Yankees Need the South

Yankees Need the South

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix

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

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

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

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

Reference

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

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Rothbard on Lincoln’s War

Rothbard on Lincoln’s War

Thomas Allen

In “Just War,” which is based on a talk given in May 1994 and posted in March 2012 (https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/whats-a-just-war/), Murray Rothbard explains that the War for Southern Independence (Lincoln’s War) was a just war on the part of the South and an unjust war on the part of the North. (Rothbard [1926-1995] was a libertarian economist of the Austrian School, economic historian, and political theorist. He was a proponent of anarcho-capitalism and part of the post-World War II Old Right.)

Rothbard states that “a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them.” He identifies two just wars that Americans fought: the American Revolution and the War for Southern Independence.

The South was trying to free itself from the North’s oppressive domination — therefore, a just war on the part of the South. On the other hand, the North was trying to maintain its dominance over the South — therefore, an unjust war on the part of the North.

Before Lincoln’s War, a chief principle of war was not to target civilians. Sherman, Sheridan, and other Northern generals targeted civilians. The Union army often looted and deliberately destroyed civilian property that had no military value. When Lee’s army invaded the North, he ordered his troops not to molest civilians.

Like Americans during the American Revolution, Southerners believed that sovereignty resided in the people. They delegated certain sovereign powers to the governing authority, and their delegation was voluntary and contractual. As such, they could withdraw that sovereignty anytime that the governing authority had violated its trust. Thus, government was a contractual arrangement — “consent of the governed.” Some divine hand from above did not impose it. When the 13 States, whose governments had been created by the people thereof, ratified the Constitution of 1789, they did not bind themselves perpetually to it or the Union formed under it. Being sovereign republics, they reserved the right to withdraw from the Union if they found that the government created by the Constitution continuously violated it.

After years of the federal government threatening and assaulting Southern institutions, the Southern States “exercise their natural, contractual, and constitutional right to withdraw, to ‘secede’ from that Union.” Then, as sovereign republics, they contracted with other Southern States to form the Confederate States of America. Thus, just as the American Revolution was just, so was the War for Southern Independence. For the same reasons that the American colonies seceded from the British Empire, so did the Southern States secede from the Union formed under the Constitution of 1789.

Just as the American colonies rebelled against “the taxing power: the systematic plunder of their property by the British government,” so did the Southern States rebel against the systematic plunder of their property by the federal government. A principal grievance of the South was the protective tariffs that the North had imposed. These tariffs were used to protect inefficient Northern industries. Consequently, they forced Southerners to pay higher prices for manufactured goods. Also, these tariffs threaten to reduce Southern exports. Moreover, the South paid most of the tariffs, and the North received most of the appropriations and monopolistic Northern industries.

Not only did most Northerners want to continue plundering the South via tariffs, but others, the Yankees, also wanted to purge the South and remake it in the Yankee image. Yankees had a Puritan mentality and were driven by postmillennialism. (Before Christ returns, “man must set up a thousand-year Kingdom of God on Earth.”) Consequently, Yankees must cleanse society of sin and create a perfect society. “Moreover, if you didn’t try your darndest to stamp out sin by force you yourself would not be saved.” Further, the coercive power of government was an essential tool in cleansing the world of sin. For these Yankees, sin was anything “which might interfere with a person’s free will to embrace salvation.” They were abolitionists and prohibitionists and opposed Catholicism. Governments must stamp out the evils of slavery, alcohol and tobacco, gambling, most entertainment, and Catholicism.[1] Thus, they promoted paternalistic government at the federal, State, and local levels.

Like most Northerners, Yankees promoted governmental paternalism in economic affairs. They supported “the Whig program of statism and big government: protective tariffs, subsidies to big business, strong central government, large-scale public works, and cheap credit spurred by government.”

Also, Yankees opposed personal liberties, States’ rights, minimal government, free markets, and free trade — the basic principles of the Democratic Party at that time. Consequently, they supported the Republican Party, which was the “party of great moral ideas,” i.e., the stamping-out of sin.

To the delight of the Yankees, “The Northern war against slavery partook of fanatical millennialist fervor, of a cheerful willingness to uproot institutions, to commit mayhem and mass murder, to plunder and loot and destroy, all in the name of high moral principle and the birth of a perfect world.” Thus, the North fought “to maintain their coercive and unwanted rule over” the South.

Then, Rothbard compares the British during the American Revolution to the North during Lincoln’s War. “The British, at least, were fighting on behalf of a cause which, even if wrong and unjust, was coherent and intelligible: that is, the sovereignty of a hereditary monarch.” What was the North’s excuse? It had no allegiance to a real, actual person like a king. Its allegiance was “to a nonexistent, mystical, quasi-divine alleged entity, ‘the Union.’” Unlike a king, one cannot evaluate a Union’s deeds, and the Union is accountable to no one. Thus, Northerners replaced the Union formed under the Constitution of 1789, which was “a contractual institution that can either be cleaved to or scrapped,” with “a divinized entity, which must be worshipped, and which must be permanent, unquestioned, all-powerful.”

Using the cause of “human rights,” modern-day supporters of Lincoln’s War support and glorify his war. Lincoln “goes forth and rights the wrong of slavery, doing so through mass murder, the destruction of institutions and property, and the wreaking of havoc which has still not disappeared.” Yet, all other countries ended slavery without war.

