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.

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.

Genocide of Southerners

Genocide of Southerners

Thomas Allen

To destroy the culture of an ethnic group is to destroy that ethnicity — just as deliberately killing members of an ethnicity leads to the destruction of that ethnicity. Both scenarios result in genocide or attempted genocide.

Now, let us look at some definitions of genocide. These definitions show that what has been happening to Southerners since the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation has been genocide.

1. John Cox: “Genocide aims to not only eliminate individual members of the targeted group but to destroy the group’s ability to maintain its social and cultural cohesion and, thus, its existence as a group.”

2. The Armenian Genocide Museum: “[Cultural genocide is] acts and measures undertaken to destroy nations’ or ethnic groups’ culture through spiritual, national, and cultural destruction.”

3. Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary: “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.”

4. Merriam-Webster, legal definition: “acts committed with intent to partially or wholly destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.”

As these definitions clearly show, Yankeedom and the oligarchs have been trying to genocide Southerners for more than 160 years. The following outlines this genocide.

The genocide of Southerners began early in Lincoln’s War with the wanton killing of children and women. Lincoln’s army killed them directly and indirectly through starvation. Moreover, Lincoln’s army deliberately destroyed public buildings, private houses from stately houses to slave quarters, churches, and cultural sites. Their deliberate destruction of Southern life and culture had nothing to do with war. Such deliberate destruction was genocide.

This genocide continued through the First Reconstruction as Republican bureaucrats and politicians further destroyed Southern culture and Southerners. Carpetbaggers, scalawags, and Blacks backed by the Union army looted and otherwise destroyed the South. So successful was their war to destroy the South through impoverishment, that Southerners needed more than a century to recover. 

Following the First Reconstruction, the genocide subsided somewhat and Southerners began to recover their culture. This era was when Southerners erected most of the statutes and memorials to their heroes.

With its Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruling, the Warren Court began the Second Reconstruction and signaled the renewal of the genocide of Southerners. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967), which legalized miscegenation, became highly important weapons in the genocide of Southerners.

While genociding Southerners via miscegenation, the Yankee oligarchs through their agents — primarily scalawags, carpetbaggers, and Blacks — attacked the culture and symbols of the South. A major casualty was the Confederate flag. Among other casualties were songs such as “Dixie” and “Carry Me Back to Old Virginny” and most songs that contained the word “slave” or praised the South. Statues and memorials of Southern heroes were torn down. Even streets, buildings, institutions, and military bases were renamed to remove references to Southerners. The cultural genocide of Southerners is almost completed.

Although the genocide of Southerners during the Second Reconstruction (1954 to present) has not been one of physically killing Southerners, it has been rapidly destroying their culture and heritage. Once an ethnicity’s culture is destroyed, it is dead though its people may continue to live.

Most people seem to believe that for genocide to be real, it must occur over a few years — a decade at most. They are wrong. Assyrians have been enduring off-and-on genocide and ethnic cleansing longer than have Southerners. Muslims have been trying to genocide Assyrians longer than Yankees have been trying to genocide Southerners.

The genocide of Southerners began with the deliberate and wanton killing of Southern civilians during Lincoln’s War and continued during the First Reconstruction. During the Second Reconstruction, the genocide of Southerners has focused on erasing their culture and to a lesser extent via miscegenation.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Review of Facts and Falsehoods – Part 2

Review of Facts and Falsehoods – Part 2

Thomas Allen

Negro Voting

Edmonds reveals the low opinion about Blacks held by the typical Republican. He quotes an 1880 issue of the Lemars (Iowa) Sentinel, which he describes as one of the boldest Republican organs that frankly betrayed its party’s real feeling toward the Negro race, “As an office seeker, the negro [sic] has more brass in a square inch of his face, more rapaciousness for office, than his barbarian masters ever dared to possess. The Southern brigadier wants office and place, but he is willing to fight for them, or vote for them; at the drop of the hat he will shoot and cut for them; he does not whine like a whipped cur, or demand like a beggar on horseback, as the nigger does. Let the nigger first learn to vote before he asks for office. The brazen-jawed nigger is but a trifle less assuming, insolent and imperious in his demands than the lantern-jawed brigadiers; the educated nigger is a more capacious liar than his barbarian masters ever were, or dared to be.

“The greatest mistake the Republican party ever made was taking the nigger at a single bound and placing on his impenetrable skull the crown of suffrage. It is a wrong to him and to us to let him wield the ballot. The nigger is necessarily an ignoramus. The free nigger, we repeat, is a fraud.” (p. 220.)

(The reason for giving the Negro suffrage was to maintain Republican political power. Thus, the reason for the fifteenth amendment, which gave Black males the vote, was to maintain Republican control in the North. This amendment only applied in the Northern States; the Negro already had the vote in all the defunct Confederate States when this amendment was ratified.)

Grant’s Drinking

About Grant’s alcoholism, Edmonds writes, “From early manhood General Grant was afflicted with the drink disease.” (p. 221.) Then he quotes Wendell Phillips, insane hater of the South, and General Don Piatt, an abolitionist (p. 221).

“Phillips said: ‘Grant can never stand before a bottle of whiskey without falling down.’

“General Piatt, in ‘Memories of the Men Who Saved the Union,’ says: ‘Grant’s habit of drink lost us thousands and thousands of patriotic lives. The attempt to conceal this is not only pitiable, but hopeless.’”

Continuing, Edmonds writes, “The terrible slaughter of Union soldiers at Cold Harbor was charged to Grant’s drunkenness. Major-General Wm. F. Smith, in a confidential letter to Senator Foote, July 30, 1864, states that soon after Grant had taken a pledge to drink nothing intoxicating, he (Grant) called at his (Smith's) headquarters, and asked for whiskey, and drank so often he went away drunk, and General Butler saw him. A short while before this Grant had written to Washington asking that General Butler be relieved from that department, because he (Grant) ‘could not trust Butler with the command of the troops in the movements about to be made.’ Instructions were sent to Grant to remove Butler. Butler heard of this and hurried to see Grant. General Smith wrote Senator Foote that he heard direct from Grant’s headquarters, and also from another source, that General Butler threatened Grant that he would expose his drunken habits if the order was not revoked. The order was revoked, and Butler remained in command, although Grant had said he was unfit to be trusted.” (p. 221.)

Some English Views of Reconstruction

Edmonds quotes two English historians on their views of Reconstruction (p. 238).

“Percy Gregg, the English historian, in his history of the United States, says: ‘The reconstruction policy was at once dishonest and vindictive. The Congressional majority (Republican) were animated not merely by selfish designs, but by rabid hatred of the South’s people which had fought so gallantly for what the best jurists of America believed to be their moral and constitutional right.’

