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.

Cussons on the Hypocrisy of the Puritan Yankee

Cussons on the Hypocrisy 

of the Puritan Yankee

Thomas Allen

In  United States “History” as the Yankee Makes and Takes It (1900, third edition) pages 68–69,  John Cussons describes the hypocrisy of the Puritan Yankee. His description fits today’s neoconservatives and especially progressives and wokesters. His description follows.

These new rulers [Puritan Yankees of the 1850s] had chiefly distinguished themselves as the enemies of existing institutions — their political and social creed being, in effect, “Whatever is, is wrong.” They were fond of execrating the Union as “a league with hell,” and denouncing the Constitution as “a covenant with death.” They derided the highest courts of the land as “crimping houses of iniquity,” and vilified the old flag as “a flaunting lie!”

But on coming into power they threw off all disguise, and shamelessly started a war of conquest in pretended defence [sic] of the very principles and symbols which they had so bitterly reviled.

With paralyzing logic they mutilated the States on the plea that the States were “indestructible”; they debarred them from the Union while declaring the Union to be “indissoluble,” and they tore the Constitution to tatters while pretending that they were the only class who reverenced its “inviolability.” Having thus approved themselves the only true champions of “the sacred principle of government by consent,” they rounded out their perfect work by converting the States into satrapies, and holding them under bayonet rule until the conquered peoples consented to ratify the whole of their rump performances.

Puritan Yankees favored secession and nullification until the Southern States used them. For most of the Jefferson and Madison administrations, the New England States, the home base of the Puritan Yankee, threatened secession. Massachusetts threatened to secede because of the Louisiana Purchase and argued that it had the right to secede. When Jefferson attempted to embargo trade with Europe during the Napoleonic War, the New England States threatened to secede. Several New England States discussed secession during the War of 1812. Connecticut and Massachusetts nullified Congress’ call for State militias.

Moreover, Puritan Yankees did not oppose slavery until the importation of slaves became illegal after 1808. Yankees had been the primary importers of slaves. Later, many Yankees became ardent abolitionists. As a result, like many other Northern States, the New England States nullified fugitive slave laws.

However, when the Southern States seceded and ended the “league with hell,” these abolitionists did not want to let them go. By then, the Puritan Yankees had gained control of the federal government. Now, they were going to use their newfound power to force their utopia on the world, starting with the South. They were going to save Southerners from their evil, heathen ways and convert them into the image of the Puritan Yankee. They started their conversion in the South and have metastasized across the world. America’s attempt to create American hegemony across the world is nothing more than the Puritan Yankee trying to remake the world in his own image.

One thing that Cussons seemed not to have anticipated was that most Southern leaders would lose their moral fortitude. Most Southern political, business, academic, and religious leaders would become scalawags. They would sell their souls to the Puritan Yankee and then genocide the Southerner, their own people. What the scalawags have not done, the carpetbaggers have. The genocide of the Southerner is mostly completed. (This genocide has been mostly cultural instead of physical. However, the United Nations considers the deliberate destruction of a people’s culture to be genocide. Destroying an ethnicity’s culture destroys the ethnicity.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on the Death of Evil upon the Seashore

King on the Death of Evil upon the Seashore

Thomas Allen

In “The Death of Evil upon the Seashore,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 75–86, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses evil, Israelites gaining their freedom from the Egyptians, colonialism, slavery, and segregation. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by discussing the reality of evil and comments on the Biblical description of evil. Evil exists; it is real. He remarks, “We see it [evil] expressed in tragic lust and inordinate selfishness. We see it in high places where men are willing to sacrifice truth on the altars of their self-interest.” (P. 76.) Evil is seen “in imperialistic nations crushing other people with the battering rams of social injustice.” (P. 76.) It is also seen in war.

Next, King discusses the Israelites held as slaves in Egypt. “Egypt symbolized evil in the form of humiliating oppression, ungodly exploitation, and crushing domination, and the Israelites symbolized goodness in the form of devotion and dedication to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (P. 77.) (King uses the Israelite enslavement in Egypt as an analogy. Egypt represents the South, which is evil, and the Israelites represent the Negroes, who are holy.) “Pharaoh [Southerners] stubbornly refused to respond to the cry of Moses [King]. . . .” (P. 77.) When the Israelites were freed from their slavery, they left Egypt. (Here, King departs from his analogy of the Egyptians enslaving the Israelites. When the Israelites gained their freedom from Egyptian oppression, they left Egypt. They did not integrate with the Egyptians. If King were true to his analogy, when he freed the Negroes from the oppression of segregation and discrimination, he would have led them out of the South. Instead, he led them to integrate with their oppressors [Southerners].)