Endnote

1. Most of the sins on which Yankees focused were vices. (Vice sins are sins that injure the sinner and his family but do not generally injure others.) For the most part, they not only ignored but also often supported sins that injured others, such as homicide (offensive wars), looting the public treasury (subsidies), and forcing the common people to pay higher prices (tariffs), often for lower quality goods. Many frequently supported business dealings where merchants took advantage of ignorant customers. Most did not object to debtors cheating creditors with depreciating fiat money — then the two largest debtors were banks and governments. As for slavery, they objected to the ownership of slaves. However, they had little issue with transporting and selling slaves, as many Yankees became rich trafficking slaves. Moreover, when the Northern States emancipated slaves, most Yankees sold their slaves instead of freeing them.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

The 1860 Presidential Election Caused the South to Seceded

The 1860 Presidential Election Caused the South to Secede

Thomas Allen, editor

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 92–94, G. Manigault explains how the 1860 presidential election led to the South seceding. He writes:

An election of President of the United States was to come on late in 1860, and the whole Union was greatly agitated by the canvass. The anti-slavery party chose for their candidate [Abraham Lincoln] an until lately obscure man — of little capacity or attainments, except as what is called a stump orator. He had a genius for diverting a rude Western crowd with funny stories and coarse witticisms. Some able speeches were delivered by him, but they were prepared by another man. His own serious efforts only proved his ignorance and shallowness. But he was popular in the great North-west, and was a man whom the party knew how to use for their purposes. Another party which expressly disclaimed for the Federal government any right to interfere with slavery in the States, but claimed for it the right to prohibit it in the common territories, nominated for their candidate an eminent Northwestern politician [Stephen A. Douglas], the zealous expounder of “Squatter Sovereignty.” A third party of no definite views, except peace at any price, brought out their candidate [John Bell]. And a fourth, consisting of the people of the Southern States and such people in the North as maintained the permanence and sanctity of the terms, on which the Union had been formed, and the limitations on the powers of the Federal government, nominated their candidate [John C. Breckinridge]. The result was that the anti-slavery party carried every Northern State, and the election — the fourth party carried every Southern State, and the other parties were nowhere.  

The people of the Southern States now found that they were living under a government completely in the hands of their enemies, utterly hostile to their rights and interests, and claiming a right not only to surround and hedge them out from all right in the common territories, and reduce them to complete and hopeless subjection, but to revolutionize their internal political and social organization. This was not the confederation into which they had entered; this was not the government which they had joined in creating. Unless they could submit to be revolutionized by external enemies, and become mere tributary provinces to them, it was high time to break off all connection with utterly faithless confederates, whom the most solemn treaty could not bind. The Southern States began to secede from the Union in rapid succession, and war was made upon the South to force them back into it.

More Southern articles.

Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws

Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws

Thomas Allen

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution)

When the States became members of the United States, they agreed to return fugitive slaves. As time passed and the Puritan Yankee abolitionists became highly influential in New England, New York, and the upper Midwest, the Northern States began refusing to aid in the return of runaway slaves. In other words, they began nullifying fugitive slave laws.

After the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, several Northern States effectively nullified it. (Presumably, Illinois and Indiana had no problem with the fugitive slave laws because they prohibited Blacks from entering them.)

Not unexpectedly, South Carolina objected to the nullifications. One reason that South Carolina gave for seceding was that various Northern States had nullified the fugitive slave laws. The reason that South Carolina listed slavery as a reason for its secession was that it was a prime example of the North’s hostility toward it and the North’s refusal to live by the Constitution.

Ironically, when South Carolina seceded, the Northern States no longer had a constitutional obligation to return runaway slaves to South Carolina. Thus, South Carolina’s secession effectively ended the need for the Northern States’ nullification, as far as South Carolina was concerned, because it was now a foreign country.

For South Carolina to secede to preserve slavery was absurd. Despite Northern States nullifying fugitive slave laws, slavery was better protected in the Union than outside it. Regardless of abolitionist rant, Republicans stressed that they had no intentions of abolishing slavery (see “Slavery Not the Reason” by Thomas Allen).

If South Carolina wanted to keep slavery intact, it would not accomplish that goal with secession. When it seceded, the United States ceased having any obligation to return runaway slaves to it.

Nevertheless, New England’s Puritanism, lust for plunder, and hatred of Southerners prevented them from letting South Carolina and the other Southern States leave the union in peace. The Yankee Puritans had seen the righteous, holy light, and they were determined to ram their vision of a sinless world down the throats of the Southern States despite the desiderata of the South. Puritans must free the world of sin so that Jesus can return — postmillennialism. (While the underlying principle of  postmillennialism is that the Holy Spirit becomes stronger, the underlying principle of today’s popular premillennialism is that the Holy Spirit becomes weaker.) Moreover, they would make the South pay for their liberation from sin by stealing as much wealth from the South as possible. (To the abolitionist Puritans, the greatest sin of all was slavery, despite the Bible not condemning slavery, which is why they abandoned the Bible.)

Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, and most other proponents of nullification taught using it to void unconstitutional federal acts. Although Madison approved of nullifying constitutional federal acts that a State disliked, most of the others did not teach using it to void constitutional acts of the federal government that a State disliked.

According to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, which is quoted above, the Constitution authorized fugitive slave laws. Moreover, it obligated States to return runaway slaves. Consequently, Northern States nullified fugitive slave laws not because they were unconstitutional, but because they disagreed with them. (Since the Northern States controlled Congress, why did they not repeal the fugitive slave laws or rewrite them to address their concerns?)

Nevertheless, if a State disagrees with a federal law that is constitutional, it has the right not to participate in its enforcement. However, it has no right to actively intervene or interfere with its enforcement, as some Northern States did when they nullified fugitive slave laws. If the law was unconstitutional, which the fugitive slave laws were not, a State has the right to interfere with its enforcement.