“Another English writer of great eminence, Anthony Trollope, was in this country during the reconstruction period, and wrote of it thus: ‘I hold that tyranny never went beyond this. Never has there been a more terrible condition imposed upon a fallen people. For an Italian to feel an Austrian over him, for a Pole to feel a Russian over him, has been bad indeed, but it has been left for the political animosity of the Republicans of the North — men who themselves reject all contact with the negro — to subject the Southern people to dominance from the African who yesterday was their slave. The dungeon chains were knocked off the captive in order that he may be harnessed as a beast of burden to the captive's chariot.’

“We will give another passage from Gregg, the English historian: ‘The devastation of the Pallatine [sic] hardly exceeded the desolation and misery wrought by the Republican invasion and conquest of the South. No conquered nation of modern days, not Poland under the heel of Nicholas, not Spain or Russia under that of Napoleon, suffered from such individual and collective ruin, or saw before them so frightful a prospect as the States dragged by force, in April, 1865. under the “best government in the world.”’ (Page 375, Gregg's History of United States.)” [Palatine was a territory in Germany that lost about 90 percent of its population during the Thirty Years War.]

Not So Random Quotations

Wendell Phillips, an abolitionist:

– “He [Lincoln] is a first-rate second-rate man; that is all of him.”

– “Mr. Lincoln is a politician; politicians are like the bones of a horse’s fore shoulder; not a straight one in it.”

– “The Constitution is a mistake! Tear it to pieces! Our aim is disunion!”

– “The Republican party is in no sense a national party. It is a party of the North, organized against the South.”

– “We confess that we intend to trample on the Constitution of this country. We of New England are not a law-abiding community. God be thanked for it! We are disunionists; we want to get rid of this Union.”

William Lloyd Garrison, a New England abolitionist:

– “The Republican party is moulding public sentiment in the right direction for the dissolution of the Union.”

Rev. Andrew Forbes:

– “There never was an hour when this blasphemous and infamous Union should have been made; now the hour must be prayed for when it will be dashed to pieces.”

Parson Pryiic, a red hot Republican:

“A dissolution of the Union is what a large portion of the Republicans are driving at.”

William H. Seward, Lincoln’s Secretary of State:

– “Our Constitution is to us of the North a great danger. The Southerners are using it as a shield.”

– “Only a despotic and imperial government can subjugate seceding States.”

– “The attempt to reinforce Sumter will provoke an attack and involve war.” 

Ward H. Lamon, Lincoln’s self-appointed bodyguard:

– “As a people, Lincoln thought negroes would only be useful to those who were at the same time their masters, and the foes of those who sought their good.”

– “Lincoln always contended that the cheapest way of getting rid of the negro was for the Nation to buy the slaves and send them out of the country.”

– “He [Lincoln] never at any time favored the admission of negroes into the body of the electors in his State, or in the States of the South.”

General Don Piatt, an abolitionist:

– “Lincoln well knew that the North was not fighting to free slaves, nor was the South fighting to preserve slavery.”

– “I found that Mr. Lincoln could no more feel sympathy for that wretched [Negro] race than he could for the horse he worked or the hog he killed.”

Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio:

– “There is really no Union now between the North and the South. I believe no two nations on earth entertain feelings of more bitter rancor toward each other than these two peoples.”

Senator Stephen Douglas:

– “The fact can no longer be disguised that many Republican Senators desire war and disunion under pretense of saving the Union. For partisan reasons they are anxious to destroy the Union. They want this done without holding them responsible before the people.”

the Lemars (Iowa) Sentinel, a Republican newspaper:

– “The Stalwarts do not care a fig for the Constitution, and will trample it under foot today as did Lincoln and the Union hosts from ’61 to ’65.”

an Iowa editor:

– “Abraham Lincoln kicked the Constitution into the Capitol cellar, and there it remained innocuous until the war ended.”

Judge Yaples, in the Cincinnati Enquirer of 1880:

– “Republican hate is grounded on the fact that the people of the South will not join the Republican party.”

Unknown:

– “The people of Raleigh, N. C, were astonished to find that Sherman’s army were Christian gentlemen.”

George Edmonds:

– “The underlying cause of every conflict between man and man, tribe and tribe, country and country, has been on the one side a craving for power, on the other side an effort to escape that power.”

– “So long had the gospel of hate been preached, those New Englanders had come to hate the South so venomously they wanted to force her out of the Union she loved.”

– “All abolitionists believed in the right of secession. All hated the Union and wanted to break it to pieces.”

– “Before the South seceded, the foremost men in the Republican party openly maintained the right of secession.”

– “Lincoln was the first President who usurped the power to rule the American people.”

– “The whole reconstruction period was a deadly war on Southern people, and the more base and cowardly because waged on unarmed men and women.”

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More Southern articles.

Ethnic Cleansing

Ethnic Cleansing

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1992 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party.]

Many people are concerned about the war in Bosnia and the ethnic cleansing occurring in that country. However, few of these people seem concerned about the ethnic cleansing occurring right here in the South.

Between 1861 and 1865 the United States government invaded the South and tried to kill as many Southerners as it could.  Not only did it kill Southern soldiers defending their homes, but it also killed Southern women and children.  It even killed the slaves whom it claimed it was trying to free.

Next came the First Reconstruction, which lasted until 1877. During this period the might of the United States government supported various local scalawags and carpetbaggers, who tried to remold the South into the image of Yankeedom by political means.

Most patriotic Southerners resisted this political effort to remake them. However, a new type of Southern was given birth during the First Reconstruction — the New South Southerner.  (The New South Southerner is basically a populist scalawag.) The New South Southerner led the economic reform of the South. What politics failed to do, economics would do. The South would be industrialized like the North. Agrarianism would be replaced by industrialism. Along with industrialization came hordes of Yankee immigrants to manage Southern factories and to remold the South into the image of Yankeedom. This economic assault has been largely successful. It has destroyed many unique aspects of the Southern way of life. This economic assault continues even today.

Next came the Second Reconstruction, which began in 1954. Like the First Reconstruction, the Second Reconstruction is a political assault against the South. It seeks to destroy Southerners by the genocide of integration.

Along with the Second Reconstruction has come an even more intense attack against that which is uniquely Southern: the Confederate flag; songs of the South, such as “Dixie,” “Maryland, My Maryland,” and “Old Virginny”; the immortal, eternal Confederate soldier and the monuments that honor him; etc.

(The Confederate flag flew in Lithuania when the Lithuanians were struggling to free themselves from the oppression of the Soviet Union. The Confederate flag flew in Berlin as the Berlin Wall fell. Oppressed Europeans recognize the Confederate flag for what it is: the symbol of liberty.  Perhaps this explains the antagonism against the flag.  It represents what the enemies of the South despise:  LIBERTY!)

The South and all that is Southern must be destroyed.  It must be remade into the image of Yankeedom. As long as the South retains any of its unique character and identity, the spark of freedom lives. This spark must be smothered out so that all can live under the enslavement of Yankeedom.

