Showing posts with label federal government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal government. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 14, 2026

Wilson on the Yankee

Wilson on the Yankee

Thomas Allen


In The Yankee Problem: An American Dilemma (Columbia: Stonewell Publishing, 2016), Clyde N. Wilson describes the Yankee and explains how and why Yankees are the cause of nearly all of America’s problems. What follows is a synopsis of his book.

Before 1850–1860, Southerners were considered the norm in America, and Yankees were considered abnormal and a peculiar people. Following Lincoln’s War, Yankees became the norm, and Southerners became abnormal and a peculiar people. Moreover, Yankee propaganda has been so effective that most Americans now believe that the Yankees are the real founders of America and its institutions.

Philosophically, Southerners followed, and many continue to follow, the Jeffersonian branch of the Founding Fathers, which was the majority, while Yankees followed, and continue to follow, the Hamiltonian branch, which was the minority. Jefferson and his followers advocated the dispersal and decentralization of political and economic power. Consequently, they promoted a small, limited government, free markets, and free trade. Thus, the Jeffersonians believed “that the federal government was one of specific and limited authority explicit in the Constitution.” (p. 78) On the other hand, Hamilton and his followers advocated the concentration and centralization of political and economic power. Consequently, they promoted a powerful central government and a mercantile economy with government-business partnerships. Accordingly, the Hamiltonians considered “the federal government as a tool, the powers and activities of which were to be stretched and expanded at every opportunity, and the Constitution as a spring-board of power that was to be reinterpreted at will.” (p. 79) (For more on the differences between Jefferson and Hamilton, see “Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen.)

Yankees, who seek power and plunder, dominate the Northeast (New England, New York, and New Jersey), the Upper Midwest (Wisconsin, Michigan, northern Illinois, northern Indiana, and northern Ohio), Minnesota, and the Pacific Coast (California, Oregon, and Washington). However, many people in the North are not true Yankees, although many have been Yankeefied. (Unfortunately, many Southerners have also been Yankeefied.) True Yankees are descendants of the Puritan New Englanders (and the fugitives of the failed Revolution of 1848, who were easily grafted into Yankeedom).

(Fugitive socialists, communists, anarchists, and other radicals who fled Europe following the failed Revolution of 1848 reinforced the Yankees. Mostly, they settled in the Upper Midwest, where Yankees dominated. These fugitives wanted revolution and national unification — Yankee goals. Their ideology melded well with the Yankee ideology.

Likewise, most of the nineteenth-century immigrants settled in the North. As they knew nothing about American history, the political system, and the founding, they were easy victims of Yankee propaganda that persuaded them to support the Yankee agenda.)

According to Wilson, Yankees can be recognized by “their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around.” (p. 1) Additionally, Yankees are noted for their “fanaticism, and desire to lord it over the rest of us Americans — politically, economically, and culturally.” (p. 13) They are also known for their “pushiness, religious hypocrisy, and sharp trading.” (p. 19) “The Yankees are contemptuous of good manners, boastful, ever ready to cast away traditions for the newest idea, and see making money as the chief object of life. Equality and majority rule for them should determine everything — in society and culture as well as before the law.” (p. 20) If they can make money oppressing poorer citizens, they will oppress the poor. Making money is of utmost importance to Yankees. (One may notice the similarities between Yankees and stereotypical Jews.)

Yankees believe that their manners and customs are more enlightened and their intelligence and culture are superior. While extolling charity, they are parsimonious. Although they are (or were) religious fanatics, they are blackest-hearted hypocrites. “They are agitators and schemers, braggarts and deceivers, swindlers and extortions, and yet pretend to Godliness, truth, purity and humanity.” (p. 74) Before Anglo-Saxons became persona non grata, Yankees saw themselves as Anglo-Saxons, with all their virtues, and as superior to everyone else. All other Americans were lesser people. Southerners were the most depraved and had been corrupted and enervated by slavery — and even today, most still have this view of Southerners. Yankees consider themselves to be the only Americans who matter. Furthermore, they believe that they are the only real Americans.

Although Yankees have abandoned everything good in their religion, they are still convinced that “they are the chosen saints whose mission is to make America, and the world, into the perfection of their own image.” (pp. 1-2)

When the United States were formed under the Constitution of 1788, Yankees “regarded the new federal government: as an instrument to be used for their own purposes. “ (p. 5) However, Southerners saw the United States as a union of mutual cooperation.

Moreover, Yankees gave America the concept or doctrine of “the shining City upon the hill.” From a Christian perspective, this doctrine is heresy. Yet it has been the guiding force behind the bipartisan foreign policy of the United States. As a result, the United States seek to remake the world into the image of Yankeedom and to turn every human into a Yankee.

Throughout the decades, Yankees have sought to eradicate various evils from the United States. These evils include “liquor, tobacco, the Catholic Church, the Masonic order, meat-eating, [and] marriage.” (p. 10) Today, except for prohibition and possibly Masonry, they still want to rid America of these evils. Out of Yankeedom have come Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, John Humphrey Noyes free-love colony, the first feminist convention, prohibition, socialist experiments, abolitionism, and John Brown and his terrorism.

Yankees turned education “from creating good men and women to creating obedient tools.” (p. 26) Using the Republican Party, Yankees sought to create an educational “system on the statist, militarized models of Europe.” (p. 28) A “federally-controlled, universal, compulsory public schools were needed” (p. 39) to keep Blacks where they belonged — in the South.

Also, the United States have had two modes of warfare: the Southern mode of Washington and Lee and the Yankee mode of Grant and Sherman. The Southern mode “emphasizes skill, enterprise, and courage in achieving objectives with an economy of force and strives to keep warfare as honourable [sic] as possible.” (p. 27) In contrast, the Yankee mode “relies on marshalling [sic] overwhelming materiel to crush a weak opponent, heedless of the cost in life and taxes, and rewards its commanders appropriately.” The Yankee mode is “self-righteous and recognizes no ends except boastful triumph.” (p. 27)

Yankees are notorious for spewing slander and hatred toward Southerners because Southerners are the greatest obstacle to Yankee domination. They hate Southerners because Southerners oppose the pride and profits of the Yankees. Southerners, led by Jeffersonian and Jacksonian republicans, defeated the New England leadership and mostly thwarted the advancement of the Yankee agenda of controlling the United States until 1860, after which they gained control of the country and still control it.

Moreover, the South stood in the way of the Yankee vision of the American Union, i.e., “powerful unified ‘nation’ with a unique holy mission.” (p. 86) Therefore, the South had to be conquered and turned into subservient provinces, preferably without Southerners.