If the Puritan Yankee abolitionists found slavery so reprehensible that they would destroy the country and its constitution and cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in the process, they could have bought the slaves and set them free much more cheaply and without destroying the country and its constitution. These abolitionists cared only about Black slaves in the abstract. They did not care for them personally as did their owners.

Reconstruction showed how little Northerners cared about Blacks. They threw the slaves into the free-labor market. Most slaves had few skills beyond farm labor, and most had little training in taking care of themselves. Their masters had provided their housing, food, clothing, tools, medical care, etc., and took care of them in old age and when they were unable to work. After emancipation, they immediately had to learn to do all these things for themselves. Many failed, and many died.

Also, the North could have provided freed slaves with farmland in the territories. Yet, it did not because the territories were reserved for Whites.

Unfortunately, too many Blacks still have not escaped the slave mentality. Through various federal and State welfare and civil rights programs, they depend on governments to take care of them, as they had depended on the master — they have enslaved themselves to governments. Worse, they have enslaved taxpayers to support them.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks were making great strides in learning how to care for themselves and to free themselves from a slave mentality. Discrimination and segregation in the North and the South forced them to become independent and rely on themselves. Then came the Civil Rights Era. Consequently, this progress was retarded and thwarted.

Appendix. The Tenth Amendment Center

The Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) is a strong supporter of nullification. However, it goes beyond the teachings of Jefferson and Calhoun. While they wrote that a State has the right to nullify federal acts that it finds unconstitutional, as far as I know, they never promoted the nullification of constitutional acts with which a State disagrees. (When the Northern States nullified fugitive slave laws, they nullified constitutional laws with which they disagreed.) 

However, TAC goes beyond nullifying unconstitutional federal acts. It not only endorses a State nullifying unconstitutional federal acts but also endorses a State nullifying constitutional federal acts that it dislikes — except for Southern States nullifying civil rights acts of the federal government, including those that are unconstitutional, such as school desegregation and integration. (I have not found TAC expressly opposing or condemning the Southern States and communities attempting to nullify federal acts outlawing segregation and forcing integration. However, it does support Communist agents and Communist-front organizations nullifying State and local segregation laws and practices. Consequently, I infer that it opposes States and communities attempting to nullify these federal acts.) Thus, TAC supports Northern States' nullifying fugitive slave laws and opposes South Carolina's objection.

TAC seems to have a low opinion of Calhoun, despite him probably being the most brilliant and original political philosopher that the Western Hemisphere has ever produced, because he supported giving nullification real teeth. Calhoun argued that a State could prevent the enforcement of an unconstitutional federal law within its borders by vetoing it and thus making it unenforceable, as did Vermont’s nullification of the fugitive slave laws, which authorized arresting and penalizing federal officials attempting to enforce the fugitive slave laws. TAC objects to giving nullification teeth — at least in practice. Consequently, TAC rejects a State enforcing its nullification by jailing federal agents who attempt to enforce the nullified act in that State. In its opinion and Madison’s, such nullification allows one State to impose its will on the other States by preventing the enforcement of a nullified act within the nullifying State but not in the other States. Yet, TAC only weakly, if at all, objects to other States imposing their will on the nullifying State. In short, while Calhoun advocates nullification-heavy, TAC and Madison advocate nullification-light.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More political articles.

The Effects of Tariffs on the South

The Effects of Tariffs on the South

Thomas Allen, editor

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 33–35, G. Manigault explains the effects of tariffs on the South.

Has the reader ever considered what is the origin and true nature of that offence which is called smuggling? Stealing, and robbery, and the destruction of your neighbour’s property, and a multitude of other acts, are crimes in their very nature, and were criminal before any human law undertook to punish them. But there is in nature no such offence as smuggling. An important ingredient in your natural liberty is the right to carry the proceeds of your industry, or any part of your portable property, to the best market you can find for it; and, when you have exchanged it for other commodities, you have naturally an equal right to carry your new acquisitions home with you. They are as much yours as that was, which you gave for them. These are the natural and justifiable acts out of which governments have manufactured the offence of smuggling. They create the crime by legislation; they provide for its punishment by further legislation. 

The United States affords a striking example of these abuses. The people of the Northern States, having a majority of the votes in Congress, they had, when united among themselves, the control of the government, and sought to use it to their exclusive profit. In raising a revenue for the government, they, by the ingenious arrangements of their tariff acts, threw the burden of taxation on the South. In expending that revenue they bestowed a benefit on the North. They lowered the value of Southern produce by impairing the foreigner’s means of paying for it; and they raised the price of Northern manufactures by shutting out the competition of foreign goods. They used the whole machinery of government as if it had been designed for impoverishing the South and enriching the North. 

This method of plundering the South met with earnest protest and strenuous opposition from that quarter; and the tariffs for revenue and protection underwent many fluctuations. The fact is, that there is an essential incompatibility between the two objects of revenue and protection. Just so far as a duty protects home manufacturers, it fails to yield any revenue; for it keeps out foreign goods: and just so far as a duty yields a revenue from foreign goods imported, it fails to afford protection to the home manufacturer. There were many people at the North, to whom the raising of a large revenue by the government was of vital interest, for they profited by its expenditures. They were opposed to duties so high as to cut off revenue from the government, while affording protection to the manufacturer, by shutting out the goods of his foreign competitor. The representatives of the Southern States, by combining with this class of plunderers, were more than once enabled to foil the measures of that worse class of plunderers, who advocated protective duties so high as to shut out foreign goods.

More Southern articles.