Southerners need to end the ethnic cleansing of the South before it is too late.  Southerners need to stop the ethnic cleansing of the South before the South and all that is Southern is completely annihilated. Southerners must unite and throw off the yoke of their oppressors and murders! There is only one way that Southerners can put an end to the genocide being inflicted upon them. There is only one way that Southerners can retain those unique Southern characteristics not yet destroyed and resurrect those lost. That way is a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States. The time has come to flee from ethnic cleansing towards freedom. The time has come for secession!

Copyright © 1992, 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

Taylor’s Observations of Some Republican Leaders

Taylor’s Observations of Some Republican Leaders

Thomas Allen

In Destruction And Reconstruction: Personal Experiences of the Late War (1879), Richard Taylor (1826 – 1879), the son of  Zachary Taylor and a Lieutenant General of the Confederate Army, gives his impression of several Republican officials whom he met during his trips to Washington during Reconstruction. Following are his observations of President Johnson, Secretary of State Seward, Secretary of War Stanton, Representative Stevens, Representative Davis, President Grant, Senator Morton, and Secretary of State Fish.

About President Andrew Johnson (1808–1875), he writes:

. . . the President [was] a saturnine man, who made no return to my bow, but, after looking at me, asked me to take a seat. Upon succeeding to power Mr. Johnson breathed fire and hemp against the South, proclaimed that he would make treason odious by hanging traitors, and ordered the arrest of General Lee and others, when he was estopped by the action of General Grant. He had now somewhat abated his wolfish desire for vengeance. . . . (p. 240)

. . . he [President Johnson] always postponed action, and was of an obstinate, suspicious temper. Like a badger, one had to dig him out of his hole; and he was ever in one except when on the hustings, addressing the crowd. Of humble birth, a tailor by trade, nature gave him a strong intellect, and he had learned to read after his marriage. He had acquired much knowledge of the principles of government, and made himself a fluent speaker, but could not rise above the level of the class in which he was born and to which he always appealed. He well understood the few subjects laboriously studied, and affected to despise other knowledge, while suspicious that those possessing such would take advantage of him. Self-educated men, as they are called, deprived of the side light thrown on a particular subject by instruction in cognate matters, are narrow and dogmatic, and, with an uneasy consciousness of ignorance, soothe their own vanity by underrating the studies of others. To the vanity of this class he added that of the demagogue (I use the term in its better sense), and called the wise policy left him by his predecessor “my policy.” Compelled to fight his way up from obscurity, he had contracted a dislike of those more favored of fortune, whom he was in the habit of calling “the slave-aristocracy,” and became incapable of giving his confidence to anyone, even to those on whose assistance he relied in a contest, just now beginning, with the Congress.

President Johnson never made a dollar by public office, abstained from quartering a horde of connections on the Treasury, refused to uphold rogues in high places, and had too just a conception of the dignity of a chief magistrate to accept presents. It may be said that these are humble qualities for a citizen to boast the possession of by a President of the United States. (pp. 242-243)

About William Seward (1801–1872), Secretary of State (1861–1869), he writes:

A loin of veal was the piece de resistance of his dinner, and he called attention to it as evidence that he had killed the fatted calf to welcome the returned prodigal. Though not entirely recovered from the injuries received in a fall from his carriage and the wounds inflicted by the knife of Payne, he was cheerful, and appeared to sympathize with the objects of my mission [to visit Jefferson Davis, who was in prison] — at least, so far as I could gather his meaning under the cloud of words with which he was accustomed to cover the slightest thought. (pp. 240-241)

About Edwin Stanton (1814 – 1869), Secretary of War (1862 – 1868), whom Tayor did not meet, he writes:

A spy under Buchanan, a tyrant under Lincoln, and a traitor to Johnson, this man was as cruel and crafty as Domitian. . . . In the end conscience, long dormant, came as Alecto, and he was not; and the temple of Justice, on whose threshold he stood, escaped profanation. (p. 241)

About Thaddeus Stevens (1792 – 1868), Chairman of the U.S. House Appropriations Committee (1865 – 1868), he writes:

Thaddeus Stevens received me with as much civility as he was capable of. Deformed in body and temper like Caliban, this was the Lord Hategood of the fair; but he was frankness itself. He wanted no restoration of the Union under the Constitution, which he called a worthless bit of old parchment. The white people of the South ought never again to be trusted with power, for they would inevitably unite with the Northern “Copperheads” and control the Government. The only sound policy was to confiscate the lands and divide them among the negroes [sic], to whom, sooner or later, suffrage must be given. Touching the matter in hand, Johnson was a fool to have captured Davis, whom it would have been wiser to assist in escaping. Nothing would be done with him, as the executive had only pluck enough to hang two poor devils such as Wirtz and Mrs. Surratt. Had the leading traitors been promptly strung up, well; but the time for that had passed. (Here, I thought, he looked lovingly at my neck, as Petit Andre was wont to do at those of his merry-go-rounds.) (pp. 243-244)

About Henry Davis (1817–1865), a Republican member of the House of Representatives (1855–1865), he writes:

Like the fallen angel, Davis preferred to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven or on earth. With the head of Medusa and the eye of the Basilisk, he might have represented Siva in a Hindoo temple, and was even more inaccessible to sentiment than Thaddeus Stevens. (p. 244)

About General Ulysses S. Grant (1822–1885) before he became president, Taylor writes:

The officers of the army on duty at Washington were very civil to me, especially General Grant, whom I had known prior to and during the Mexican war, as a modest, amiable, but by no means promising lieutenant in a marching regiment. He came frequently to see me, was full of kindness, and anxious to promote my wishes [to visit Jefferson Davis]. His action in preventing violation of the terms of surrender, and a subsequent report that he made of the condition of the South — a report not at all pleasing to the radicals — endeared him to all Southern men. Indeed, he was in a position to play a role second only to that of Washington, who founded the republic; for he had the power to restore it. His bearing and conduct at this time were admirable, modest and generous; and I talked much with him of the noble and beneficent work before him. While his heart seemed to respond, he declared his ignorance of and distaste for politics and politicians, with which and whom he intended to have nothing to do, but confine himself to his duties of commander-in-chief of the army. Yet he expressed a desire for the speedy restoration of good feeling between the sections, and an intention to advance it in all proper ways. (p. 244)

About Grant after he became president, Taylor writes:

Before the conventions to nominate candidates for the Presidency met in 1868, I had much intercourse with General Grant, and found him ever modest and determined to steer clear of politics, or at least not permit himself to be used by partisans; and I have no doubt that he was sincere. But the Radical Satan took him up to the high places and promised him dominion over all in view. Perhaps none but a divine being can resist such temptation. He accepted the nomination from the Radicals, and was elected. . . . As ignorant of civil government as of the characters on the Moabitish stone. President Grant begun badly, and went from, bad to worse. The appointments to office that he made, the associates whom he gathered around him, were astounding. All his own relatives, all his wife’s relatives, all the relatives of these relatives, to the remotest cousinhood, were quartered on the public treasury. Never, since King Jamie crossed the Tweed with the hungry Scotch nation at his heels, has the like been seen; and the soul of old Newcastle, greatest of English nepotists, must have turned green with envy. The influence of this on the public was most disastrous. Already shortened by the war, the standard of morality, honesty, and right was buried out of sight. (p. 256) . . . In Boston, July, 1872, . . . President Grant and I met for the first time since he had accepted the nomination from the Radical party. He was a candidate for reelection, and much worshiped; and, though cordial with me, his general manner had something of “I am the State.” (p. 259) . .  .  Of a nature kindly and modest, President Grant was assured by all about him that he was the delight of the Radicals, greatest captain of the age, and saviour of the nation’s life. It was inevitable that he should begin by believing some of this, and end by believing it all. Though he had wasted but little time on books since leaving West Point, where in his day the curriculum was limited, he had found out to the last shilling the various sums voted by Parliament to the Duke of Wellington, and spoke of them in a manner indicating his opinion that he was another example of the ingratitude of republics. The gentle temper and sense of justice of Othello resisted the insidious wiles of Iago; but ignorance and inexperience yielded in the end to malignity and craft. President Grant was brought not only to smother the Desdemona of his early preferences and intentions, but to feel no remorse for the deed, and take to his bosom the harridan of radicalism. As Phalaris did those of Agrigentum opposed to his rule, he finished by hating Southerners and Democrats. (p. 265)

About Senator Oliver Morton (1823–1877) from Indiana (1867–1877), he writes:

. . . my first step in Washington was to call on the leader of the Radicals in the Senate, Morton of Indiana, when a long conversation ensued, from which I derived no encouragement. Senator Morton was the Couthon of his party, and this single interview prepared me for one of his dying utterances to warn the country against the insidious efforts of slave-driving rebels to regain influence in the Government. The author of the natural history of Ireland would doubtless have welcomed one specimen, by describing which he could have filled out a chapter on snakes; and there is temptation to dwell on the character of Senator Morton as one of the few Radical leaders who kept his hands clean of plunder. But it may be observed that one absorbing passion excludes all others from the human heart; and the small portion of his being in which disease had left vitality was set on vengeance. Death has recently clutched him, and would not be denied; and lie is bewailed throughout the land as though he had possessed the knightly tenderness of Sir Philip Sidney and the lofty patriotism of Chatham. (pp. 260-261)

About Hamilton Fish (1808–1893), Secretary of State (1869–1877), he writes:

Of a distinguished Revolutionary race, possessor of a good estate, and with charming, cultivated surroundings, this gentleman seemed the Noah of the political world. Perhaps his retention in the Cabinet was due to a belief that, under the new and milder dispensation, the presence of one righteous man might avert the doom of Gomorrah. (p. 261)

More Southern articles.

The Antebellum Northerner’s Opinion of Blacks

The Antebellum Northerner’s Opinion of Blacks

Thomas Allen

In Northern Rebellion and Southern Secession (1904), E. W. R. Ewing describes the typical Northerner’s, including the typical abolitionist’s, opinion of and attitude toward Blacks.

Even before Ohio became a State, Ohioans saw Negroes as shiftless thieves and adopted laws to expel them. They found that Negroes lacked the fitness and capacity to provide for themselves (pp. 112-113).

Gerrit Smith, an abolitionist, concurred with the Ohioans. He “attested the incapacity, unfitness, and unwillingness of the Southern negro [sic] to provide for himself” (p. 113). He offered free and runaway Negroes farmland if they would farm it. His scheme failed from the want of takers.

When Cobb, a reporter of the Supreme Court of Georgia, asked the governors and leading politicians of the Northern States about the condition of the free Negroes in their States, he received the following replies (p. 288):
– from Connecticut: “not thrifty,” “immoral”;
– from New Jersey: “debased . . . generally indolent”;
– from Pennsylvania: “much deteriorated by freedom”;
– from Indiana: “sent forty this year to Liberia . . . hope finally to get rid of all . . . do not intend to have another negro [sic] or mulatto come into the State”;
– from Illinois: “thriftless, idle, vicious”;
– from New Jersey: “one-fourth criminals in State colored, while colored population is but one-twelfth.”

Nearly all Northerners held that the Negro was inferior to them. Regardless of any lip service that they may give to the proposition that “all men are created equal,” they regarded the Negro as a natural and social inferior.

Further, few Northerners, including abolitionists, would have allowed Negroes to marry their sisters or daughters, and the woman would have strongly objected to such a marriage. Moreover, in New England, Negroes had been burned alive for assaulting White women (p. 280).

Most Northern States denied Negroes, including mulattoes, the privilege of voting and other privileges and duties of citizenship. They considered the Negro “unfit for the exercise of citizenship” (p. 267).

Yet, among the last States to deny free Negroes the vote was in the South. South Carolina did not deny free Negroes the vote until 1835 (p. 281).

Moreover, although more free Negroes lived in the South than in the North (p. 286), they were treated with greater dignity in the South. In the North, many employers refused to hire Negroes, and Whites generally refused to work beside a Negro (p. 289). About the treatment of the Negro in business following Lincoln’s War, Booker T. Washington wrote:

There is almost no prejudice against the negroes [sic] in the South in matters of business, so far as the native whites are concerned; . . . But too often when the white mechanic or factory operative from the North gets a hold, the trades union soon follows, and the negro [sic] is crowded to the wall (p. 289).

Moreover, Illinois made it illegal for Negroes and mulattoes to enter that State with the intention or appearance of residing there. If found guilty, the Negro would be fined, and if he were unable to pay the fine, then he was to be sold at a public auction (p. 268). Michigan and Indiana also prohibited Negroes from coming into them to live there (p. 269). Likewise, Oregon prohibited Negroes from entering it (p. 271). Also, California prohibited Negroes from entering it to reside there (p. 274).

To Massachusetts goes the honor of being the first State to expel all free Negroes in her boundaries (pp 269-270).

In 1829, Ohio restricted public schools to Whites only (p 266). In 1833, Connecticut made “it a penal offence to set up or establish any school or literary institution for colored persons not inhabitants of the State; and any negro [sic] coming to the State for instruction could be forcibly removed therefrom” (p. 266).

For the most part, the Northern States considered free Negroes, including mulattoes, a danger to their society. Thus, they placed many social and legal restraints on them. Even as late as 1870, many Northern States forbade Negroes from owning property, making contracts, and testifying against Whites (p. 269). Hypocrites that they are, these Northerners railed against Southerners for denying Negroes rights that Northerners refused to grant them.

For decades following Reconstruction, the Northerner’s low opinion of Blacks did not change much. Even the last violent resistance to school integration occurred in Massachusetts. Furthermore, since 1960, more race riots have occurred outside the South than in the South. (See “Race Riots” by Thomas Allen.)