Furthermore, Yankees cannot tolerate contented people. That is another reason that Yankees hate Southerners, who are generally contented. This has been a primary reason that Yankees tried to genocide Southerners with Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction (both the First Reconstruction and the Second Reconstruction).

Another reason that they hate the South is that “Yankees have no civilization — only money and ideology.” (p. 15) However, the South has a real culture about which books, poems, and songs are written. Yankeedom does not.

Nevertheless, Yankees need the South and Southerners. Without them, Yankees would wither away for the want of someone to abuse and to feel superior to (see “Yankees Need the South” by Thomas Allen).

Since the ratification of the Constitution, and even before, Yankees have caused most of America’s problems. They are descendants of New England Puritans. Puritans settled in New England and began erecting “a shining City upon the hill.” This City would be an example for all mankind of a superior society. After they abandoned Christianity, the Puritan Yankees not only kept their overdeveloped righteousness, but they also exaggerated it.

With Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction, “[t]he North sought to convert a Union made for brotherhood and mutual benefit into a ‘nation’ which they would dominate in their own interest.” (p. 59) This goal they accomplished. From the beginning of the union formed by the Constitution of 1788, Yankees have been working to achieve this goal. From the beginning, Yankees “opposed every good measure under the U.S. government and clamoured [sic] for special privileges for themselves.” (p. 59). Until recent decades, Yankees have been proponents of high tariffs on imports to force Americans to buy Yankee-manufactured products. Thus, they increased their wealth by reducing everyone else’s standard of living.

The South was preventing Yankees from perfecting the American people, i.e., forming them into the image of a Yankee. Therefore, the South had to be conquered and Southerners genocided.  By the 1830s, “many Yankees were discontented people looking for something or someone to blame for the uneasiness they felt as their society suffered through religious breakdown, industrialisation [sic] with its accompanying dislocation and periodic unemployment, and a flood of non-Anglo-Saxon, non-Protestant immigrants.” (p. 70) Consequently, they blamed the South and slavery for their problems. After all, Yankees knew that “Southerners were an alien, lazy, violent people, lacking the sober virtues of Northerners.” (p. 70)

(For more on Yankees, see “The Yankee,” “The Puritan Yankee,” and “Cusson’s Description of the Yankee” by Thomas Allen.)


Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social articles.


Wednesday, October 7, 2026

A Comparison of Two Factions

A Comparison of Two Factions

Thomas Allen


Below, two major factions in America are compared. Do you relate more to Faction X or Faction Y? To find out, take the following test.


1 X: Adheres to the idea that the Constitution is an agreement among the people of the several States that means what it says (strict constructionism).

Y: Believes that the Constitution is an instrument that the people who control the federal government use and manipulate to achieve their goals; a living Constitution.


2 X: Adheres to federalism and constitutionalism — States’ rights and the constitutional separation of powers.

Y: Adheres to consolidation and centralization — consolidating all power in the federal government.


3 X: Maintains that “we the people” of each State, acting independently, are the final judges of the limits of the federal government.

Y: Maintains that the federal government, via the Supreme Court, is the final judge of the limits of the federal government.


4 X: Believes that the country should be a federation of independent republics.

 Y: Believes that the country should be a consolidated national empire.


5 X: Considers the United States as a means for mutual cooperation.

Y: Considers the United States as a means for their own prosperity.


6 X: Supports a small, weak central government.

Y: Supports a large, strong central government.


7 X: Adheres to the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave the country.

Y: Adheres to the Constitution that Lincoln gave the country. (For the difference, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)


8 X: Places individual liberty above the government.

Y: Places the government above individual liberty.


9 X: Values liberty more than equality.

Y: Values equality more than liberty.


10 X: Opposes federal intervention in local affairs.

Y: Supports federal intervention in local affairs.


11 X: Supports freedom of speech and favors open discussion even for people with whom he disagrees.

Y: Opposes freedom of speech and open discussion for people with whom he disagrees.


12 X: Adheres to the United States being a genetic country (a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country).

Y: Adheres to the United States being an exceptional, propositional, creedal country (unlike many countries today and historical countries that believed that they are or were exceptional, i.e., God’s gift to humanity, the United States really is God’s gift to humanity)


13 X: Sees the history of the United States as much more than the history of New England.

Y: Sees the history of New England as the history of the United States.


14 X: Promotes ruralism (rural areas and small towns are superior to cities and can exist and prosper independently of cities).

Y: Promotes urbanism (cities are superior to rural areas and small towns, which exist to provide resources to cities).


15 X: Adheres to localism and States’ rights.

Y: Adheres to nationalism.


16 X: Is skeptical of progress in the urbanized Puritan form.

Y: Admires and promotes progress in its urbanized Puritan form.


17 X: Holds to agrarianism and commercial capitalism.

Y: Holds to financial and industrial capitalism.


18 X: Maintains that social interactions are more important than economics.

Y: Maintains that economics (acquiring as much wealth as possible by any legal means, even if they are unethical) is more important than social interactions.


19 X: Prefers paternalism with leaders who devote themselves to selflessly promoting the welfare of the people: noblesse oblige.

Y: Prefers modern capitalism derived from Puritanism, i.e., rationalism, equality, and material productivity.


20 X: Supports aristocracy in the original sense of the word: “rule of the best,” i.e., a government led by the most virtuous or capable citizens.

Y: Supports democracy with its concomitant mediocre and demagogic leaders.


21 X: Supports free trade.

Y: Supports protective tariffs (a form of corporate welfare).


22 X: Advocates free markets and opposes corporate welfare.

Y: Advocates subsidization of business, agriculture, etc., and other forms of corporate welfare.


23 X: Favors decentralized banking.

Y: Favors centralized banking and currency manipulation.


24 X: Supports low taxes and little or no debt.

Y: Supports high taxes and high debt.


25 X: Favors little or no standing army.

Y: Favors a large standing army.


26 X: Personalizes war: People cause death and destruction; therefore, justifying war as a self-respecting response to a threat.

Y: Abstracts war: War, not people, causes death and destruction; therefore, rationalizes war as a noble crusade and vilifies the enemy. 


27 X: Finds the killing of women and children abhorrent and reprehensible.

Y: Accepts the killing of women and children if it is done in the name of human rights, democracy, equality, American righteousness, or something else that he considers noble.


28 X: Promotes a foreign policy of neutrality and nonintervention.

Y: Promotes a foreign policy of empire-building and meddling in the affairs of other countries.


29 X: Practices true diversity by leaving countries alone to develop themselves.

Y: Wants to make the world in the image of the Puritan Yankee.


30 X: Adheres to traditionalism.

Y: Adheres to progressivism.