The South's Greatest Blunder

The South's Greatest Blunder

Thomas Allen, editor

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 100-102, G. Manigault identifies the South greatest blunder at the outbreak of Lincoln’s War:

The people of the South and their leaders committed many and great blunders. But we will only name one which we think the first and greatest of all. The politicians, urging on the people the necessity of seceding from the Union, universally pronounced secession to be a peaceful right. And so it was. The terms of the treaty which had united the States into a confederation having been grossly, repeatedly, and notoriously violated by the Northern States, to the injury of the Southern, any one or all of them had a right to declare the treaty null and void, and withdraw from the Union. This was a peaceful right and no act of hostility. But the politicians went beyond this and assured the people that secession would prove a peaceful remedy for their wrongs. This was as gross an absurdity as any man, calling himself a statesman could utter. The people of the Northern States had control of the Federal government and of all its powers and resources; they had been for years in the enjoyment of large contributions or rather tribute from the industry and fertility of the South; their prosperity had been largely, we think chiefly built upon these contributions, and must decline on their withdrawal. Now it is flying in the face of all history and all experience in human nature to suppose that any people or government, with large means of waging war, will abandon possession of rich tributary territories without first striving to retain them by force of arms. It matters not whether the tribute is the result of robbery or of right. They will fight rather than give it up. 

Some individuals in the South uttered earnest warnings that secession meant war, for it must lead to it; and urged prompt preparation for it. But they had not the ear of the people. If the South had any statesmen, their counsels were not heard amid the harangues of politicians; and the States which seceded went out of the Union, with the most flimsy preparations for maintaining in arms the step they had taken. The most important provisions made for defence were due to the foresight and activity of a few individuals.

More Southern articles. 

Revisionist History

Revisionist History

Thomas Allen

In response to a comment that I made on “MSNBC’s Revisionist History About JD Vance and America’s Failed Wars,” The New American, by Selwyn Duke, July 22, 2024, (https://thenewamerican.com/us/msnbcs-revisionist-history-about-jd-vance-and-americas-failed-wars/#comment-6515624670), I had an interesting discussion with “Confused” on revisionist history. (I have changed his pseudonym to protect his ignorance or stupidity — whichever the case may be.)

Duke’s misleading statements on revision history prompted my comment. My comment was:

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

(This comment is a quotation from “Another Discussion with the Imbecile” by Thomas Allen.) The essence of revision history is that it significantly contradicts standard orthodox establishment history.

Duke may be the cause of some of Confused’s confusion about revisionist history. He writes that Alexander Nazaryan, a left-winger, condemned JD Vance over who launched America’s failed wars. Nazaryan attacked Vance and claimed that Vance was accusing Democrats in general and Biden in particular for the death of Americans in the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, although Vance hardly mentioned these wars and did not blame Democrats for them. Nazaryan identified the Republican Party as the party of war because of Bush the Younger’s war with Iraq. Yet, Nazaryan ignored the wars in which Democrats led the countries: World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Duke called Nazaryan commentary revisionist history. Nazaryan’s historical account may be revisionist history, but that does not mean that all revisionist historians are left-wingers.

Confused maintains that only left-wingers write revisionist histories; right-wingers do not write revisionist histories. However, since progressives, liberals, and neoconservatives write most standard orthodox establishment history, they have little need to write revisionist history. Consequently, right-wingers write most revisionist history.

Among the right-wing writers of revisionist history are Dennis Cuddy, G. Edward Griffin, Jim Marrs, Jack Mohr, Eustace Mullins, Murray Rothbard, Antony Sutton, Nesta Webster, Clyde Wilson, and even Pat Buchanan. (This list is only a minute sample of right-wingers who have written revisionist histories.) Because these writers have written revisionist history, Confused considers them to be left-wingers, even communists. Following are some examples of revision history.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that the French Revolution began as a spontaneous grassroots revolt of repressed peasants and proletarians against an oppressive aristocracy, monarchy, and clergy. Revisionist historians argue that the French Revolution was planned years earlier and was guided by elites and secret societies. (See “The French Revolution: Part I: The Foundation” by Thomas Allen.)

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that slavery was the cause, even the sole cause, of Lincoln’s War. The North fought to free the slaves, and the South fought to preserve and even to expand slavery.

Revisionist historians argue that slavery was a minor, even an insignificant issue, until about halfway through the war. Tariffs were the primary cause of secession for the Lower South, and the denial of the constitutional right of a State to secede was the primary cause of secession for the Upper South. (Until 1861, most people, including and especially New Englanders, claimed that States had a right to secede. However, once New Englanders and their allies in New York and the Upper Midwest gained control of the US government, States no longer had a constitutional right to secede.) Thus, the South fought against Northern exploitation, and the North fought to continue to exploit the South. Further, the South fought to preserve self-government and not to protect slavery. Most Southerners fought to repeal an invading hoard; if the Yankees had not invaded the South, no war would have occurred.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. Revisionist historians say that it was a surprise attack for the people at Pearl Harbor. However, it was not a surprise to Roosevelt and his inner circle. They knew about it before it happened. Not only did they let it happen, but Roosevelt facilitated the attack. (See “World War II” by Thomas Allen.)

Robert Welch, who was a co-founder of the John Birch Society, asserted that President Eisenhower was a Communist sympathizer and an agent of the Communist conspiracy. Standard orthodox establishment historians disagree with Welch.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin. Moreover, no conspiracy was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. Revisionist historians argue that Oswald did not act alone; others were involved in the assassination, which made it a conspiracy. Furthermore, Oswald may not have been the actual assassin. (For more on the Kennedy assassination, see “A Credibility Test” by Thomas Allen.)