Since the Northerner, including the abolitionist, knew from first-hand experience the behavior of the Negro, free or slave, they must have hated the Southerner so much that they turned the freed Negro loose in the South in hopes that they would demoralize and eventually genocide the Southerner. The only other option is that these Northerners and abolitionists were stupid; however, as most of their leaders were intelligent men, stupidity can be ruled out. Some leading abolitionists openly admitted their hatred of Southerners and their desire to genocide them.

About the burden that was thrown on the South following Lincoln’s war, Booker T. Washington wrote:

The time is not far distant when the world will begin to appreciate the real character of the burden that was imposed upon the South in giving the franchise to four millions of ignorant and impoverished ex-slaves. No people was ever before given such a problem to solve. History has blazed no path through the wilderness that could be followed (p. 289).

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Conservatives and Their Worship of Equality

Conservatives and Their Worship of Equality

Thomas Allen

Mainstream conservatives, establishment conservatives, neoconservatives, social justice conservatives, and their kindred (hereafter, referred to as “these conservatives”) dominate and control what now passes for “conservatism.” Anyone on the Right who dissents from their underlying philosophy of equality and democracy and their praise of Lincoln and the work of the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction — except to condemn the Radical Republicans for not finishing the task of genociding the Southerner — is ignored, purged, or deplatformed. Moreover, these conservatives are statists, centralists, and racial nihilist. They are the Girondists of the American political spectrum. Examples of these conservatives are Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp, William Bennett, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, George Will, Karl Rove, William Kristol, and Harry Jaffa.

For these conservatives, equality is the higher law, to which even the Constitution is subordinate. (Using the higher-law argument, the abolitionists precipitated the Civil War, and the Radical Republicans destroyed the fundamental principles of the original Constitutions.) Equality governs all. It is the primary and essential principle of conservatism — the very essence of conservatism.

Many of these conservatives distinguish between the equality of rights and opportunity, which they claim to support, and equality of condition, which they claim to oppose. However, this distinction is sophistry. In this world, obtaining equality of rights, opportunity, and condition is impossible. Moreover, the demand for equal rights and especially equal opportunity naturally and eventually leads to the demand for equality of condition. (Equality of rights and opportunity can only be proven by equality of condition.)

Rejecting the notions that the United States are a genetic country, these conservatives support the notion that the United States are a propositional country. Their purpose is to spread equality and democracy throughout the world. (Like all statists and centralists, these conservatives refer to the United States in the singular, “the United States is” instead of the plural, “the United States are.” Consequently, they contradict the Founding Fathers and nearly all other Americans before the revolution of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans. The Founding Fathers and most other antebellum Americans referred to the United States in the plural.)

To these conservatives, the only clause in all the founding documents of any importance is the phrase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence. This declaration of equality is the primary, if not the sole, reason and purpose for the existence of the United States. According to these conservatives, the purpose of America’s political founding was not the establishment of republican self-government. Instead, the purpose was the establishment of equality.

These conservatives fail to recognize the paradox and hypocrisy in praising the Founding Fathers, the original Constitution, and their philosophy of States’ rights (federalism, localism, and decentralization) while simultaneously praising Lincoln, who destroyed the Constitution and the Union formed by it with his war, and the Radical Republicans, who destroyed States’ rights with the fourteenth amendment.

For these conservatives, Lincoln is the divine lawgiver, who recalls the country to its providential mission of equality. Like Moses calling his people back to the worship of the true God, Lincoln called his wayward people back to their conventual promise of equality.

Equality has now evolved into diversity. Thus, every nonwhite in the world has an equal right to settle in the United States. Moreover, no White American has any moral or political right to prevent this racial and cultural transformation of their country.

Along with the worship of equality has come the elevation of Martin Luther King, a Communist frontman, to the Olympian of great conservative forefathers. Such an elevation of a Communist sympathizer may seem strange until one realizes that these conservatives have usurped nearly everything that King advocated.

An essential part of these conservatives’ program of sacrificing all on the altar of equality is the eradication of the traditional South. They thoroughly loathe the Antebellum South and everything related to the Confederacy. The South needs to be remade into an egalitarian society where Blacks and Whites can breed themselves out of existence. Moreover, the South needs to be fully purged of its sin of opposing the Puritan Yankee and his industrialization and globalization. Further, these conservatives see the Civil War (their term for the War for Southern Independence) and Reconstruction as a righteous cause well-worth the million-plus lives lost because of them. However, they bemoan the failure of Reconstruction to destroy completely the Southerner and his culture and ethnicity.

According to these conservatives, the War and Reconstruction were primarily, if not solely, about equality, democracy, and race. Economics, culture, religion, and other issues and differences were of little or no importance, except where they related to the sacred equality, democracy, and racial nihilism.

Most of these conservatives consider the traditional, pro-Confederate Southerner a greater threat to the country than the invading hordes of third-world nonwhites. To these conservatives, no differences exist between the South and Nazi Germany.

Opposed to these conservatives are the traditional Southern conservatives, who care little for abstract universals, such as equality. The traditional Southern conservatives do not reject the equal dignity of all human souls in a spiritual sense or to all being equal before the law. (Today, the United States have a two-tier justice system: one for the common man and one for the ruling elite and some of their agents.) However, they do oppose using governmental powers to obliterate social differences.

Joining the traditional Southern conservatives in their opposition to these conservatives are a few pariah conservatives. All these cast-off conservatives have one thing in common: They do not worship equality or Father Abraham. Moreover, they abhor the Radical Republicans and their reconstruction of the South. Instead, they continue to adhere to the original Constitution, and the traditions and founding principles of the United States.

Moreover, these conservatives defend the welfare state. However, these conservatives seek to manage the welfare state more efficiently than liberals, progressives, and socialists. Their worship of equality explains why these conservatives seek to make the welfare state of the liberals, progressives, and socialists operate more efficiently rather than dismantling it.

Furthermore, these conservatives favor foreign intervention and wars in the name of spreading equality and democracy. Even globalism grows out of their lust for equality — although globalism leads to a two-tier system: the global elite on top and the masses on the bottom, who are at least equally slaves of the elite.

Distinguishing between these conservatives and liberals, progressives, and socialists is often difficult. While giving lip service to the original Constitution, these conservatives praise the radical transformation that the Radical Republicans caused and that their descendants, the Progressives, enhanced and extended. By claiming equality as a conservative principle, even the guiding conservative principle, these conservatives stole the key ideology of the Left.

Like the liberals, progressives, and socialists, these conservatives adhere to the Robespierrean motto of “liberty, equality, fraternity.” Also, like the liberals, progressives, and socialists, these conservatives abhor the underlying principle of the American Revolution: “life, liberty, and property.” Like them, these conservatives prefer equality to liberty (because liberty creates inequality, equality and liberty are incompatible).