Then, King notes “that evil is recalcitrant and determined, and never voluntarily relinquishes its hold short of a persistent, almost fanatical resistance.” (P. 77.)

Continuing, King notes that the story of the enslavement of the Israelites and their subsequent freedom “is revealed in the contemporary struggle between good in the form of freedom and justice and evil in the form of oppression and colonialism.” (P. 79.) Then, he comments on colonialism. According to King, “most of the Asian and African peoples were colonial subjects, dominated politically, exploited economically, and segregated and humiliated by foreign powers.” (P. 77.) (Most Asian and African countries subjected to European imperialism have a higher standard of living today than they would have without European imperialism.) With a focus on India, he comments on the colonies freeing themselves from European powers.

Next, King discusses the Negro’s struggle for freedom and justice. “In America the Negro slave was merely a depersonalized cog in a vast plantation machine.” (P. 80.) (Southern compassion brought down the South. When the Jewish Dutch slavers brought their leftover slaves that they failed to sell in the Caribbean to Virginia to sell, the Virginians should have refused to buy and let the Dutch dump their unsold slaves in the ocean. Instead, being compassionate, they bought the Negroes and treated them as indentured servants. When they had worked off their purchase price, they were set free. However, one Negro, Anthony Johnson, refused to let his Negro servant go free and got the court to declare him a lifetime servant, i.e., a slave. [See, “Two Great Black Leaders” by Thomas Allen.] Thus, a Negro brought Negro slavery to what would later become the United States.)

King writes, “For more than two hundred years Africa was raped and plundered, her native kingdoms disorganized, and her people and rulers demoralized.” (P. 80.) (He gives the impression that Europeans did the plundering.  On the contrary, Negroes did the plundering. Negroes would raid neighboring tribes and sell their captives to Europeans and Arabs.)

King comments on Jefferson’s opposition to slavery and the agony that it caused him. (However, King does not comment on Jefferson’s recommended solution, which was the physical separation of the races — the Biblical solution.)

Then, King comments on Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation. According to King, the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. (Like most people, King fails to understand that the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves. It only applied to slaves in areas beyond the control of the Union army. Slaves in the Union States and slaves in the parts of the South controlled by the Union army remained slaves. Moreover, slaves in the South gained their freedom before slaves in the Union States gained theirs.)

Continuing, King declares that although “Negroes enjoyed certain political and social opportunities during the Reconstruction,” Southerners were determined to keep them in slavery. (During Reconstruction, many Southerners were stripped of their political rights. [About the Battle of Gettysburg and Reconstruction, H.L.  Mencken wrote, “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.”] To cope with the sudden flood of ignorant, gullible, freed Negroes on the labor market, the Southern States enacted labor codes modeled after those in the North. However, the federal government quickly voided these codes in the South. Before Lincoln’s War, both free and enslaved Negroes were more integrated in the South than they were in the North. Negro collaboration with carpetbaggers and scalawags during Reconstruction to plunder the South is a root cause of the racial problems in the South. Also, because of the large number of Negroes in the South, the South resorted to statutory regulation of race relations. Because of the small numbers of Negroes in the North, the North could rely on customs, deed restrictions, labor unions, etc. to regulate race relations.) King considers segregation a new form of slavery.

King writes, “Despite the patient cry of many a Moses, they refused to let the Negro people go.” (P. 81.) (When Pharaoh let the Israelites go, they left Egypt. Never did King have any intention of leading the Negroes out of the country. If they were going to leave the country, they would have received a great deal of support and almost no opposition. However, even if King had tried to lead them to another land, most Negroes would not have followed him. Despite segregation, discrimination, and oppression, they knew that life in the United States, even in the South, was better for them than anywhere else that they could go. Nevertheless, the Pharaoh-Moses approach would have solved America’s race problems.)

King approves the Supreme Court’s desegregation ruling. However, the ruling is just the beginning; more is needed. (The more needed was forced integration. The desegregation ruling quickly turned into forced integration. Desegregation allows a student to go to the school of his choice, i.e., a Negro child could go to a White school if he so chooses and vice versa. Integration, like segregation, assigns students to a school based on race. Desegregation quickly degenerated into integration because the only way that a school could prove that it was fully desegregated was to be fully integrated.)

Continuing, King notes, “that evil carries the seed of its own destruction.” (P. 82.) (Being contrary to God’s law, integration is evil and carries the seed of its own destruction. The deterioration of the United States is evidence of this seed of destruction.)