One left-wing revisionist history that has become partially, if not wholly, accepted as standard orthodox establishment history is that slaves in the Catholic Latin colonies were treated better than in the Protestant colonies of North America. This history is the opposite of the truth. Slaves were treated better in Protestant North America.

Another slavery-related left-wing revisionist history has become standard orthodox establishment history. That revisionist history was that slavery was the reason for Lincoln’s War. Many Republican leaders, who were the progressives of that day, promoted this revisionist history. Now, this explanation for the war is the standard orthodox establishment history.

Confused is like Imbecile; any history with which he disagrees is revisionist history. The standard definition of revisionist history, which he rejects, is any explanation of a historical event that disagrees significantly with the standard orthodox establishment explanation. (For more on revisionist history, see https://tcallenco.weebly.com/history.html.)

Discussion in Comments

Me: A revisionist history is a history that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment history. It is a historical account based on facts or a perspective that differs from the standard orthodox establishment history, which emphasizes a particular narrative or agenda instead of objective facts. That is, the primary purpose of the standard orthodox establishment history is to declare that the victors had the moral high ground and were not at fault or to advance an agenda of the establishment. More often than not, revisionist history is closer to the truth than is the standard orthodox establishment history. https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2024/05/another-discussion-with-imbecile.html

Confused: That’s not correct. “Revisionist history” has a negative connotation and is usually applied to leftist manipulation of history.

There are facts relating to events that have happened. Actual history involves revealing and expressing those facts.

Me: If you are correct and I am wrong, then the official explanation of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 are accurate, and the revisionists are wrong. Likewise, only revisionist historians claim that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election. Also, the conspiratorial history that the JBS [John Birch Society] spews out is revisionist history, and, therefore, it has a negative connotation and is usually applied to manipulate history if you are correct. Most revisionist historians do a better job of discovering and explaining facts relating to historical events than do the standard orthodox establishment historians, whom you seem to prefer to believe.

Confused: Your above analysis is incorrect and illogical.

The problem is semantics. You’re defining “revisionist history” in a very anomalous way. The people you’re describing are conspiracy theorists, who may be right or wrong. Here is the definition of “revisionism”: “1 : a movement in revolutionary Marxian socialism favoring an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary spirit.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revisionism

By calling correct historical interpretations “revisionism” YOU are unwittingly demonizing them by associating them with a negative label. You can do that if you wish, but it’s misguided and unwise.

Please stop hurting the cause.

Me: Your definition is for “revisionism” and not for “revisionist history.” Nevertheless, if you are correct, then people who question the official history of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 and present an alternative explanation are Marxist socialists.

Confused: Again, that’s illogical. It’s only “revisionist history” if it’s an incorrect portrayal of history put forth to deceive and warp people’s conception of reality. So if the 9/11 doubters are correct, or at least if they’re questioning the official story in good faith, it’s not revisionist history.

Me: I have concluded that you are like Imbecile; any history with which you disagree is revisionist history. The standard definition of revisionist history, which you reject, is any explanation of a historical event that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment explanation of that event. JBS’s conspiratorial explanation of various historical events is revisionist history, just as a communist class-warfare explanation of the same event is revisionist history.

Confused: Go bake some cookies, hon.

END

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

Republicans Owned Blacks

Republicans Owned Blacks

Thomas Allen

I posted a comment on a comment on “Trump Surprises BLM Activist!” by Vince Quill (https://wltreport.com/2023/11/30/president-trump-surprises-blm-activist/). [Note: If you go to this site, you will not see my comments because it has banned me. Apparently, I objected too much about it censoring my comments telling the truth about God’s chosen people and their political movement.] My comment was “From 1865 to around 1960, the Republicans owned the slaves; then, the Democrats acquired ownership.” Not surprisingly, my comment received several negative responses. For the most part, these commenters seem to be victims of orthodox establishment propaganda that is called history.

Most of the commenters to the newsletter containing this article are anti-Democrats, anti-RINOs, pro-Republicans, especially pro-Trump, and racial nihilists who practice the new morality. (Interesting, when I commented on another article that most commenters of this newsletter were racial nihilists who practiced the new morality, that comment was censored.) Many have Dixiephobic and, especially, Confederaphobic tendencies. 

This discussion is presented in the appendix. Only the pertinent comments are given.

What caused the negative comments was that “the Republicans owned slaves.” Although this phrase is a little hyperbola, it is the truth.

During Reconstruction, carpetbaggers and scalawags, backed by the Union army, used freed slaves to aid them in their plunder of the South. As payment, Blacks filled many elected and appointed political positions and used their new power to further plunder the South. They increased the debt in some Southern States so unbearably high that these States repudiated their debts following the end of Reconstruction.

In the South, Republicans maintained control of Blacks during Reconstruction. In the North, Republicans gained control of Blacks by giving them the vote via the Fifteenth Amendment.

After Reconstruction, Republicans maintained control of Blacks, although they mostly neglected them. Moreover, Republicans left the control of race relations to the States where it constitutionally belonged.

In the South, States made voting difficult for Blacks primarily for two reasons. (1) During Reconstruction, Blacks had proven their incompetence at participating in government.  (2) Most Blacks would have voted for Republicans, the party that had destroyed the South.

During the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the Democrats started replacing Republicans as owners of Blacks. The Democrats acquired ownership of Blacks by offering them more booty and privileges than the Republicans were offering. President Johnson sealed the deal with the Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty.