Most conservatives fall between these conservatives and their conservative opposition. They are the confused conservatives. Although most admire Lincoln, only a few admire the actions of the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction. Also, most esteem King highly. Moreover, most do not hate the South. After all, many are Southerners. While they oppose flooding the country with nonwhites, most tend to be racial nihilists. Although they object to nonwhites coming into the country illegally, few seem to have any objection to large numbers of nonwhites entering the country legally.  Most are not States’ rightists on principle. Unless the federal government opposes an issue that they support, most confused conservatives are centralists. Only when the federal government opposes their particular issue do they become States’ rightists. Furthermore, most confused conservatives confound liberty and freedom with democracy and equality — believing that they are essentially the same. Moreover, most lean toward the welfare state; rare is one who wants to dismantle it. For the most part, confused conservatives are more inclined to ally with these conservatives than with their opponents.

References
Gottfried, Paul. “From the Editor: Thoughts on Bradford v. Jaffa.” Chronicles, February 2020, pages 34-38.

McClanahan, Brion. “The Reinvention of Reconstruction.” Chronicles, February 2020, pages 31- 35.

Trask, H.A. Scott. “The Great Debate: Lincoln’s Legacy.” Chronicles, February 2020, pages 34-38.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Old Morality – New Morality

Old Morality – New Morality

Thomas Allen

Before 1861, the old morality dominated the United States. The exception was the Puritan Yankee of New England and his colonies in New York and the Upper Midwest, which the radicals who fled Europe after the failed Revolution of 1848 reenforced, whom the new morality guided. Even before the arrival of the radicals, the Puritan Yankees were preaching the new morality.
The old morality is antebellum in nature. Under the old morality, the survival of one’s gene pool, i.e., one’s race (species), is of utmost importance. Accordingly, a person has mutual honor and respect for his people, i.e., its ethnicities and race. He has pride in and honor for his ancestors and sees a person, regardless of race, as a real person with real joys and sorrows and not as an incarnated spirit. Because race is highly important under the old morality, it perceives a person, whatever his race, as a concrete being. The old morality is a natural morality. It follows naturally from the bond between a mother and child, then the family, then the clan, then the nation (ethnicity), and finally the race, where it stops. Also, according to the old morality, Aryans wrote the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution for themselves and their White posterity and for no other. In short, the old morality preserves.
The new morality is postbellum in nature. Under the new morality, the survival of humanity is of utmost importance. Accordingly, a person is much more concerned with other people (races) than his own people. Thus, he is willing to sacrifice his own race for the benefit of other races. Moreover, he lacks pride in and honor for his ancestors, Most important, he looks at a person as an incarnated spiritual being and not as a real person, where all spiritual beings look alike, think alike, and act alike. Neither races nor male and female exist; races and the sexes are merely social constructs; they are chimeras. The new morality perceives people as an abstract being, no matter their race, which is irrelevant and even nonexistent. People heavily under the influence of the new morality do not respect a person with whom they disagree because such a person is not a citizen of humanity. The new morality is an unnatural morality. Also, according to the new morality, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are propositions to spread equality and democracy throughout the world even if it means the extension of the Aryan. In short, the new morality destroys.
The new morality grew out of the abolitionist movement, which grew out of the Puritanism of New England. (Consequently, anyone who follows the new morality is fundamentally a Puritan Yankee.) By 1865, the new morality had gained control of the US government. (President Johnson was a notable holdout, who defended the old morality and was nearly impeached because of it.)
Following the end of the First Reconstruction, the dormant old morality came back to life. Although the progressivism of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson grew out of the new morality, the old morality guided them and most other progressives from the latter part of the nineteenth century until after World War I. Unlike today’s progressives, during this era, most progressives placed the welfare of their race first. They did not consider the United States to be a multicultural, multiracial concept country.
After World War I, the new morality grew into the fascism of Franklin Roosevelt. During his administration, the new morality began to strengthen. Following World War II, it returned with vigor and ushered in the Second Reconstruction to destroy finally the Southern, who had revived around the turn of the century, and to elevate the Negro not only to equality with the White (Aryan) race, but to make him and all other nonwhites the Aryan’s superior.
By the end of Lyndon Johnson’s reign, the new morality dominated the country. (Ironically, the last major battle against the new morality was fought in Boston, the heart of the birthplace of the new morality, between 1974 and 1976. This was the last strong and violent battle fought over school integration. When the Bostonians were finally defeated, so was the old morality.)
Now, the new morality has metastasized into globalism, feminism, transgenderism, open borders and unlimited immigration, conservative nationalism, American libertarianism, the final destruction of the States as independent sovereigns, etc. While the new morality has grown to consume the country, the old morality has faded into insignificance. Rare is a White who openly preaches the old morality.
Today, only the Negro and other nonwhites practice the old morality. (Failure of Aryans to practice the old morality has doomed the American Negro, for once the Asian and Latin American Turanians reach critical mass, they will reduce the American Negro to insignificance.) Although the new morality is alien to the Negro and other nonwhites, they use it to their advantage to cower and eventually to annihilate the Aryan. Unlike the Aryan, who live by the new morality, they all place their race first.
Scarce are political, economic, social, or religious leaders or spokesmen who are not disciples of the new morality. Anyone who dares to preach the old morality is condemned, ostracized, attacked, and silenced. Thus, vocal proponents of the old morality are seldom heard.
Unfortunately, for the White race, the new morality has not stopped at the borders of the United States. It has spread to infect Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the White countries of South American, and all Aryan outposts (Muslims of the Aryan race are the exception).
South Africa shows the lethality of the new morality. Here, it has driven the Whites of South Africa to suicide, as they have given their country to the Negro, who is now genociding the Whites — by that, showing his appreciation of the Aryan’s cowardly surrender. If the Aryan does not soon abandon the new morality and reinstitute the old morality, he will become an extinct species.
The following groups, Antifa and Black Lives Matters, illustrate the difference between the old morality and the new morality. Following the new morality, Antifa, most of whose members are Aryans, seeks to destroy everything White. On the other hand, Black Lives Matters, most of whose members are Negroes and who follow the old morality, place the Negro first and seeks to elevate the Negro to supremacy.
Today, although the new morality dominates most Aryans, a spark of the old morality smolders in many of them. (If an Aryan does not openly seek to preserve, protect, and promote the White race, including prohibiting nonwhites entering the country to become residents and prohibiting interracial mating, then the new morality controls him.) The new morality has completely consumed the progressive liberal, for no spark of the old morality glows in him. Moreover, the new morality has so consumed most libertarians that they show no spark of the old morality.
Some conservative commentators demonstrate people dominated by the new morality having a spark of the old morality. They protest derogatory remarks made against Aryans by progressive liberals, especially those made by people of color, nonwhites. Also, they protest discriminatory acts against Whites. Yet, about immigration, their objection is about the procedure and not about content or consequence. Most do not object to flooding the country with nonwhites; their objection is about the procedure used. If tens of millions of nonwhites enter the country legally, they have no objections. However, a few do disagree with allowing a massive number of nonwhites to enter the country. They do this not because they favor the Aryan, but because they do not favor him. To the contrary, they want to limit the immigration of nonwhites so that they can be easily assimilated and will not be encouraged to build enclaves to protect their ethnicity. Assimilation is a euphemism for amalgamation, i.e., interracial mating. Although a few conservative commentators may advise marrying within one’s race, none oppose miscegenation. Thus, as it consumes the Puritan Yankee and his descendant, the progressive liberal, the new morality consumes these conservative commentators. Consequently, like the Puritan Yankee, progressive liberal, and many libertarians, they consider the United States to be a propositional country and not a genetic nation. Contrary to their protest, these conservatives do not really care about the preservation, protection, or promotion of the White race — the old morality. (Or, does the fear of that great smear word “racist” cower them to the point that they no longer care about their race?)
In summary, the old morality is a natural morality that preserves, protects, and promotes one’s race. The new morality is an unnatural morality that leads to the destruction of the races, especially the Aryan race, as it is the only race stupid enough to practice it.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 1

Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 1

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Some of the endnotes have been replaced with links.]

    The following is an analysis of Segregation and Desegregation: A Christian Approach by T.B. Maston (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959). His words and my paraphrases or summaries of his words, I have italicized. My commentary is in roman letters. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses.
    Throughout his book, Maston deceptively argues that desegregation would not necessarily lead to integration. Like most other writer who attempts to use a Christian argument to promote or defend desegregation and integration, Matson is long on generalities and void of  specific Biblical verses to support his argument. The segregation argument is much easier to support biblically and can be supported with specific verses.
    Maston states that the objective of his book “is primarily an attempt at an evaluation of segregation and desegregation from the Christian perspective” (p. vii). From his subverted Christian perspective, segregation is evil, a great sin. Desegregation and integration are divinely good.
    In Chapter 1, Maston discusses the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954. Maston states that the Supreme Court’s decision of May 17, 1954, “declared that school segregation was contrary to the federal constitution” (p. 1). How can school segregation, based on earlier Supreme Court rulings, be constitutional on May 16, 1954, and unconstitutional on May 17, 1954, without any change in the Constitution? Obviously, the Supreme Court’s ruling was more political than judicial. As it relied on sociologists and other social scientists instead of the Constitution, previous Supreme Court rulings, and historical understanding and intent of the Constitution proves that the decision was political. The Supreme Court, especially since Franklin Roosevelt’s appointments, seldom lets the Constitution stand in the way of political expediency.
    Maston claims that the Supreme Court “has the final word concerning the meaning of the United States Constitution” (pp. 1-2). If so, it is because it has usurped such power and the President, Congress, and the States have let it get away with this usurpation. The Constitution grants it no such power or duty. President Jackson understood this when he ignored rulings of the Supreme Court. Having created and adopted the Constitution, the States should have the last say on what the Constitution means.
    In its ruling, the Supreme Court relied on the extremely elastic, and thus meaningless, “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, the Fourteenth Amendment was never legally, constitutionally, adopted. Second, it was never intended to apply to public schools. Those who wrote it, promoted its adoption, and adopted it never pushed for integrated schools. If this amendment were intended to prohibit segregated schools, schools across the country would have been desegregated 85 years earlier. The Supreme Court admitted that those who wrote and adopted the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to integrate schools (p. 4).
    Maston seems to agree with the Supreme Court’s position that “new problems and particularly new insights require a new interpretation” (p. 11). The Court was not bound by the words of the Constitution or the intent of those who wrote and adopted it (p. 11). Thus, the Constitution is a meaningless piece of paper. The country is now under the rule of men instead of the rule of law.
    Maston is probably among that class of theologians who change their interpretation of the Bible to mean whatever the current socio-political climate wants.  Thus, sodomy becomes an acceptable lifestyle accompanied by homosexual marriages instead of a capital crime as the Bible declares. God does not really mean what He says in the Bible. The Bible means whatever twisted interpretation the likes of Maston can give it to fit “new problems and particularly new insights.”
    Maston cites the great educational advancements made by Negro during the first 50 years of the twentieth century (pp. 12-13). Obviously, school segregation was not holding Negroes back. They were making great strides under “separate but equal.”
    Maston remarks that being a world power, the United States needed to desegregate schools and integrate (p. 14). The United States became a world power under segregation. How destroying the race that made the United States a world power enhances them as a world power, Maston does not explain. Moreover, he claims that people in other countries know and are concerned about what happens in the United States (p. 14). To the extent that they are concerned, it is what they can get from the American taxpayer. They are too concerned about their mistreatment by their own leaders to be overly concerned about how Blacks or anyone else is treated in the United States. Furthermore, Maston claims that the United States are handicapped in world leadership because of their failure to apply consistently democratic principles to their minority groups (p. 14). Full integration in the United States where Blacks have special privileges denied Whites has done nothing to stop the horrible discrimination occurring in Africa, where one African tribe hacks to pieces other tribes within its country.  Continuing, Matson states that the elimination of segregation had more to do with foreign relations than with the Constitution (p. 14). Thus, the Supreme Court mutilated the Constitution for the sake of foreign policy.
    Maston asserts “that all men are equal before God” (p. 16). God is no egalitarian.  According to Daniel 12:1, only those whose names are “found written in the book” will be delivered from the “time of trouble.” By inference those whose names are not found in the book are not delivered—hence, inequality of treatment and condition. Daniel 12:2 shows a three-tier treatment of man. First “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.” Not everyone will be awakened — again inequality of treatment and condition. Second, of those awakened, some awaken “to everlasting life” and “some to shame and everlasting contempt”— again inequality of treatment and condition. If all men were equal before God, would they not all receive the same treatment?
    Romans 9:9-13 shows that God discriminates against people before they are born. Genesis 17:17-21 shows that God discriminates against people after they are born. If God were an egalitarian, would He not treat all people the same?
    In Exodus 33:19, God says, “. . . I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” Therefore, God does not treat all people equally. If all people were equal before God, would He not treat them equally?
    “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14). Would not all be chosen or none chosen if all people were equal before God?
    According to Matthew 25:31-43, Jesus will separate the nations as a shepherd separates sheep and goats. Those on his right hand are exalted and inherit the kingdom prepared for them (verse 34). Those on his left hand are condemned and sent to the eternal fire (verse 41). If all people were equal, would not all be on the same hand and receive either the kingdom or the fire?
    One may become a new person by believing in Jesus. However, people will witness great inequality in the hereafter. According to Jesus, people will not be treated equally in heaven. Some will rule over many cities; some, over none. Some will receive many crowns; some, few crowns.
    Besides, if the Bible is as fluid as the U.S. Constitution as Maston asserts, God may be a respecter of person one year and not a respecter of person the next year. One year He may condemn a certain act, such as sodomy, as a sin and find it acceptable and not a sin the next year. After all, the Bible was written thousands of years ago. Times change, circumstances change, and man’s knowledge changes.
Therefore, the Bible needs to change to fit new times, circumstances, and knowledge whatever God’s original intent and words.
