism, arts, and trade in the New World. They sought to bring about a New World Order outlined by Sir Francis Bacon in The New Atlantis. This book reveals Bacon’s ideal commonwealth in the political world that the Illuminists have sought through the ages. It describes a utopian society across the ocean from Europe; this society was built upon the principles of Atlantis. This utopia was a world without national boundaries and without racial distinction under a world government.[1]

Under the leadership of Grand Master Johannes Kelpius, a German Pietist theologian, the colonists landed in 1694 in Philadelphia. The colonists brought with them books on alchemy, astrology, and magic; the Cabala; and the writings of the German mystic Jakob Boehme. By 1801 the Rosicrucian Order had become inactive or moved completely underground in America.[2]

Arrival of Freemasonry
After Rosicrucianism, Freemasonry was perhaps the next non-Indian secret society brought to the British colonies. It arrived in 1730 when Daniel Coxe was appointed Provincial Grand Master of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.[3] In 1733, Henry Price became Provincial Grand Master of New England; he is considered the father of regular Freemasonry in the United States. Benjamin Franklin, who was a Rosicrucian,[4] became provincial Grand Master of Pennsylvania in 1734.[5]

The red Freemasonry of France was introduced in 1761 into the Colonies. Behind red Freemasonry were Frederick the Great, Philip Egalite, Swiss bankers, and British intelligence. The Grand Consistory of Sublime Princes of the Royal Secrets of Paris, which Frederick the Great controlled, sent Stephen Morin, a Jew, to establish the Rite of Perfection, i.e., the Scottish Rite. Philip Egalite, Duke of Clermont and later Duke of Orleans, signed his papers. Louis, Count of Clermont, granted Morin the authority to establish Scottish Rite Freemasonry.[6] His deputy inspector was Henry Francken. Francken appointed Moses M. Hayes, a Jew, of Boston as inspector general of North American Freemasonry. Hayes introduced the Scottish Rite in 1780 into the United States at the New Port Lodge.[7] Hayes also appointed Isaac da Costa, a Jew, as deputy inspector general of South Carolina, Solomon Bush as deputy inspector for Pennsylvania, and B.M. Spitser as deputy inspector for Georgia.[8] In 1801, the first Supreme Council of Scottish Rite Freemasonry was established in Charleston, South Carolina.[9]

Before the appearance of the Sottish Rite, Franklin had been the primary organizer of Freemasonry in the Colonies. The lodges that he organized were connected with the Grand Lodge of London.

American Revolution
Freemasonry was at the center of the American Revolution. At the forefront was the St. Andrew Lodge, which was a Grand Lodge of the Scottish Rite. Joseph Warren, a close friend of Franklin, headed this Lodge. Paul Revere was also a leader of this Lodge. This Lodge was probably behind the Boston Tea Party.[10]

In 1778, the Americans re-occupied Philadelphia after the British evacuation. To celebrate this great occasion, General George Washington, dressed in full Masonic attire, solemnly led 300 Freemasons through Philadelphia to Christ Church. Here a Masonic divine service was held.

Besides Washington and Franklin, many other American revolutionists were Freemasons. They included the following generals: Nathaniel Greene, Henry Knox, Henry Lee (Light-Horse Harry), Richard Montgomery, Israel Putnam, Rufus Putnam, Baron von Steuben, and John Sullivan. (Of Washington’s generals, 33 were Freemasons.) Ethan Allen, leader of the Green Mountain Boys of Vermont, and John Paul Jones were also Freemasons. Alexander Hamilton, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Marshall were Freemasons.[11] John Hancock and eight other Freemasons singed the Declaration of Independence.[12] (Manley Hall, a Masonic writer, asserts that all but one signer were Freemasons.) Fifty of the 59 members of the Constitutional Convention were Freemasons.[13] Of the 39 signers of the Constitution, at lest 13 were master Freemasons.[14] The Continental Army had approximately 14,000 officers of whom 2018 were Freemasons.[15]

Freemasons in England championed the colonists in their struggled for independence. They included William Pitt, Edmund Burke, and the Duke of Manchester (Grand Master of English Freemasonry).

During the American Revolution, Masonic agents freely moved between British controlled areas and American controlled areas.

Freemasons in France were also instrumental in providing the American revolutionists the aid that they needed to secede from England successfully. Through Freemasonry, Franklin made his contacts with the appropriate officials in the French government and outside the government. The most ardent support for the American Revolution came from the French nobles who were Freemasons. (Franklin berated the French nobility and campaigned against it in spite of its zealous support of Freemasonry and the American Revolution.)

The Arnold Conspiracy
William Petty, Earl of Shelburne, head of British intelligence, managed to place his agents in many critical positions among the American revolutionists. Benedict Arnold, a Freemason, is perhaps the best known of these agents.[16]

The Mallet-Prevost family put in place Lord Shelburne’s spy and espionage network. This family was the leader of Swiss espionage. One of the family leaders, General Augustine Prevost became Grand Stewart of the Lodge of Perfection. (This lodge had been established in Albany, New York in 1768.) He was also Prince of Royal Secrets and commander of the British southern forces during the American Revolution. His second in command was James Mark Prevost, his brother. Arnold was one of his agents.[17]

Margaret “Peggy” Shippen Arnold, wife of Benedict Arnold and stepsister of Aaron Burr, was a conduit for communications between Mark Prevost and Benedict Arnold. Mark Prevost often communicated with Peggy Arnold through his wife, Theodosia, who later married Aaron Burr. Through this channel, the arrangement to surrender West Point to the English was initiated. For aiding the English in its failed attempt to capture West Point, Arnold was charged with treason.[18] After conspiring to surrender West Point, Arnold was given his promised command in the British army and fought against the Americans in the South.