31 X: Promotes a monoracial society.

Y: Promotes a multiracial society.


32 X: Favors morality, ethics, honor, and the idea of the gentleman.

Y: Favors abstract moralism and Puritanism.


33 X: Sees himself as guided by self-interest, vanity, lust for power and wealth, fear, and fickleness.

Y: Sees himself as governed by the highest motivations rather than the flaws of lesser humans.


34 X: Views and accepts society as it really is.

Y: Views society as it should be and proceeds to try to change it to meet the ideal (his opinion of what the ideal society ought to be).


35 X: Wants to be himself.

Y: Needs to feel superior to others.


36 X: Lets people live the life that they want to live if they do not trespass against others or common decency; wants to be left alone; believes in live and let live.

Y: Has a compulsion to force people to live the way that he (Y) wants them to live, which is usually in the image of Y, i.e., to manage other people’s lives — for their own good, of course.


37 X: Prefers honor to utility.

Y: Prefers utility to honor.


38 X: Values patriotism (love of one’s land and people) and places it above nationalism.

Y: Values nationalism (love of power and the desire for empire) and places it above patriotism.


39 X: Believes in deontology (actions based on duty, obligation, and universal moral rules; individual-centered [focusing on individual rights and duties]).

Y: Believes in utilitarianism (actions based on their consequences [the greatest good for the greatest number]; society-centered [focus on resource allocation and outcomes]).


40 X: Sees Yankees as the country’s, even the world’s, biggest problem.

Y: Sees Southerners as the country’s, even the world’s, biggest problem.


If you agree with “Faction X” 32 or more, then you relate to traditional, unreconstructed Southerners, the Jefferson-Calhoun philosophy, and the typical Democrat before the populists captured the Democratic Party in the 1890s. If you agree with “Faction Y” 32 or more, then you relate to the typical Northerner, especially the Yankee, the Hamilton-Lincoln philosophy, and the typical Republican ever since 1854, and the typical Democrat since the end of Cleveland’s presidency. However, if you agree with “Faction X” less than 32 times and with “Faction Y” less than 32 times, you may suffer from dissociative disorder — at the very least, you are inconsistent.

This test is probably best applied to others than oneself. Although they may act or think like Y, many will select X for themselves because they like to see themselves as possessing the more noble characteristics of X.


Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Sunday, September 27, 2026

Francis’s Solution to the Race Problem

Francis’s Solution to the Race Problem

Thomas Allen


In “Prospects for Racial and Cultural Survival,” American Renaissance, March 1995, Samuel Francis presents his proposal for the survival of the White race in the United States. He rejects the “restoration of white supremacy in the political and legal sense that obtained under slavery or segregation.” Nonwhites residing in the United States should have equality of legal rights. However, Whites should be supreme in a cultural sense.

Francis identifies three things that Whites must do to regain their country and culture. First, “Whites must formulate a white racial consciousness that identifies racial and biological endowments as important and relevant to social behavior, and their own racial endowments as essential to the continuing existence of Euro-American civilization.” This formulation does not exclude other ethnic, religious, regional, or other identities, or require individuals to “yield to the collective category of race.” It means recognizing racial realities and racial-biological endowments necessary for certain kinds of human behaviors. That is, Whites possess innate political and civil characteristics necessary to make Europe and America economically and socially successful, and connate intellectual characteristics necessary for science and scholarship. Other races lack these characteristics.

Francis writes, “Racial consciousness means that we add recognition of biological and racial factors to our traditional concepts of human nature and modify both our biological and non-biological conceptions of what man is, as evidence and reason dictate. . . . But the formation of white racial consciousness does mean that whites would recognize themselves as a race and their racially based behavior as legitimate, and hence it would mean the end of tolerance for nonwhite assaults on white people and the norms of white civilization.” Thus, the norms of American society before the Civil Rights Era would be the legitimate and dominant norms. Racial guilt would end.

Second, “whites must counter the demographic threat they face from immigration and nonwhite fertility and whites’ own infertility.” Consequently, nonwhite legal immigration must be halted, and all illegal immigrants must be deported. Also, many recent legal immigrants should be repatriated. Moreover, subsidizing the birth of nonwhites through welfare programs needs to stop. Furthermore, Whites should be encouraged to bear more children.

Third, “Whites must correct the political and legal order to end the political power of nonwhite minorities and their white anti-white allies.” Therefore, all affirmative action and civil rights legislation need to be abolished. Moreover, “the federal governmental superstructure that entrenches minority power” needs to be dismantled. Furthermore, States and local governments should be allowed to govern without interference from the federal government. Additionally, private institutions should be allowed to function independently of the government.

Francis concludes:

Whites and nonwhites would enjoy equality of legal rights in the sense of those fundamental rights listed in the very first Civil Rights Act of 1866: “the inhabitants of every race . . . shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property, and shall be subject to like punishment . . . and no others.” . . . [E]quality of legal rights, equality before the law, does not mean political equality, the right to vote, or the right to hold political office, let alone social and economic equality, nor the “right” to attend the same schools, to serve on juries, to marry across racial lines, to serve in the armed forces, to eat at lunch counters, to ride on buses, to buy a house or rent a room or hold a job, to receive welfare, to be admitted to colleges and universities, to take academic degrees or to be promoted.

Individually, States could decide which of these rights to grant nonwhites, but the federal government would not. “[T]he only legal rights that either the U.S. or state governments would be required to recognize and enforce equally would be those Blackstonean rights of personal security, personal liberty, and property mentioned above.” 

Then Francis gives a brief discussion of what is needed to achieve these goals.

If the United States fail to implement Francis’s recommendations or something similar to them, they will go the way of South Africa, where Whites are open game for nonwhites because Whites are no longer humans.


Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues.

Wednesday, September 23, 2026

Clarence Thomas

Clarence Thomas

Thomas Allen


Mark Paoletta writes an excellent article about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: “What Makes Clarence Thomas Great,”  Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture,  June 2026, pages 12–15 (https://chroniclesmagazine.org/view/what-makes-clarence-thomas-great/#comment-63457). He presents Thomas as a strict constructionist, i.e., he interprets the Constitution literally and narrowly, limits the federal government’s powers to those explicitly and clearly granted in the text, and declares that all powers not expressly enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people unless the Constitution expressly denies such powers.

According to the article, Thomas claims that the Constitution is color-blind. He errs; it is not. White men wrote it for Whites and only for Whites. The Preamble tells us so.  (“We the People of the United States . . . to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Who are “ourselves” and “our posterity”? They are the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and their descendants, all of whom are Whites.) Also, the author, Charles Pinckney, of Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the US Constitution (“the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States”),  said, “At the time I drew that Constitution, I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could ever have existed. . . .” (For proof that the Constitution was written for Whites, see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?,” “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’,” and “The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People” by Thomas Allen.)