Moving on to the founding of the Democratic Party, E claims that the modern Democratic Party was formed in 1828, and Jefferson was not a founder of it. He is deceiving with a partial truth. Apparently, he hates Democrats and does not want anything with “Republican” in its name to be associated with the Democratic Party. (You will notice from E’s comment to my comment on the founding principles of the Republican Party, that ignorance and stupidity consume him. Since he cannot refute my claim, he resorts to name-calling. He is the one who has drunk the cool aid of orthodox establishment propaganda, which is erroneously called history.)

According to Compton’s Pictured Encyclopedia (1957), The World Book Encyclopedia (1971), and Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (1983), the Democratic Party grew out of the Democratic-Republican Party, which Thomas Jefferson founded. The Democratic-Republican Party advocated a strict interpretation of the Constitution and States’ rights. In 1828, it split into two parties: the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party, which the Whig Party later absorbed. Representing the Eastern interest, the National Republican Party advocated nationalism, protective tariffs, and centralized banking (then called national banking) — policies that the Republican Party advocated after the collapse of the Whig Party. Representing the Western and Southern interests, the Democratic Party advocated States’ rights, tariffs for revenue only, and an independent Treasury — thus, it continued the original policies of the Democratic-Republican Party that Jefferson founded but under a shorter name.

When wokeism and political correctness do not consume it, the Democratic Party claims Jefferson (the first president of the Democratic-Republican Party) and Jackson (the first president of the Democratic Party) as its founders.

As for Abraham Lincoln, whom all these commenters idolize, he believed in and promoted corporate welfare (subsidies to big businesses), protective tariffs (a form of corporate welfare), internal improvements (a form of corporate welfare), national banking (now called centralized banking), and preserving the territories for Whites (Black should be kept out of them). (I suspect that these commenters oppose corporate welfare and centralized banking, although they may support corporate welfare in the form of protective tariffs.) Lincoln’s job as president was to serve big business and convert the United States from a federation of sovereign nations to a consolidated empire. In this task, he was highly successful.

Appendix

The following are the original comment I commented on and the pertinent comments that followed. The pseudonyms have been changed to protect the guilty. 

C: Yep, democrats keeping their slaves on the plantation since the end of the Civil War. Only they no longer house them on their property.

Me to C: From 1865 to around 1960, the Republicans owned the slaves; then, the Democrats acquired ownership.

E to Me: That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. You must be reading those revisionist history books.

The foundation of the Republican Party was on abolitionism (that means that a person is AGAINST slavery, and not for it), and the Democrat Party was so adamantly for it, at least one Republican Congressman was murdered on the Floor by a Democrat (but because he was a Democrat, he apparently was never charged, just like today). After losing the Civil War, the Democrat Party formed the KKK, to intimidate and kill “uppity niggers”that dared to speak up. In the 1960’s, the Democrat Party went on a new path: make blacks willing slaves, by offering them money to have babies, not marry, not get an education, and as a result, they were beholden to the Democrat Party for all "free money" and such they got.

D to E: Thank you, you explained it a lot better then I did, but I was trying to explain it as simply as I could because thats [sic] how you have to for some people that never listened in history class. About the black babies they should read about the abortionist herself Margret [sic] Sanger. And if anyone doesn’t think Librals [sic] aren’t trying to bring Socialism to us, they could read the 8 rules of socialism by Saul Alinski [sic]. Oh and lets [sic] not forget Democrats voted into Congress a good friend of Joe Biden’s The one Head Master of the KKK, ROBERT BYRD. And Hillary Clinton done [sic] her college thesis on Saul Alinski [sic] and praised how great she thought he was.

Me to E: The foundation of the Republican Party was to keep Blacks out of the territories, to subsidize big business, and to establish central banking, which it did with the national banking law. The Republicans could have aided the freed slaves by giving them land in the territories. However, since the territories were preserved for Whites, they didn’t. They wanted them to stay in the South as punishment for Southerners. Moreover, Lincoln stated that he had no intention of freeing the slaves until he could use freeing the slaves as war propaganda. He always said that he was fighting to preserve the Union, which is why nearly all Northerners fought. His Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves because it only applied to slaves in places that the Union army did not control. It exempted places under the control of the Union Army. Moreover, if Lincoln had gone to war to free the slaves, he would not have had much of an army because Northerners would have rebelled. Most Northerners despised the abolitionists almost as much as Southerners despised them. Northerners feared if slaves were freed a significant number of them would migrate to the North, and they did not want Blacks in the North. Further, the slaves were freed in the Confederate States before they were freed in the Union States. The KKK was created to protect Southerners from an occupying army as the French did during WWII. Unfortunately for the Blacks, they were the tools that the carpetbaggers and scalawags used to pillage the South, and thus, they received the brunt of the retaliations. The people who formed the KKK disbanded it a few years later. However, the KKK was later resurrected, and in the 1920s, it was stronger in the Republican North than in the Democratic South. This will surprise most of these people who cannot think beyond “Democrats created the KKK” and “all are Democrats evil,” Jefferson is the father of the Democratic Party, and the last truly Jeffersonian president was a Democrat, Cleveland.

E to Me: Oh, my God; you drank the whole jug of Cool-Aid! Just where did you get this claptrap? From the Democrat Party website? I suppose that next, you’ll inform us, that the Democrat Party was really the party of Black Freedom, and it was the Republican Party that wanted to keep the slaves, right?

Stop trying to greenlight us, and try to convince us that a turd is really a Baby Ruth bar.

For everyone’s edification, the modern Democrat Party was formed in 1820, not by Jefferson; he was long-dead by then.

Me to E:  Revisionist history books are often closer to the truth than are establishment orthodox history books. Examples are the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and 9-11.