    Using fluid Biblical interpretation, theologians like Matson can justify murder, such as abortion, forced vaccination, and euthanasia. They can justify theft, such as confiscatory taxation and civil forfeiture. Furthermore, they can justify fornication and adultery and all sorts of illicit marriages, such as homosexual marriages and interracial marriages. They can make God’s word support everything it opposes. Most likely, Maston would have supported most of these transgressions and would have claimed that the Bible supported them.
    In Chapter 2, Maston discusses reactions to the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision. He discusses the immediate reaction, resistance to its decision, the reaction of Negroes, the reaction of the church, and the “New Reconstruction.”
    Maston comments that the South did not “want to be a problem area for the nation as it faces the challenge of communism” (p. 20). Yet the Supreme Court, President, Congress, and much of the rest of the country wanted to force the Communist organized and led civil rights agenda on the South. The South, along with the rest of the country, finally did surrender to the Communists. (Not only did the United States surrender to the Communist-led civil rights movement, they surrendered to every plank in Marx’s Communist Manifesto.)
    Maston identifies several religious groups that supported the Supreme Court’s desegregation edict. One of them was the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention (p. 21). Once it joined the Communist-led civil rights movement, it in principle agreed to all other illicit movements. Yet the Southern Baptist Convention has the audacity to object to and oppose the homosexual agenda, including rebelling against the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing homosexual marriages. Homosexuals have merely used the arguments that the Communists, Negroes, and negrophiles used to promote and force the integrationist agenda and interracial marriages on the rest of the country. For the most part, the recommendations adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention (p. 22) for following the Supreme Court decision on school desegregation in 1954 could easily apply to the Supreme Court’s decision on homosexual marriages in 2015.
    Maston cites several governors of Southern and Border States expressing support for the Supreme Court’s decision. Most contain the phrase “obey the law,” “comply with the law,” and the like (pp. 22-23). In effect these governors were claiming that the Supreme Court was legislating from the bench. Under the Constitution, only Congress has legislative powers. These governors spat on the Constitution.
    Maston notes that the Citizens’ Council was the primary leader of the opposition. One effect of the Council was shutting off debate and discussion about racial issues (pp. 25-27). The effectiveness of the Council stifling debate about racial issues pales to insignificance when compared with progressives, Marxists, negrophiles, Black leaders, etc. silencing any discussion by Whites about race — except about how despicable and loathsome Whites are. Seldom does any White today say anything about race, and most of the few who do apologize for discussing race. Only nonwhites can talk openly and candidly about race. “Racist” and “racism” have surpassed “anti-Semitic” and “anti-Semitism” and “fascist” and “fascism” as the most feared smear or slur word in America. If a person is labeled as a “racist,” he irredeemably becomes persona non grata. Most likely, Maston would not object to this outcome of desegregation.
    Maston quotes Thurgood Marshall, chief counsel for the NAACP and later Supreme Court Justice, saying about the Supreme Court’s decision, “This decision gives the lie to communist propaganda” (p. 29). To find greater lying hypocrisy than Marshall’s statement would be extremely difficult. The civil rights movement was organized and led by Communists. Communists and their fronts wanted such a decision from the Supreme Court. Marshall was as close to being a Communist as one could be without being a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. Moreover, he was a racist, who said during his confirmation hearing for his appointment to the Supreme Court, “I want you to understand that when the colored people take over, every time the white man draws a breath, he’ll have to pay a fine.”[1]
    Maston notes that although most Negroes approve the Supreme Court decision, they were not overly enthusiastic about it. Now they would have “to accept the full responsibility that first-class citizenship” places on them. They “must measure up to higher standards than they have in the past.” No longer “could they explain away or rationalize their failures by saying that they were Negroes and did not have a chance” (p. 29). Sixty years later, many Blacks either refuse to or are incapable of accepting the responsibilities of first-class citizenship. They blame their failures on Whites, racism, slavery, the Confederate flag, etc. — everything but themselves. They still use the excuse that they are Negroes and do not have a chance.
    Matson cites endorsements given by various religious organizations approving racial integration (pp. 31-37). Many of these same organizations have endorsed and promoted the homosexual agenda. Most likely, they will endorse and support the pedophilia agenda as proponents of that agenda move forward to legalize pedophilia. The arguments that they used to support racial integration can just as easily, and have been, used to support the homosexual agenda and the up-and-coming pedophilia agenda.
    Matson notes that many church members oppose the statement approved by their general denominational bodies (p. 33). This opposition shows that the typical church member has a better understanding of the Bible than ministers, theologians, and other church leaders.
    Matson wonders whether the “New Reconstruction” or the Second Reconstruction will fade away like the First Reconstruction (p. 37). The Second Reconstruction has not faded away. It has grown and metastasized. Not only has it gone a long way in destroying the South and Southerners, it has brought down the White race and the United States in everything but name as its cancerous effects have spread across the country. The founding fathers would no longer recognize the federal republic that they founded. The Supreme Court has subverted the Constitution so much that it is now a meaningless scrap of paper.  With the police state, Marxist, fascist, plutocratic government that seeks to micromanage every aspect of life; with open borders flooding the country with nonwhites; with perpetual wars to transfer ever more wealth and power to the ruling elite, the Second Reconstruction has brought down the United States. If Whites are going to sacrifice themselves on the altar of racial integration within the country, why not sacrifice themselves on the altar of racial integration of the world. Then they will kill those hideous White cancer cells that inflict America and the world.
    Maston would be happy at the success of opening the borders to nonwhites. He favors an integrated world, which means the death of the White man, who has, or at least his inventions, discoveries, institutions, etc. have eliminated much of the world’s poverty. Without him, the world would not have advanced beyond that which existed before the arrival of White traders (circa 1490).
    One thing that Matson and most other integrationists of the late 1950s failed to see, or refused to acknowledge, was that once the civil rights movement ignited, it would burn across the States outside the South much more furiously than it would in the Southern States.
    Although the real movers behind the desegregation-integration-civil-rights movement were mostly Northern White and disproportionately Jewish, the worst race riots occurred outside the South. Blacks came to realize the cowardice and hypocrisy of Northern Whites who were pushing them to hate Southerners. Blacks took advantage of the riots to destroy White, mostly Jewish, businesses, which they perceived as overcharging them in the ghettos.[2]

Endnotes

1. Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, I (1969), p. 439.

2. Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (Cape Canaveral, Florida: Howard Allen Enterprises, Inc., 1981 ed., 1981), p. 220.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.