If the Constitution were color blind, the Fourteenth Amendment, which was illegally and unlawfully ratified, would not be needed except to disenfranchise Southerners. Moreover, the Congress that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment also adopted a segregated school system for the District of Columbia. Obviously, this amendment was not intended to require school integration. That is why the Supreme Court based its school desegregation decision more on sociology and foreign policy than on the Constitution. (For more on the Fourteenth Amendment, see “Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States,” “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’,” and “Before and After” by Thomas Allen.)  The constitutional rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) and Brown v. Board of Education (school desegregation) should have held that education is a State matter; the Constitution grants the federal government no authority over public education, except in the District of Columbia and the territories.

Moreover, if Thomas were a strict constructionist, he would not apply the first nine amendments, the Bill of Rights, of the Constitution to the States. Through the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court applies most of the Bill of Rights to the States via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the incorporation doctrine was not discovered until about a generation and a half after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, obviously, the drafters and ratifiers of this amendment did not intend for it to be used to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. (The constitutions of each State have their own bill of rights.) Since Thomas applies the incorporation doctrine, he is an inconsistent strict constructionist. 

In District of Columbia v. Heller (the Second Amendment confers an individual right),  Thomas, who supported the ruling, acted as a strict constructionist because the ruling applied to an agency of Congress but not to the States. However, in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, Thomas, who supported the ruling, applied the Second Amendment to the States, which was contrary to strict construction. These rulings illustrate Thomas’ inconsistency as a strict constructionist.

Furthermore, when he rules against federal laws that discriminate against Whites, he is a strict constructionist. When he rules against State laws on segregation, integration, or discrimination, he is not a strict constructionist. Such issues are reserved for the States or the people thereof under the Tenth Amendment. For the most part, Thomas, unlike most other Supreme Court Justices, is a strict constructionist.


Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More political articles.




Wednesday, September 9, 2026

Rhode Island’s Nullification

Rhode Island’s Nullification

Thomas Allen


Recently, Rhode Island enacted a law prohibiting US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from operating near polling places in Rhode Island. Naturally, many people strongly object to this Rhode Island law. Some even urge the arrest of the legislators who voted for the law, the governor who signed the bill into law, and any State and local official who attempts to enforce it.

Unfortunately, Rhode Island enacted this law not because it thought ICE was acting unconstitutionally in enforcing the immigration laws. Likely, it enacted the law as a protest against President Trump. Nevertheless, regardless of its motivation, does Rhode Island have the right to nullify a federal law and its enforcement?  Under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave the country, the answer is “yes.” (Nowhere does the Constitution deny this right to the States, and therefore the Tenth Amendment reserves it for the States. Also, Article IV, Section 4 guarantees this right.) However, under the Constitution that Lincoln gave the country, the current Constitution, the answer is “no.” (States  have only those rights that the federal government condescends to allow them.)

Whether a State can nullify a federal law within that State depends on whether a State is sovereign. If a State is sovereign, it has the right to decide for itself whether its agent (the federal government) is complying with the compact (the US Constitution) of which it is a member. Consequently, Rhode Island has the right to determine the constitutional limits of the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. If a State finds that the federal government is acting unconstitutionally, it not only has the right, but also the duty, to nullify or otherwise intervene to prevent such unconstitutional acts or actions. At least this is true if sovereignty resides in “we the people” of each State independently of all other States, as Jefferson and nearly all the other founding fathers claimed. However, if, like Lincoln, the opponents of Rhode Island’s interposition believe that a State does not have this right, then the States are not sovereign, and sovereignty resides in the oligarchs who control the federal government. Like Lincoln, they seem to believe that States have only those rights that the federal government condescends to grant them. (The Lincoln Constitution reduces the States to administrative districts of the federal government. [Lincoln’s War was not a war between the States; it was a war  against the States.])

(Vermont nullified a federal law that was clearly constitutional merely because it disliked the law. Not only did it nullify the law, but it also authorized the arrest and jailing of any federal agent trying to enforce it. [See “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen.] However, Vermont was acting under the Constitution of the Founding Fathers and not the Constitution of Lincoln [For the differences between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.])

Opponents of nullification argue that federal courts should resolve the issues between a State and the federal government. However, this is an extremely poor solution. Being part of the federal government, federal courts are not impartial arbitrators between the States (the creator) and the federal government (the creation of the States). (See “Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution” by Thomas Allen.)

If a State lacks the right to nullify a federal law, it is not sovereign. If it is not sovereign, it does not have a republican form of government, although it may have a governmental structure that appears to be republican. Only a sovereign can have a republican form of government. Only a sovereign can be a republic. Therefore, a State must be sovereign to have a republican form of government.

Furthermore, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees that each State has a republican form of government. Thus, if a State lacks sovereignty, the Constitution is being violated. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” and “Republican Form of Government” by Thomas Allen.)

Would the people who oppose Rhode Island enacting a law that interferes with the enforcement of the federal immigration law also oppose a State interfering with the enforcement of a federal law that they despise and urge the arrest of State officials for enacting and enforcing such a law? They would if they are consistent and believe, as Lincoln did, that the United States is a consolidated national empire instead of a federation of sovereign nations, as nearly all, if not all, of the Founding Fathers thought. (See “False States’ Rights” by Thomas Allen.)

Personally, I disagree with Rhode Island on this immigration issue and believe that federal agents have the right to apprehend illegal immigrants at polling places. However, that is an issue for “we the people” of Rhode Island, as represented by their legislature in this instance, to decide, and not for me, the federal government, or anyone else to decide.

(For more about States' rights, nullification, and the Constitution, go to https://tcallenco.weebly.com/political.html.)


Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Wednesday, August 5, 2026

Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution

Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution

Thomas Allen


In “When State Resistance Meets the Constitution,” January 30, 2026, Benjamin Osborn (https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/when-state-resistance-meets-the-constitution/) discusses the protest against federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota. Correctly, he argues that the protestors are acting unlawfully when they attempt to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws. Additionally, neither the governor nor city officials have any legal authority to actively interfere with federal enforcement. All that they can do legally is to refuse to aid in that enforcement. However, his argument rests on Lincoln’s unhistorical concept of the Union, and a nationalist, rather than a federalist, perspective of the Union, where the federal government is all-powerful, and the States are impotent. This analysis discusses Osborn’s disdain for States’ rights and federalism and his admiration of federal tyranny.