Next, King states, “Because sin exists on every level of man’s existence, the death of one tyranny is followed by the emergence of another tyranny.” (P. 83.) (We are currently living in the tyranny of the civil rights movement, Zionism, and fascism in its various forms.) People in the civil rights movement must “avoid a superficial optimism [and] . . . a crippling pessimism.” (P. 83.) 

Then, King comments on God working in the world. He is convinced that God is on his side. (Except for atheists and perhaps agnostics, most evil-doers are convinced that God is on their side. That God was on King’s side is questionable because what he promoted is contrary to what the Bible teaches. If God were on his side, it is in the sense that He was on the side of the Assyrians and Babylonians when He sent them to punish Israel and the Jews by removing them from their homelands.)

In closing, King discusses some of the evils that Negroes have endured. (First, despite all the evils that have been inflicted on Negroes in America, Negroes in Africa have endured worse evils. Second, all races have suffered from evil.)

Throughout this essay, King uses the analogy of Moses (King) freeing the Israelites (Negroes) and leading them across the Red Sea (out of the country). However, King had no intention of completing the analogy.  He was not going to lead the Negroes out of America or even the South. On the contrary, he wanted to do what God would have prevented Moses from doing. Unlike Moses, who wanted to lead his people from the evils of Egypt, King wanted to integrate his people into the evils of the South. (For King, everything was evil in the South except the Negro and Communists.)

King often implies, if not right out states, that the Bible commands integration and condemns segregation. However, the opposite is true. The Bible contains stories promoting segregation and separation — the Exodus story, which King uses in this essay, is the best known. I know of no stories in the Bible supporting integration and amalgamation. On the contrary, there are stories condemning such acts.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Jefferson and States’ Rights

Jefferson and States’ Rights

Thomas Allen

In Chaining Down Leviathan: The American Dream of Self-Government 1776-1865 (McClellanville, South Carolina: Abbeville Institute Press, 2021), Luigi Marco Bassani discusses Thomas Jefferson’s concept of States’ rights. The following summarizes that discussion.

Jefferson used “State” to designate the people of a State and not its government, which the people (body politic of that State) created. He advocated localism over nationalism; localism is more closely tied to liberty than is nationalism. Therefore, local interest should be superior to the national interest. Further, he supported self-government and elected officials being directly responsible and linked closely to the voters. Thus, he endorsed natural rights, limited government, and popular sovereignty.

Moreover, the government should be restricted to protecting life, liberty, and property and have a laissez-faire approach in economic matters. Consequently, he opposed the concentration and consolidation of power in a single center and, therefore, fervently opposed a strong federal government that decided the limits of its power.

States’ rights were the best and surest way to prevent the consolidation of power in the federal government. After all, the States had created the federal government as their agent to manage their common affairs, such as foreign relations. They did not create it to rule over them and to manage their internal affairs.

For Jefferson, tyranny rose from the concentration of power. States’ rights were the mechanism by which such tyranny could be prevented. Only by strictly construing the Constitution could the States be saved from being subservient to the federal government. Only when a State acting individually and independently could decide if a federal act exceeded the authority delegated to the federal government and could nullify such unconstitutional act within its territorial limits would the liberties and rights of the people be protected.

Jefferson favored a constitution that united the States concerning foreign affairs but kept the States separate and distinct in domestic concerns. Thus, the States were independent in everything within themselves but were united in everything respecting foreign countries. However, he opposed becoming entangled with other countries; therefore, he favored allowing merchants the freedom to manage their trade with foreign countries.

The Kentucky Resolutions, which Jefferson wrote, expressed the core of his concept of federalism, States’ rights, and constitutional doctrine. According to the Kentucky Resolutions, each State had the right to nullify within its own territory any federal act that if found exceeding the powers delegated to the federal government without the need of other States joining it. Thus, the Kentucky Resolutions expounded the political and judicial philosophy of Jefferson’s States’ rights.

Jefferson believed that the States were much better defenders of individual liberties than were federal courts. Consequently, he replaced the doctrine of natural rights as expounded by federal courts with the doctrine of States’ rights, which were more powerful and effective at protecting the liberties of individuals. Therefore, the States should be responsible for guarding the constitutional balance against the consolidation of power in the federal government.

As sovereign powers, the States entered into a compact to create a federal government as their agent, subordinate to the States, to carry out well-defined, limited functions. Since the States were sovereign parties that entered into the constitutional compact, the federal government, their agent, had no authority to expand its power without the agreement of the contracting parties, the States.