Me to Me: Those who give the down votes on this comment [on revisionist history] must believe the official story of the Kennedy assassination and the official governmental conspiracy story of 9-11 because they are the orthodox history of these events. If they are consistent, they believe that the COVID so-called vaccine saved millions of lives while killing almost no one because that the establishment orthodox history.

D to Me: Such BS . Guess history wasn’t one of your strong subjects. This is a little bit of history, Abraham Lincoln - A REPUBLICAN writer of the emancipation to free the slaves. DEMOCRATS FOUGHT AGAINST IT. AND has had the blacks under their thumb for 200 + years later and a commie loving Democrat in office again that’s letting every TOM, DICK and HARRY cross their open border, has every Communist country pointing nuclear weapons at us, has depleted our oil supplies, and our military, there’s no way we’d ever win. I’m glad blacks are waking up.

H to Me: You need to catch up on your history. Democrats have been changing the history so know one will know the truth about what they did. The civil war proves that the Republicans wanted freedom of slaves and the democrats did not. The democrats started the KKK, THEY WERE SYMPATHIC [sic] TO THE Nazis, THEY SUPPRESSED THE BLACK COMMUNITY AND TREATED THEM LIKE 2ND CLASS CITIZENS FROM THE GET GO. Blacks mostly voted Republican from after the Civil War and through the early part of the 20th century. That’s not surprising when one considers that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, and the white, segregationist politicians who governed Southern states in those days were Democrats. Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku, WAS A BLACK BUSINESS MAN WHO SOLD SLAVES!!!! Nwaubani Ogogo's slaves were sold through the ports of Calabar and Bonny in the south of what is today known as Nigeria. IMAGINE THAT.

Me to H: Much of my information comes from the time that the Republicans were in charge of writing history. Your sources of the civil war, which was not a civil war, seem to come from the Democratic, liberal, progressive, and neoconservative sanitized version of that war. How could the KKK be sympathetic to the Nazis when the Nazis did not arrive until about 70 years later? By that time, most KKK organizations were governmental sting operations to entrapped dimwits. Lincoln was a racist bigot who wanted to repatriate all Blacks. Since slavery was better protected within the Union than outside the Union, slavery was not the cause of the war. (Here are some comments that Lincoln said about Blacks: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2019/10/lincoln-on-negro-race.html. Here is what the typical antebellum Northerner thought of Blacks: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-antebellum-northerners-opinion-of.html. Here is evidence that slavery did not cause the war: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2012/12/slavery-not-reason.html. Of course, you are too lazy and opinionated to read them.)

The founding principles of the Republican Party were hatred of the Constitution and Southerners, disunion, and the concentration of political power in the federal government. Being a White man’s party, the Republican Party had little use for Blacks — free or slave. (https://tcallenco.blogspot....[?])

Moreover, the Democratic-controlled Confederate states freed their slaves before the Republican-controlled Union States freed theirs. Further, Blacks received the vote in the South before they received it in most of the Northern States.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues.

Another Discussion with the Imbecile

Another Discussion with the Imbecile

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

Revisionist History

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

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

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

Slavery and the Cause of Lincoln’s War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phobia

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

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

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

Appendix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me to Imbecile: You are too stupid to learn.

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

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

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

THE END

Endnotes

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

2. Ibid., p. 194.

3. Ibid., p. 195.

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

5. Ibid., p. 337.

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

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

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

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

King on Where We Are Going– Part 2

King on Where We Are Going– Part 2

Thomas Allen

About alliances with churches and church bodies, King writes, “Some churches recognize that to be relevant in moral life they must make equality an imperative.” (P. 159.) An alliance can be made with these churches, and other churches should be shunned. (However, God is no egalitarian. Saved and unsaved people serve as an example. If God were an egalitarian, then all people would either go to heaven and receive the same reward or go to hell and receive the same torment. Since saved people go to heaven and receive different rewards, and unsaved people go to hell and receive different torments, God cannot be an egalitarian; he rejects equality.)

King states, “A primary Negro political goal in the South is the elimination of racism as an electoral issue.” (P. 160.) (This goal has failed. For at least 55 years, Negroes have made racism an electoral issue. Whites ceased making racism an electoral issue decades ago with Whites surrendering unconditionally to the Negro and joining Negroes in the genocide of the White race.) 

Then, King comments on White politicians surrendering to the Negro. He notes, that as more White politicians compete for the Negro bloc vote, the “monolithic white unity based on racism will no longer be possible.” (P. 161.) (Whatever unity that Whites had based on race did collapse as King predicted. However, Negro unity based on racism quickly replaced it and has remained intact ever since.)

Continuing, King comments “that the Negro vote has not transformed the North” (Pp. 161-162) as it was transforming the South. He blames this lack of progress in the North on Northern Negroes having “never used direct action on a mass scale for reforms.” (P. 162.)

Further, King blames the lack of Negro political strength in the North on “the grip of an old tradition on many individual Negroes. They tend to hold themselves aloof from politics as a serious concern. They sense that they are manipulated, and their defense is a cynical disinterest.” (P. 162.) (Thus, Northerners had less concern for Negroes than did Southerners.)

King asserts that Negroes must use their political strength (i.e., governmental coercion) to achieve their goals. (So much for nonviolence.) They cannot do it with economic power or through culture.

Then, he offers the Jews as an example for Negroes to follow. Jews placed a great deal of emphasis on education; so should Negroes. (A big difference exists between Jews and Negroes. On average, the IQ of Jews is about 25 to 30 points higher than the IQ of Negroes, which is about 85, a standard deviation below the IQ of Whites.) He comments on Jewish social and political actions as examples for Negroes to follow.