Osborn rejects the notion that a State has the right, duty, and authority to nullify any federal act that it, i.e., “we the people” through their legislature or special convention, finds unconstitutional. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States" by Thomas Allen.) If a State nullifies a federal act that it finds unconstitutional, that act is void in that State, i.e., does not exist in that State. Nullification is a reserved power under the Tenth Amendment. (See “Nullification and Interposition” by Thomas Allen.) Moreover, the way that the country was founded and the Constitution was ratified not only implies that nullification is lawful, but it also makes it a fundamental principle. Therefore, if any federal agent attempts to enforce a nullified act, he is violating the Constitution and his oath of office.

Before 1861, States could do what Vermont did to the federal fugitive slave law. Not only did Vermont nullify it, but its nullification also authorized the use of force to prevent the enforcement of the fugitive slave law. (See “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen.) If he were consistent, Osborne would oppose what Vermont did. 

Unfortunately, Lincoln’s War ended that option. Now, we have what is occurring in Minnesota. (See “Blue Cities’ Response to Deporting Illegal Immigrants” by Thomas Allen.)

Osborn claims, “The Founders designed a system in which states retain meaningful sovereignty, but that does not include veto over federal execution.” For a State to have meaningful sovereignty, it must be sovereign. As a sovereign, it is and has to be the final judge of compliance with any contract that it voluntarily enters into, such as the US Constitution. Thus, it is the final judge of the constitutionality of all acts of the federal government. In other words, before a State can be sovereign, it has to have the right, duty, and power to nullify any federal act that it finds unconstitutional and the right and power to enforce the nullification, including jailing any federal agent trying to enforce the nullified law, as Vermont did when it nullified the fugitive slave law (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States" and by Thomas Allen).

Osborn cites the Supremacy Clause and argues that any law enacted by Congress and not vetoed by the US Supreme Court is constitutional. He is mistaken. The Supremacy Clause applies only to laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution. Only those laws are constitutional; all other federal laws are unconstitutional. Should the creators, the States, or the creature, the federal government, decide if a law is made pursuant to the Constitution? Osborne claims that the creature decides. (He is a true Lincolnian.)

Originally, the purpose of the Supremacy Clause was to ensure that unconstitutional laws were not supreme or binding. Only federal laws implementing the specifically delegated powers of Congress were constitutional; all other laws enacted by Congress were unconstitutional.

Now, the federal government uses the Supremacy Clause to ensure that federal laws and treaties have precedence over State laws and State constitutions except in the few instances where the federal courts have declared the federal law unconstitutional. No longer do federal laws have to be made pursuant to the Constitution, i.e., be constitutional, to have precedence over State laws. (See “Four Poisonous Clauses” by Thomas Allen.) Osborn supports this usurpation of the federal government.

If a State disagrees with a federal act, it “may litigate, protest, and seek political change.” Osborne’s solution of litigation means that he supports letting the federal government decide the limits of its power; that is what litigation means, as it will occur in federal courts.

(To use an analogy, if Osborn [a State] and I [the federal government] have a dispute, he should not object to my wife [the federal courts] deciding the dispute. One branch of my marriage would be as impartial in deciding a dispute involving another branch of my marriage as one part of the federal government is impartial in deciding a dispute with another part.)

Osborn cites James Madison’s explanation of interposition. He is correct: Governors lack the authority to nullify. However, proponents of nullification claim that “we the people” of each State, through their State legislatures, do have the authority to nullify federal laws that they find unconstitutional. (Being a nationalist at heart and desiring a strong federal government, Madison, unlike Jefferson, is not the best supporter of States’ rights and nullification. His approach to nullification lacks teeth and results in failure, as the Southern States proved in the 1950s and 1960s. [See “A Nullification That Failed” by Thomas Allen.])

Osborn writes, “The American system channels disagreement into courts, elections, and legislation.” Of course, he means federal courts and federal legislation. State courts and legislatures have only those powers that the federal government allows them. They certainly have no power or authority to interfere with the federal government, no matter how tyrannical, despotic, and unconstitutional it becomes.

Osborne is a strong proponent of making the States, which created the federal government, slaves of their creator. He implies that States have only those rights and privileges that the federal government concedes to give them. He is a strong proponent of federal supremacy and States’ subservience, which is tyranny and contrary to the very foundation of the Constitution — at least the Constitution of 1788, although not of the Lincoln Constitution, which is our current constitution. (For the difference between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?”) Based on this article, Osborn prefers America after Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment to America before them. (See “Before and After” by Thomas Allen.)

A primary reason that the country is in the turmoil that it is today is that no State has nullified any of the multitude (probably more than 85 percent) of the unconstitutional federal acts. Today, political power is centralized and concentrated in the federal government. States’ rightists’ political solution to America’s crisis is the decentralization and dispersal of political power, of which nullification is an important part.  (The major cause of America’s problems is moral decay.)

Personally, I believe the federal government has the constitutional authority to enforce naturalization and immigration laws by arresting people who are in the country illegally and deporting them, although some of the tactics being used may not be legal or constitutional. However, the constitutionality is something that "we the people" of each State need to decide for themselves.


Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Wednesday, July 15, 2026

Lincoln’s Curses

Lincoln’s Curses

Thomas Allen

 

1. Lincoln’s worst curse was converting the United States from a federation of independent sovereign republics to a consolidated national empire with the States reduced to administrative districts. As a corollary to this curse, the States lost their republican form of government; their governments remain republican in appearance but not in substance. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States" by Thomas Allen.) He effectively repealed the Tenth Amendment.

2. Lincoln cursed America and most of the world with the notion that once a territory (State, province, country, or whatever) becomes part of another country, union, or federation, whether voluntarily or by conquest, it cannot leave without the consent of the country, union, or federation of which it is part. 

3. Lincoln cursed the United States with the “unquestioned mystique of might-makes-right and the coercive unitary nation-state.” This notion is the foundation of American hegemony and globalism.

4. Not only did Lincoln curse the country with an imperial president, which has grown stronger over the years, but he also cursed the country with a kritarchy. Following Lincoln, the Supreme Court began converting the country into a kritarchy. This goal was fully achieved with the Warren Court. Because of Lincoln, the United States have become a kritarchy with an imperial president and an impotent Congress. The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court declares it to mean. (Thanks to Lincoln, kakistocrats, ideocrats, and kleptocrats have ruled the United States at various times.)

5. Lincoln suppressed the freedom of the press. Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt followed his example. Biden did likewise during the COVID-19 plandemic. Now, censorship primarily applies to the internet, as the oligarchs who control the federal government also control the press outside of the internet.