Consequently, Jefferson maintained that each State acting individually and independently could decide if an act of the federal government was contrary to the Constitution. If it found such an act unconstitutional, it could nullify that act within its territory.

Although Jefferson adored the Union, he valued the right of local self-government even more. Thus, he insisted that freedom and self-government could not be subordinated to the Union. Like many people before 1861, he contended that the Union was an experiment in liberty and not an end in itself. Moreover, he thought that local self-government and not the Union was the guarantor of the safety and happiness of the people.

Also, Jefferson objected to the notion that the Constitution gave the federal government implied powers as Alexander Hamilton had argued. Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution did not give the federal government absolute supremacy over the States. Not all federal laws are the supreme law of the land. Only those laws enacted pursuant to one of the delegated powers are supreme. Otherwise, State laws are supreme.

To Jefferson, the Union was a true federation with the federal government having a few delegated functions and powers as set out in the Constitution. Only with the consent of the States through the amendment process could it expand its power. He considered federalism as an end in itself with self-governing States being supreme over the federal government. Moreover, he rejected the notion that the Bill of Rights applied to the States and asserted that it only applied to the federal government.

Jefferson also rejected the notion that a federal common law existed. Each State had its own common law system that applied solely within its borders. However, no American common law existed.

He feared that if the federal legal system incorporate common law, Congress could expand its power by revising and integrating the principles of common law. If this were to happen, constitutional limitations on the federal government would vanish. Congress could legislate in all cases whatsoever. If common law were to limit federal legislative activity, then the judiciary would acquire legislative power. If common law became a body of law, the Constitution would cease limiting the powers of the federal government. In any event, the incorporation of American common law into the federal legal system would be disastrous for the liberties of the people and States’ rights. The Constitution and federal common law could not coexist in the American system of government.

Jefferson rejected the notion of the Supreme Court, which was part of the federal government, being the final arbitrator between a State and the federal government. If the Supreme Court were the final arbitrator, then Congress and the President, which were also part of the federal government, were being adjudicated by another part of the federal government, the Supreme Court, and not by the Constitution. If the federal government could force the States to comply with all federal laws whatsoever, whether according to the Constitution or in flagrant violation of it, then federalism would cease to exist except in name only. Consequently, the States were and ought to be the final judges of the constitutionality of federal acts. (Being part of the federal government, federal courts has no incentive to prevent the consolidation of power in the federal government. History has shown that not only do federal courts place little constraint against such consolidation, but they have often led in such consolation.)

Thus, Jefferson maintained that the authority of the Supreme Court to decide in the last resort did not extend to the rights of the States, which were parties to the constitutional compact. The States gave federal judges their delegated trusts. As original parties to the constitutional compact, each individual State was the ultimate judge of whether an act of the federal government was compatible with the Constitution. As a creation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court could not be the ultimate judge.

Since the defeat of the Confederacy, the federal government has been suppressing States’ rights and has almost extinguished them. As a result, liberty has faded and the tyranny that Jefferson feared has happened.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Gutzman on the Constitution

 Gutzman on the Constitution

Thomas Allen

In The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Constitution (2007), Kevin Gutzman provides some interesting information related to the US Constitution. Some of this information follows.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” appears in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Most people believe that this phrase means various types of homicides and thefts and other indictable crimes. It does mean these things, but it also means more than these.

When the States ratified the Constitution, this phrase was understood to cover physical disability and mental and psychological impairment. However, the complete meaning of this phrase was forgotten, and it became limited to indictable crimes and petty corruption. Consequently, the impeachment process has become a highly ineffective means to remove judges and other civil officers from office. (The twenty-fifth amendment establishes a procedure for removing the president, but not other civil officers or judges, from office because of physical disability and mental impairment.)

Vetoing State Laws. The Constitutional Convention rejected giving Congress the power to veto State laws, which implied that the judiciary, which is the least responsible institution of the federal government, also lacks such power. However, the US Supreme Court soon usurped this power. 

First, it used the Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . . .”). The purpose of the Contract Clause was to prohibit States from adopting laws preventing lenders from collecting debts for a stated period. This clause was not intended to prohibit States from enacting economic regulations. However, federal courts have used it to veto State laws that regulated the economy.

About 130 years later, the Supreme Court replaced the Contract Clause with the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”) to veto State laws that the Supreme Court did not like.

After World War II, the Supreme Court began using the Incorporation Doctrine (applying the first nine amendments, the Bill of Rights, to the States) to veto State laws that it did not like.