Correctly, King states, “Education without social action is a one-sided value because it has no true power potential. Social action without education is a weak expression of pure energy.” (P. 64.) (Since the 1960s, Negroes overall have shown little improvement in intelligence, intellect, characters, temperament, and other nonphysical traits influenced by genes. In attitude, Negroes have even regressed and show no appreciation for what Whites have given them, which is everything that they have demanded, except reparations [and that will make no difference], even genociding themselves. The more Whites surrender to the Negroes, the more Negroes loathe Whites and the less they appreciate what Whites have given them.)

King urges Negroes in the civil rights movement to pressure Negroes who are not active in the civil rights movement to join and become active. The inactive Negro needs to be scorned to “pick up his citizenship rights and add his strength enthusiastically and voluntarily to the accumulation of power for himself and his people.” (P. 165.) King wanted to make every Negro a protestor.

Then, King writes, “The slave heritage can be cast into the dim past by our consciousness of our strengths.” (P. 165.) (Instead of casting away their slave heritage, many Negroes copied the Jews. As Jews boast of their Holocaust™ heritage even if they have none, Negroes boast about their slave heritage even if they have none. As Jews have used the Holocaust™ to swindle ever more wealth and power from people who were not alive at the time of the Holocaust™, so have Negroes used slavery to swindle ever more wealth and power from people who were not alive at the time of slavery.)

Continuing, King argues that adequate organization is necessary to channel the Negro’s fighting spirit to achieve radical reform. Negroes needed to overcome “their disunity and petty competition.” (P. 166.) (Much of the Negro’s victory over Whites results from disunity and petty competition among Whites. Worse, some Whites, especially Yankees, have sought to annihilate another White ethnicity, Southerners — and have wanted to genocide them even before Lincoln’s War. Moreover, scalawags, New-South Southerners, Southern wokesters, and other quislings care little about their brethren, the Southern people, and nothing about Southern culture. Instead, they imitate the Yankee and join him in the genocide of the Southerner. Yankees and these Southern traitors join Negroes in their war against the South.)

Next, King writes, “Negroes are almost instinctively cohesive. We band together readily, and against white hostility we have an intense and wholesome loyalty to each other.” (P. 168.) (Cohesiveness is one great advantage that Negroes have over Whites. Negroes easily unite against Whites. Unfortunately for the White race, some White ethnicities, especially the Yankee, loathe other White ethnicities, e.g., Southerners, so much that they are willing to unite with Negroes against their fellow Whites and genocide them.)

Continuing, King proposes some civil rights programs. He focuses on one in particular, which deals with poverty. He states that “there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States.” (P. 170.) Then, he identifies several causes of poverty. (One item that he omits from his list is genetics. Genetics is not the cause of all poverty, but it is the cause of some poverty.) He criticizes the fragmented approach to treating poverty; a coordinated approach is needed. King concludes that the solution to poverty is a guaranteed income. (King-idolizing conservatives take note: You need to promote a guaranteed income.) Further, he attacks the market economy because its “dislocations in the market operation . . . and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will.” (Pp. 171-172.) (King ignores that when given a choice to work or to be paid for loafing, many people will choose to loaf for a living.)

Then, King identifies two groups that have enjoyed guaranteed incomes for nearly 40 years: “The wealthy who own securities have always had an assured income; and their polar opposite, the relief client, has been guaranteed an income, however minuscule, through welfare benefits.” (P. 174.) (King must have never owned securities. Stocks may or may not pay dividends. Moreover, a company may go bankrupt, which usually results in the holders of its stocks and bonds losing everything.)

Citing John Kenneth Galbraith (an abysmal but popular economist), King notes that the cost of a guaranteed income is about what is spent on the Vietnam War. King concludes, “If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity [of distribution].” (P. 174.) (King ignores the lack of constitutional authority for the federal government to provide a guaranteed income. But, then, King had absolutely no use for the US Constitution; nearly everything that he advanced was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, a State may provide a guaranteed income unless its constitution prohibits it.)

King taught Negroes how to envy and never to be satisfied. He taught Whites to disdain themselves and to seek their own genocide. Moreover, he destroyed the South, which the White oligarchs wanted to be destroyed because the South was the last bulwark on the planet for liberty, localism, constitutional government, Christian values, and the White race. 

Although King objected to discrimination based on merit, he did not object to discrimination based on race per se. Although he opposed racial discrimination that favored Whites, he supports racial discrimination that favored Negroes. Nearly all Negroes agree with King concerning discrimination.

Since other races are genetically more endowed than the Negro, Negroes, like King, object to discrimination based on merit. They prefer discrimination based on race if the discrimination favors their race as it has for at least the last 50 years.

The hiring of musicians for classical orchestras illustrates this hypocrisy of Negroes. Historically, few Negroes were hired to play in classical orchestras. Negroes claimed that they were not hired because of their race. In response to this accusation, a barrier was placed between the auditioning musician and the people hiring so that those hiring could not see the race of the musician; they could only hear the music that the musician was playing. Still, the number of Negroes playing in classical orchestras did not significantly increase. So, Negroes demanded that those hiring see the person auditioning. Thus, Negroes demanded discrimination against better-qualified White musicians in favor of less-qualified Negro musicians. In other words, Negroes were demanding affirmative action and quotas for Negro musicians. Naturally, King would have approved of this racial discrimination against Whites since he promoted such discrimination throughout his career.

The fate of the North American Indians provides a warning to Whites. Indians failed to unite against White immigrants when they greatly outnumbered Whites. Many Indians allied with Whites to fight other Indians. As a result, the North American Indian is almost extinct — most that exist today are more mongrel than Indian. Whites are following the path of the North American Indians.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More social issues articles.