6. Lincoln cursed the United States with the income tax. He gave the country its first income tax. Later, the Supreme Court ruled that the income tax was unconstitutional. This ruling was followed by the Sixteenth Amendment, which made the income tax permanent. His income tax also cursed the country with the Internal Revenue Service.

7. Lincoln normalized and made the corrupt and cartelized business-government partnerships permanent. As a result, the military-industrial complex, the security-industrial complex, Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Tech, Big Oil, Big Finance, Big Insurance, and other Big Businesses work closely with the federal government. In exchange for special governmentally granted privileges and benefits, they aid the federal government in expanding its power. (The oligarchs that control the federal government also control the collaborating businesses.)

8. Protective tariffs of Lincoln’s Republican Party were the primary cause of the secession of the States of the Lower South. Between Lincoln’s War and World War II, protective tariffs were the primary way that the federal government subsidized Big Businesses. Following World War II, Big Businesses began turning against tariffs. They discovered that they could profit more from producing goods in foreign countries and importing them into the United States.

9. Lincoln gave the United States their first legal tender fiat currency, the U.S. note or greenback. Although the country returned to the gold-coin standard in 1879, the fiat U.S. notes remained in circulation and were issued until their issuance was discontinued in 1971. (Unlike gold certificates, people were not required to turn U.S. notes in. They remained in circulation until they wore out or the banking system redrew them. One may occasionally find them in circulation. The author received one about ten years ago.) Between 1879 and 1933, when Franklin Roosevelt ended the gold standard, U.S. notes were redeemable at par in gold. 

10. With the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864, Lincoln nationalized the American banking system. In 1913, the Federal Reserve System replaced the national banking system.

11.  Other curses of Lincoln include establishing a large standing national army, legitimizing martial law even in areas where civil courts are open, ignoring habeas corpus and jailing dissidents and others without trial or due process, and establishing mostly permanent conscription (currently, conscription is out of favor; however, it can be resurrected at anytime, especially since the leaders of the United States want to subdue everyone in the world to their will).

Although Lincoln is credited with freeing the slaves, he freed no slaves. If he and the abolitionists wanted to free the slaves, they could have started by buying slaves with their own money and setting them free. Since they did not, they proved that they loved their money more than freeing slaves.


Reference

Rothbard, Murray N. “The Nationalities Question.” Mises Daily. April 18, 2022.


Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.



Wednesday, June 17, 2026

American Freedoms

 American Freedoms

Thomas Allen


The 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence has arrived. Now is the time to reflect upon the liberties, freedoms, and rights that the Founding Fathers fought for and sought to preserve. Unfortunately, Americans have lost many, even most, of these liberties, freedoms, and rights. Sadly, people born in recent decades never had a chance to enjoy most of them. A short list follows.

1. Bill of Rights. People enjoy all the rights guaranteed and protected by the Bill of Rights unless the federal government disagrees. The Founding Fathers believed that the rights identified in the Bill of Rights were absolute and transcended and existed before government. However, today’s ruling oligarchs consider them relative, that is, governmentally granted privileges that can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason.

2. Freedom of Travel. The Ninth Amendment and its equivalent in State constitutions prohibit the federal and State governments from preventing or otherwise hindering the popular means of travel. In the early days, travel was by means of horses, boats, and then trains. Now, it is by automobiles and airplanes. Today, Americans are free to have governments hinder and even prevent travel by the present popular means (automobiles and airplanes). People need the government’s permission to travel by automobile; they need a driver’s license, insurance, etc. 

Additionally, they are free to travel on commercial airliners if the federal government allows them. Moreover, if they travel by air, they are treated like criminals but with fewer rights than a criminal. The federal government presumes all passengers are terrorists until proven otherwise, i.e., passengers are guilty until they prove their innocence. Also, the federal government violates their right to privacy with unconstitutional searches. (What would people have done in the nineteenth century if the federal government required stagecoach passengers and their luggage to be searched before they were allowed on a stagecoach? They probably would have beaten, if not killed, the agent.)

3. Freedom to Promote One’s Heritage. People are free to defend and promote their heritage and culture if that heritage and culture are not White, especially Southern. White, especially Southern, heritage and culture do not have the right to exist.

4. Schools. People are free to send their children to public schools where they can graduate with a high school diploma, despite some graduates being so illiterate that they cannot read their diplomas. Moreover, people are free to have public schools indoctrinate their children to be obedient slaves of the ruling oligarchs. Sadly, most do not even realize that they are slaves.

5. Welfare. The unproductive are free to enslave the productive to support them.

6. Corporate Welfare. People are free to be forced to bail out banks and other companies run by incompetent or greedy managers who have political influence or are deemed by the federal government to be too big to fail.

7. Money. Instead of deciding for themselves how much money the economy needs, the people have the freedom of the federal government, in collaboration with banks through the Federal Reserve System, to decide the quality and quantity of money. Moreover, people are free to be forced to use debt, Federal Reserve notes, as money instead of commodities like gold and silver that are no one’s liability. Thus, people are free to live with and use money that continuously loses purchasing power.

For additional lost freedoms, see “Freedom” by Thomas Allen.

The Founding Fathers would rebel against the above freedoms and rights. They would be ashamed of their descendants for throwing away the liberties, freedoms, and rights for which they fought.


Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.


Wednesday, June 3, 2026

Results of Israel’s and the United States’ War with Iran

Results of Israel’s and the United States’ War with Iran

Thomas Allen


Below are some dire prognostications resulting from Israel’s and the United States’ war with Iran.

Israel will cease owning Congress. More and more Representatives and Senators will turn against Israel or be voted out of office. Except for the Christian Zionists, Zionist Jews, the chicken hawks like Senator Graham, people who get rich off war, and dimwits, the American people do not want the United States to participate in this war. Additionally, as the number of Americans who have actually died and been wounded for Israel becomes public, Americans will become more vigorous in their opposition to the war and Israel.

After its defeat in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now Iran, the world will no longer see the United States as the world’s dominant military power. Most, if not all, of America’s military bases in the Middle East will be abandoned. (Eventually, all will be because of a lack of funds.)

Iran will eventually get its nuclear weapons. Also, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will acquire nuclear weapons.

Moreover, American global hegemony and Israeli Middle Eastern hegemony are dead. Also, British colonialism is finally finished. A multipolar world will return.

Furthermore, the petrodollar (the US dollar) will no longer be the world’s reserve currency. As a result, prices in the United States will rise sharply as foreign central banks unload their excess US dollars. These dollars have nowhere to go except to the United States to buy goods and services. 