(Federal courts seldom veto State laws because they are unconstitutional; most are constitutional under the original intent of the Constitution. Federal judges veto State laws because they do not like them; they conflict with the personal prejudices, preferences, and biases of the judge.)

Eleventh Amendment. The purpose of the eleventh amendment is to reassert the independence, sovereignty, and supremacy of the States. Specifically, it denies federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits initiated against a State by a citizen of another State or country.

Its original intent was to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts to those specifically named Article III. The Supreme Court has circumvented the intent of the eleventh amendment by allowing people to sue State officials who carry out the policies of the State in lieu of the State itself.

Two Views of the Nature of the Law. Gutzman describes two views of the nature of the law: Thomas Jefferson’s and John Marshall’s, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (1801–1835). “For Jefferson, law was the framework of rules by which the people agreed to be governed; a judge's role was simply to apply the clear meaning and original understanding of the Constitution (or other legal document)” (p. 98). Jefferson’s view is republican in nature.

However, Marshall believed “that law required judges who could see beyond the written law to the ‘natural law’ that was superior to it” (p.98). (Abolitionists also claimed that natural law as they interpreted it was superior to the Constitution and all other laws.) Marshall’s view is aristocratic and clerical in nature. The fatal flow of Marshall’s view is that “no two men agreed about the particulars of the ‘natural law’; instead, they tended to use ‘natural law’ as a justification for their own policy preferences” (pp. 98-99).

Two Types of Due Process. The Supreme Court has created two types of due process: “procedural due process” and “substantive due process.” Due process appears twice in the Constitution: once in the fifth amendment and once in the fourteenth amendment. Due process as used in the Constitution is procedural due process (according to pre-established procedures). Substantive due process is used as an excuse for judicial usurpation. (Substantive due process is the doctrine that legislation is needed to carry out fairly due process in the fifth and fourteenth amendments.) When the Supreme Court legislates under the banner of due process, it is using substantive due process.

Gutzman’s The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Constitution is an excellent book on the Constitution. He focuses on how the Supreme Court has subverted the original intent of the Constitution, has usurped the legislative authority of Congress and the States, and has prohibited authorities of the States that the Constitution allows.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen

More political articles.

A Letter: Southern National Party

A Letter: Southern National Party

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1986 responding to an article by Mr. Vanover in the Southern Partisan magazine.]