The Randolph Conspiracy
In 1774, Edmund Randolph at age 21 joined the Ancient Order of York Masons. After becoming a Freemason, his career began its climb upwards. He soon became an aide de camp to General George Washington. In 1785, he became Deputy Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Virginia. The next year he was named Grand Master. At the time of his election to Grand Master, Randolph was Attorney General of Virginia. (Since then Freemasons have controlled the legal system of Virginia.)[19]

The Grand Lodge of Virginia was established in 1768 at Williamsburg, which was then the capital of Virginia. John Blair, who was then acting governor of Virginia and later a Virginian delegate to the Constitutional Convention, was its first Grand Master.[20]

Peyton Randolph, Edmund Randolph’s uncle and adoptive father, became the first President of the First Continental Congress. Peyton Randolph was also Grand Master of the Masonic Order.

President Washington appointed Edmund Randolph the first Attorney General of the United States and then the second Secretary of State after Jefferson resigned.

In 1787, Congress called a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation. (This convention became known as the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787.) At this time, Randolph was Governor of Virginia. He persuaded the Virginia delegation to support scraping the Articles of Confederation and write a new constitution that would incorporate the states into a federation. (“Thus it was the Grand Master of Virginia, Edmund Randolph, in league with Aaron Burr and British intelligence, who foisted on the nation the concept of a federal government which could rule over and above the sovereignties of the states.”[21]) Randolph was also a delegate to the convention.

Result of American Revolution
In spite of the Illuminists involvement in the American Revolution and the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1789, the essence of English freedoms and institutions survived. What saved the new United States from Illuminism and from becoming its communistic, democratic egalitarian new Atlantis, the New World Order, ruled by Illuminists, was that 65 to 99 percent of the Aryan population was Christian. Now the Illuminists began the work of destroying them.

Most of the leaders of the American Revolution who were Freemasons believed that they were fighting to free the American colonies from the tyrannical British rule. They were ignorant of the ultimate objective of the Revolution, which was to establish an illuministic New World Order. The Illuminists who controlled Freemasonry had deceived them, as they deceive most Freemasons today. They had deceived them into believing that Freemasonry was the savior of Christianity and the bearer of liberty and happiness. Only the highest degree Illuminists knew the real objective—the establishment of Lucifer’s New World Order.

Fortunately for Americans, the ideals of the Reformation and the English Revolution guided the American Revolution much more than the ideals of the Renaissance and the French Revolution. In spite many leaders of the American Revolution being Illuminists, Christianity had a much greater influence over the American Revolution than did Illuminism. (Revolutions based primarily on Illuminism, such as the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution lead to despair and anarchy, which is followed by dictatorship. Revolutions based primarily on Christianity, such as the English Revolution and the American Revolution, lead to hope and freedom.)

Endnotes
1. Dennis L. Cuddy, Now Is the Dawning of the New Age New World Order (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2000), p. 15. H. Spencer Lewis, Rosicrucian Questions and Answers with Complete History of the Rosicrucian Order (Second Edition. San Jose, California: Rosicrucian Press, 1932), pp. 135-136, 138. William T. Still, New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990), pp. 46ff.

2. Cuddy, Now Is the Dawning, p. 15. Lewis, pp. 135-136, 138.

3. Bernard Fay, Revolution and Freemasonry 1680-1800 (Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown, and Company, 1935), pp. 230-231. Clarence Kelly, Conspiracy Against God and Man: A Study of the Beginnings and Early History of the Great Conspiracy (Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1974), p. 55. J. S. M. Ward, Freemasonry and the Ancient Gods (London, England: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co. Ltd., 1921), pp. 230-231.

4. Lewis, p. 137.

5. Kelly, p. 55.

6. The Cause of World Unrest (New York, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1920), pp. 48-49. Lady Queenborough (Edith Starr Miller), Occult Theocracy (Two Volumes. Hawthorne, California: The Christian Book Club of America, 1933), pp. 189, 336. Nesta H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements (Palmdale, California: Omni Publication, 1924), p. 149.

7. Kelly, pp. 55-56. Eustace Mullins, The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History (Staunton, Virginia: Revelation Book, 1987), p. 132. Queenborough, p. 190.

8. Cause of World Unrest, p. 49. Kelly, pp. 55-56. Queenborough, p. 190. Webster, p. 149.

9. Gary H. Kah, En Route to Global Occupation (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1992), p. 110.

10. Fay, pp. 239-240. Still, p. 61.

11. Fay, p. 250. Kelly, p. 55. Jim Marrs, 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), pp. 231-232.

12. Cuddy, Now Is the Dawning, p. 23.

13. Still, p. 61.

14. Cuddy, Now Is the Dawning, p. 23.

15. Marrs, p. 232.

16. Mullin, pp. 132-133.

17. Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman (New York, New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984), p. 148. Mullin, p. 133.

18. Chaitkin, pp. 15-18.

19. Mullin, pp. 181-182.

20. Mullin, p. 181.

21. Mullins, p. 183.

[Editor’s note: List of references in original are omitted.]

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on history.