Moreover, prices will soar globally. Because of the petroleum shortage that this war has created, the prices of fuel, food, plastic products, circuit boards (which need a special coating, most of which comes through the Straight of Hormuz), and most other products will soar. As the COVID shutdown caused prices to soar globally, so will the petroleum shortage caused by this war cause prices to soar globally. The United States get hit with not only prices rising because of the death of the petrodollar, but also because of prices rising as a result of the global petroleum shortage.

With the death of the petrodollar and the concomitant rising interest rates, the federal government will be forced to curtail its spending; demand for federal debt securities will drastically shrink. The United States will have to withdraw from its overseas bases and cease its imperialism. Most likely, America will become like Russia with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Lacking the resources for foreign interventionism, the federal government will have to focus on the legitimate needs and priorities of the United States. Lacking the funds to fight unnecessary wars to make the warmongers richer, far fewer Americans will die in war, such as the Iranian war to make Israel great.

The ruling elite and their lackeys and toadies will fight vigorously to retain their power, privileges, and influence to control the people and extract wealth from them. Unfortunately, like the common Russians when the Soviet Union collapsed, the average American will suffer greatly from the changes that the war with Iran is going to cause. Hopefully, they will not witness what happened in Russia when many miscreants, reprobates, and unscrupulous people, a disproportional number of whom were Jews, plundered what little wealth the people had.

Zionism will receive a fatal blow, which means that Christian Zionism will die. With the death of Israel (Israel may cease to exist as a Jewish country), the current end-time religious teachings will be abandoned as just another false doctrine. Televangelists will lose so many of their followers that most will go out of business, and evangelical pastors will lose many in their congregations for teaching a false doctrine.

One of Trump’s arguments for attacking Iran and embargoing its oil exports was to weaken China. Ironically, as a result of this war against Iran, China will replace the United States as the world’s dominant economic power for decades to come. 

Because of Trump’s unconstitutional war with Iran for Greater Israel, the Democrats will regain control of the federal government. Once in control, they will amplify the economic disaster caused by the war by reinstituting the green energy programs and the woke agenda and by again flooding the country with legal and illegal immigrants. Thus, they will hasten the death of America.

The United States are destined to go the way of the British Empire and Soviet Union. Zionism and Israel have already brought down three great empires: the British Empire, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union. Now, they are bringing down the American Empire. (See “The Results of Supporting Zionism and Israel” by Thomas Allen.)

As Gorbachev oversaw the collapse of the Soviet Union, so Trump is overseeing the collapse of the American empire.

Fortunately, I am a mediocre forecaster. Hopefully, most of these predictions will not come to pass — especially those related to the economy and the dollar and the Democrats regaining control of the federal government. Yet, the demise of the American empire and hegemony is highly desirable. Furthermore, reducing Israel to insignificance is also highly desirable.


References

Baldwin, Chuck. “The World We Knew Is Gone Forever!” April 16, 2026. https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/5014/The-World-We-Knew-Is-Gone-Forever.aspx. Accessed April 17, 2026.

Barton, Philip. “Bomber Trump’s Folly.” March 30, 2026. https://timesofgold.com/2026/03/30/bomber-trumps-folly/. Accessed May 2, 2026. 


Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.


Wednesday, May 27, 2026

Republican Form of Government

Republican Form of Government

Thomas Allen


Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution, guarantees each State a republican form of government.  Ty Bodden describes the attributes of a republican form of government in “Restoring a Constitutional, Republican Form of Government: States Push Back Against Direct Democracy and Bureaucratic Rule,” January 16, 2026 (https://thenewamerican.com/us/restoring-a-constitutional-republican-form-of-government-states-push-back-against-direct-democracy-and-bureaucratic-rule/).

Each State should be a constitutional republic with a republican government. A republican government is “grounded in constitutional limits, representative lawmaking, and the rule of law.” It “requires clear lines: Legislatures make the law, executives execute it, courts interpret it.” Moreover, a “republican government demands transparency and public accountability — not self-perpetuating appointment systems.”

A constitutional republic is governed “by law, exercised through elected representatives, with safeguards that protect God-given rights against both mob passions and unelected bureaucrats.” Thus, States “ have a duty to structure their institutions in ways that preserve representative lawmaking, checks and balances, and protections from majoritarian tyranny.”

Under a republican government, “major policy decisions remain accountable to the people through their elected representatives.” Legislators cannot evade their responsibilities by delegating legislative authority to executive boards and commissions. Consequently, unelected rulemaking boards and commissions are incompatible with a republican government. If they exist at all, rulemaking “administrative bodies must remain subordinate, not function as a fourth branch.” 

The purpose of a constitution is “to restrain government and protect rights.” Bodden notes, “A constitution is not meant to be a running policy notebook, rewritten whenever a slim majority is persuaded by slick advertising.” Thus, it should not be changed on a whim of a bare majority, or else “liberty becomes temporary and rights become negotiable.”

Consequently, amending State constitutions should require a supermajority, e.g., 60 percent. State constitutions should not allow amendments through ballot initiatives. Furthermore, the amendment process should require more than just a statewide majority. It should also require majorities in various districts throughout the State, e.g., congressional districts. Such requirements ensure that the amendment has broad support. If both of these approaches are combined, which Bodden does not do, before an amendment becomes part of the constitution, it would need 60 percent of the vote statewide and would have to receive a majority vote in each congressional district or, alternatively, in two-thirds of the districts.

Bodden concludes, “Will states be governed as republics, under the rule of law, or as democracies, under the whims of shifting majorities and unelected managers? A republic restrains power to protect the people. A democracy too often unleashes power — first against the minority, and eventually against everyone.”

Bodden fails to address two important issues. One is that today the States are not republics and cannot become republics; therefore, they cannot have a republican form of government merely by making the changes that he recommends. The other is the electorate.

As a result of Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, no State today is a republic (See “Before and After” by Thomas Allen). Although the governments of the States appear to be republican in form, they are not. Only a republic can have a republican form of government (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen).

For a State to have a republican form of government, a State must be a republic. Before a State can be a republic, it must be sovereign, and as a sovereign, it is the final judge of the constitutionality of acts of the federal government. In other words, before a State can have a republican form of government, it has to have the right, duty, and power to nullify any federal act that it finds unconstitutional and has the right and power to enforce the nullification, including jailing any federal agent trying to enforce the nullified law, as Vermont did when it nullified the fugitive slave law (see “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen). Until States regain their sovereignty, they cannot have a republican form of government.

Who is the electorate of a State? It is “we the people” of that State, i.e., it is the body politic that ultimately wields political power (see “Meaning of ‘We the People’” by Thomas Allen). Today, almost anyone more than 18 who breathes is part of the electorate. (As Landslide Lyndon in 1948 and Biden in 2020 have shown, even dead people are part of the electorate.)