    As a member of the Southern National Party, I can inform Mr. Vanover that it is still alive. If he had read the party’s newsletters of the past five years, he would have discovered that most writers who address the race issue do not advocate “White supremacy.” They advocate the solution offered by Thomas Jefferson.
    I am sure that Mr. Vanover would consider me a “racist” because I advocate Jefferson’s solution. However, I do not believe that the Jeffersonian solution is a “racist” solution in the sense of degrading or destroying a race. It is racist only in the sense that it preserves the races that God created. The new South integrationist is the true racist. Integration leads to interracial marriages, which lead irrevocably to the destruction of the races. At least it has in all other societies that have tried it. I see no reason that the South would be any different. Because of its total destructiveness, racial integration must be based upon racial hatred. Racial destruction seems to be the position advocated by Mr. Vanover.
    Following Mr. Vanover’s logic (one “who truly loves the South loves it for what it is”), one must love and perhaps even advocate “White supremacy.” Historically and traditionally, Blacks generally have been subordinated politically, economically, and socially to Whites. [The same was true in the North.] At least this has been true up to the Second Reconstruction when State governments were prohibited from enforcing segregation and were required to enforce integration. White supremacy, segregation, and geographical separation are not necessarily motivated by racial hatred. Even if they were, there is less hatred in them than in integration. Integration has always led to the destruction of the races, which are God’s creations. Unlike advocates of the aforementioned three, the integrationist is consumed with self-hatred, for he seeks to destroy himself and his kind. In the long run, integration is a highly unchristian principle.
    [Historically and traditionally, not only did Southerners segregate Blacks, so did Northerners. However, unlike the South, which segregated Blacks by statute because of their large numbers, the North segregated Blacks by custom, because their small numbers did not require laws to segregate them. Moreover, the typical Northerner had a lower opinion of Blacks than did the typical Southerner. While Southerners saw Blacks as real persons, Yankees, especially the abolitionist types, saw them as abstractions.]
    Those in the same wing of the Southern National Party in which I am, advocate the preservation of the Negro race without White supremacy. We believe as Jefferson believed that this goal can only be achieved by geographical separation of the races. This position can hardly be considered antiblack — at least not by rational thinkers.
    Mr. Vanover never really answers his question: “Is the White Southerner ready for equality?” He implies that the answer is “yes.” He may be correct. However, if he is, the White Southerner is ready for something that is contrary to nature and the Bible. We may all be equally guilty of sinning, but that is about the end of our equality. What can be more unequal than some going to paradise while others do not? Or, as Calvin would put it, some are predestined to heaven; most are predestined to hell. Because every individual and every race is unique and innately different, they can never be equal. The closest man has come to achieving equality in recent times is in the Soviet Union, communist China, and Cambodia. I doubt that many Southerners desire such a society, but if they desire equality, this type of society is what they will achieve.
    The prevention of “mongrelization” and the preservation of “White civilization” is only one reason for an independent Southern Republic. (I suspect most Southerners prefer these goals to Mr. Vanover’s nebulous egalitarianism. I also doubt that most Southerners feel the same contempt for White civilization as Mr. Vanover seems to exhibit.) An independent Southern Republic would greatly improve our chances of preserving our Southern culture, heritage, and traditions for our great-grandchildren. Political boundaries can control immigration; thus, retard the influx of carpetbaggers and their socialistic, democratic, miscegenous, egalitarian Yankee ideology. Those values advocated in the Southern Partisan can best be preserved and regained with an independent South. In fact, I believe that is the only chance that they can be. An independent South would greatly improve our chances of regaining the liberties that our pre-Statue of Liberty antebellum ancestors enjoyed. Regaining these lost liberties in the present union is virtually nil. An independent South would free us from a federal court system, presidency, and Congress controlled by Yankeedom. Who knows, it may even end new South style progress and reduce the quantity of hazardous waste dumped in South Carolina.
    About the only thing that Mr. Vanover and I may agree on is our opposition to groups like the White Patriot Party and the Klans desecrating the Confederate flag. However, I do find myself in agreement with most of what the Southern Partisan advocates. Where we depart is to how to best achieve these goals. The writers in the Southern Partisan, for the most part, believe that the present union can be reformed and Southern values can thus be preserved, and those lost, regained. I am convinced that the present union cannot be so reformed and that these goals can only be achieved in an independent South. Of course, Southerners have been in this predicament before. In 1770 most Southerners believed that the union with England could be reformed. By 1776, many were convinced that their only hope lay in independence. In 1855, most Southerners believed that the union with the North could be reformed. By l861, most were convinced that it could not.
    For your erudition, several recent issues of the Southern National Party’s newsletter are enclosed. For your edification, I have marked the articles that I have written. Perhaps Mr. Vanover can peruse them to discover why someone not in prison would support Southern independence. I am sure that he will conclude that I am a member of the right-wing lunatic fringe. [If so, he would be wrong; according to Pam Dunn, I am a “a totally moronic left winger idiot.”] However, I suspect that if I were transported back to April 1776 when my ancestors, John Bradford and Jeptha Atherton, voted for the Halifax Resolves, I would be in the mainstream. [Later, I learned that Atherton was not a member of the Fourth Provincial Congress, which adopted the Halifax Resolves. He was a member of the Fifth Provincial Congress, which approved the first North Carolina Constitution, along with a “Declaration of Rights.”] I doubt if my Uncle Nathaniel Macon (an article about him appeared in an earlier issue of the Southern Partisan) would disagree with too many of my positions. I also suspect that my great-grandfather, who shed his blood at Chancellorsville, and his brother, who left an arm there, and a host of their comrades would be more inclined to agree with my position on race, equality, and Southern independence than with Mr. Vanover’s position.
    I have written numerous articles for the “Southern National Newsletter” over the past five years. Only two of these articles were on race per se. So there are other reasons for desiring Southern independence — namely, liberty. As John Randolph said, I believe that it was he, “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality.” In other words, man can have liberty. Man can have equality. Man can have neither. But man can never have both.
    I write this letter not as an official or spokesman for the Southern National Party, for I have no authority to do so. I merely write to inform Mr. Vanover that the Southern National Party still exists and to let him know why one person who is not a convict would consider joining it.
    [In 1999, if I remember correctly, the Southern National Party dissolved. Sometime later, a new Southern National Party was formed. I have had no relations with the new party.]

Copyright © 1986, 2019 by Thomas C. Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

More Thoughts Related to the US Constitution

More Thoughts Related to the US Constitution

Thomas Allen

Below are discussed the underlying principle of the US Constitution, two views of the Constitution, a government of, by, and for the people, and the meaning of the phrase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence.

US Constitution

The United States Constitution is (or at least originally was) an agreement among the several States, which created the US government to serve as an agent of States. It is not a contract or agreement between the State and the US government. Unfortunately, the US government has usurped the powers of the States and has subordinated the States to its will. Consequently, the US government has become the master, and the creators, the several States, the servants.

An analogy of the United States is a partnership. The partners agree to hire an attorney to represent them in specific legal matters. Then, the attorney expands the powers that the partners had delegated him until he becomes the overlord of the partnership. Moreover, the attorney refuses to allow any of the partners to leave the partnership. This illustrates what has happened to the United States and their constitution.

Two Views of the Constitution

In Northern Rebellion and Southern Secession (1904), E. W. R. Ewing describes two views of the US Constitution:

The Democratic Party, led by Thomas Jefferson, held that “sovereignty could exist alone in its source”; and that the people of the respective States were this source; and that the people could act only through conventional power; that the Federal Government was a municipality, the creature of the people of the several State organizations; that the Constitution had been established as the “guide, and standard, and rule of legislation, executive and judicial authority and functions.” The Federal party, led by the elder Adams, admitted that the people of the States were the original source of sovereignty, but contended that they had delegated that sovereignty to the Federal Government, and that under the Constitution, Congress now had national sovereignty (page 28).

With the election of Lincoln and the Republicans, the Federalist view of sovereignty became dominant and has remained dominant to this day. Rare is a politician, especially at the Federal level, who holds the Jeffersonian view of sovereignty. 

Government of, by, and for the People

Politicians, teachers, and others never tire of telling us that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Further, they tell us that the people are the masters, and the government (politicians and bureaucrats) are the servants.

What a pack of lies! What a pack of liars! We do not have a government of, by, and for the people: We have a government of, by, and for politicians and bureaucrats. Moreover, the government is the master, and the people are the servants — or, perhaps more correctly, the slaves.

Proof. Masters have the right to know what their servants are doing when they are performing their jobs. Servants do not have the right to know what their master is doing. Does the government have secret information that it keeps from the people? Yes. Does the government claim that it has the right to know what the people are doing? Yes. Does the government spy on the people and otherwise collect and compile private information about the people? Yes. Therefore, politicians and bureaucrats are the masters and the people are the servants. Consequently, we have a government of, by, and for the politicians and the bureaucrats.

If we had a government of, by, and for the people and if the people were the masters, then the government would have no secrets. The people would have access to all the information that the government has. They would know everything that politicians and bureaucrats did in doing their jobs. Nothing would be classified as secret, top-secret, etc. Black budgets would not exist. Spying on the masters would be a crime. The government would do what the people wanted instead of doing what the politicians and bureaucrats wanted.

“All Men Are Created Equal”

The clause “all men are created equal” occurs in the Declaration of Independence. Liberals and neoconservatives believe that this clause is the defining principle of the United States. In light of this clause, the US Constitution should be understood and interpreted. Moreover, the United States have a moral obligation to spread equality across the globe by force if necessary. 

However, what does “equality” mean in this clause? Liberals and neoconservatives disagree. Liberals focus more on the outcome whereas neoconservatives focus more on the opportunity. Both are convinced that it refers to political, economic, and social equality. Yet, does this clause refer to political, economic, and social equality?

Jefferson, who is credited with being the author of the Declaration of Independents, took the phrase “all men are created equal” from Locke. Locke used the phrase to mean men are equal in their liberty; that is, all men have a natural right to equality in liberty. Jefferson intended the phrase to be understood as Locke understood it. This understanding is clear when the phrase is read in the context of the Declaration of Independence in its entirety. Neither Jefferson nor Locke intended this equality to mean that all men are or should be equal politically, economically, or socially. Furthermore, they did not intend for it to mean equality of opportunity, condition, or outcome. Thus, the phrase means that all men are entitled to liberty. It does not mean that they are entitled to political equality (democracy), economic equality (socialism, communism), or social equality (integration, amalgamation).

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

More on the US Constitution

 More on the US Constitution

Thomas Allen

Below discussed are two philosophies of government, two concepts of the States, and the three-fifth clause of the Constitution below.

Two Philosophies of Government

In the United States, two philosophies of government are competing: the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the philosophy of Abraham Lincoln. Until 1860, Jefferson’s philosophy prevailed. Since 1865, Lincoln’s philosophy has dominated.  Between 1861 and 1865, a war (Lincoln’s War) was fought to decide which of these two philosophies would govern the United States. Lincoln won and Jefferson lost. Today, the vast majority of people follow Lincoln’s philosophy.

Jefferson’s philosophy is based on the Aristotelian philosophy: Man is communal and naturally forms groups in which to live. The purpose of the government is to protect life, liberty, and property. Therefore, the government is the minimum necessary to protect life, liberty, and property.

Lincoln’s philosophy is based on the Hobbesian philosophy: Man is a solitary beast living by the “Law of the Jungle” (the survival of the fittest) instead of being communal. Therefore, man has to be forced into relationships with his fellow man. Further, only force can maintain these relationships. Consequently, the purpose of the government is to apply this force. The government is how civilization and society are maintained. To apply this force requires a powerful government.

Under Jefferson’s philosophy, the United States are a voluntary union of independent bodies politic (a voluntary union of independent States). As independent sovereigns, the States entered into a compact, the United States Constitution. Under the Constitution, the States retain all powers that they did not expressly delegate to the government for the United States (commonly called the federal government) or denied themselves in the Constitution.

Under Lincoln’s philosophy, the United States is (according to Lincoln’s philosophy and “are” according to Jefferson’s philosophy) a union where the people are submissive to an all-powerful government (the federal government). Also, the States are not independent sovereign bodies politic; they are merely equivalent to counties of the federal government. Moreover, the States have only those powers that the federal government condescends to grant or allow them. Further, the States are to do whatever the federal government orders them to do.

Jefferson’s philosophy of government is one of liberty. Lincoln’s philosophy of government is one of oppression.

Two Concepts of the States

In Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction and Related Topics, 1898 (pages 320–328), William Dunning, Ph.D., explains two concepts of the States. They are the older concept, the Jeffersonian concept, and the newer concept, the Lincolnian concept. The Jeffersonian concept generally prevailed before 1861, and the Lincolnian concept has prevailed since 1861.

The Lincolnian concept of the States maintains that the States are not equal: Some States are more equal than others. The original States north of the Potomac River along with a few other States are superior to the other States. All the other States including the Southern States are inferior because the act of Congress that admitted them (or readmitted the Southern States) placed conditions on them that are forever binding. Thus, the act of admission is superior to the Constitution.

Adherents of the Lincolnian concept argue that nothing in the Constitution requires that States be equal. Thus, Congress can impose perpetually binding conditions on a State when admitting that State into the Union. Further, courts are bound by these conditions and cannot overturn them on the grounds that all States are equal. The only equality to which all States are entitled is equal representation in the Senate, a proportional number of members in the House of Representatives, and a republican form of government. “But beyond such clearly defined rights, Congress may determine as it pleases the degree of restriction which it deems best for any particular community” (pp. 325-326).

The Jeffersonian concept maintains that all States are equal. The tenth amendment asserts this equality. Even if Congress were to admit with conditions a territory as a State, those conditions become irrelevant once the territory becomes a State. 

Adherents of the Jeffersonian concept contend that the Constitution overrides the act of admission. “If the power in question is not delegated to the United States by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states, it rightfully belongs to the state, anything in the act of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding” (p. 327).

Moreover, proponents of the Jefferson concept maintain that Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution only authorizes Congress to admit new States; it does not authorize Congress to create new States. “The creation of the state is antecedent to the admission, and springs from the will of the people inhabiting the territory” (p. 327).

Of the two concepts, the Jeffersonian concept is far more compatible with liberty than the Lincolnian concept. Ultimately, the Lincolnian concept leads to tyranny and despotism. Regrettably, many States have been admitted (or readmitted for the Southern States) following the Lincolnian concept. Thus, the Union consists of two types of States: the superior States and the inferior States. While the inferior States entered (or reentered for the Southern States) with perpetually binding conditions imposed on them, the superior States entered the Union without conditions.

Three-fifth Clause

Section 2, Article 1 of the Constitution for the United States reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Thus, slaves are only counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of direct taxation and representation.

Many people seem to believe that the slaveholding Southern States argued that Black slaves should not be counted because they were inferior subhumans. On the other hand, the Northern States, especially the New England States (home of the Yankee at that time), argued that Blacks should be counted as whole persons because they are the White man’s equal. On the contrary, the Southern States wanted to count Black slaves as whole persons. The Northern States did not want to count them as persons. The South and North compromised by counting slaves as three-fifths of a person. 

This disagreement had nothing to do with the inferiority of Blacks or the superiority of Whites; after all, free Blacks were counted as whole persons. Instead, how to count Black slaves concerned political power. If Black slaves were counted as whole persons, the South would have more political power. If Black slaves were counted as nonpersons, the North would have more political power. Even the compromise gave the North more political power.

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.