When the US Constitution and the constitutions of the original States were ratified, the electorate was limited to people who had a vested interest in the community. That is, only White males who owned a minimum amount of real property were members of the electorate. During the Jacksonian Era, most White males more than 21 received the vote. The Fifteenth Amendment extended voting to Black males, and the Nineteenth Amendment gave women the vote. The Twenty-fourth Amendment removed the requirement to pay taxes, and the Twenty-sixth Amendment lowered the voting age to 18. (Every time suffrage was expanded, liberty declined.)

An important component of returning a republican form of government to the States is to restrict suffrage to people who have a vested interest in the community. Only people who own a minimum amount of real property or pay a minimum amount of direct taxes (property, income, and capitation taxes) would have the right to vote and be part of the body politic.

Most States already have the governmental structure in place to have a republican form of government. What they are lacking is the sovereignty of “we the people” and restricting “we the people” to those who have a vested interest in the community.


Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Wednesday, May 13, 2026

False States’ Rights

False States’ Rights

Thomas Allen


During the Clinton and Obama administrations, left-wingers wanted State officials to enforce federal anti-gun laws — even using force if necessary to coerce the States to enforce federal laws when bribery (federal grants) and extortion (withholding federal grants) failed. On the other hand, right-wingers strongly objected to States enforcing federal gun-control laws and claimed that States were not obliged to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court agreed with the right-wingers.

Now, the left-wingers and right-wingers have switched positions. Under the Trump administration, right-wingers want State and, by extension, local officials to enforce federal immigration laws or at least be required to aid federal officials in enforcing federal immigration laws. They approve of the federal government using bribery or extortion to reward or punish States for enforcing and aiding in the enforcement of federal laws. Left-wingers object and assert that State and local officials do not have to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Although both sides give lip service to States’ rights, neither believes in nor supports States’ rights. Both reject the notion that the United States is a federation of independent sovereign republican States. Both support the notion that the United States is a consolidated national empire with the States serving as administrative districts.

If they believed in and supported States’ rights, they would support States refusing to enforce federal laws, regardless of the law. Moreover, they would object to coercing States to enforce federal laws, even with bribery or extortion. (Extortion, i.e., withholding federal grants if a State fails to enforce a federal law, is a favorite weapon to compel a State to enforce a federal law.) 

Moreover, if they believed in States’ rights, they would support the right of “we the people” of each State to declare through their legislature or special convention, whether a federal law is constitutional. If a State (“we the people”) finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it could and should nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State and even jail federal agents who tried to enforce the nullified law. (Governors and city and county officials do not have the right to nullify federal laws; however, they may refuse to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal laws unless a State law requires them to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal laws.)

People who oppose a State’s right to nullify a federal law that they support oppose States having a republican form of government as guaranteed under the Constitution.[1] (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen). Moreover, they oppose sovereignty residing in “we the people” of each State. Consequently, they support sovereignty residing in the oligarchs who control the federal government.


Endnote

1.  As explained in “Returning Republican Governments to the States,” for a State to have a republican form of government, it has to have the right to decide for itself whether a federal law is constitutional or unconstitutional. If it finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it has not only the right but also the duty to nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State.


Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Wednesday, April 22, 2026

Confusion About the Constitution

Confusion About the Constitution

Thomas Allen


Many people believe that we live under the Constitution ratified in 1788. We do not. We are living under the Constitution that Lincoln gave us, further developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, and carried to fruition by the Warren Court. Although the words may be the same, their meaning has significantly changed. Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally altered the country and its government. (For a description of some of these fundamental changes, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” and “Before and After” by Thomas Allen.)

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent sovereign republics. Also, before the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States were a monoracial country (see “The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People” by Thomas Allen). After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government, and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated multiracial national empire. (Stripping the States of their republican form of government violates the Constitution of 1788, but not Lincoln’s Constitution. For a State to have a republican form of government, it has to have the right to decide for itself whether a federal law is constitutional or unconstitutional. If it finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it has not only the right but also the duty to nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State. This right is denied them under Lincoln’s Constitution. [See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.]) Furthermore, Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment transferred the sovereignty of “we the people” of each State to the oligarchs who controlled the federal government.

Moreover, under the Constitution of 1788, Congress was the strongest of the three branches of the federal government, and the judiciary was the weakest. Under today’s Lincoln’s Constitution, the country has a kritarchy with an imperial president and an impotent Congress.

Additionally, under the Constitution of 1788, the federal government was strictly limited to a few delegated powers. All other powers remained with the States. Under today’s Constitution, the federal government has almost unlimited powers, while the powers of the States are only those allowed by the federal government.


Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Wednesday, March 25, 2026

Before and After

Before and After

Thomas Allen


Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment made fundamental changes to the United States and the Constitution of 1788. Although they did not alter the words of the Constitution that existed in 1860, the Constitution that was ratified in 1788, they changed their meanings. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment destroyed the fundamental principles on which the Constitution was based. Furthermore, it was illegally and unlawfully ratified (see “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen).

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment slew the Tenth Amendment. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court will occasionally resurrect it to give “we the people” of the States the illusion that they still have rights.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent, sovereign republics.[1] After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated national empire. (For the difference between Lincoln’s Constitution and the Constitution of 1788, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

Before 1860, most people who preferred a national empire to a federation of republics considered the United States as a federation of States and the federal government as having limited powers.

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment demolished the Jeffersonian tradition of States’ rights by which the people of the States were the masters rather than the servants of the federal government. Afterwards, the federal government became the master of all, and the people, other than the oligarchs, were reduced to servants, even slaves, of the ruling elite.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, most people viewed the Constitution as restraining the federal government and not the people. Even people who wanted little or no restraint saw the Constitution limiting their lust for power, which is why they had Lincoln and the Republicans change it. Afterwards, it no longer restrained the federal government; they gave it almost unlimited powers. 

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, people became citizens of the United States by being citizens of a State. Afterwards, people were citizens of a State by being citizens of the United States. (Moreover, the United States ceased to be referred to in the plural [are] and became referred to in the singular [is].) Thus, citizenship was changed. Additionally, before, only Whites were citizens. Although a State could grant Indians and Blacks certain privileges of citizenship, they were not and could not be citizens. They were aliens.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, sovereignty resided in “we the people” of each State. Afterwards, sovereignty resided in the oligarchs who controlled the federal government. Thus, the location of sovereignty was changed.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the country was monoracial. The founding fathers said so (for proof, see “The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People” by Thomas Allen; also see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen). Afterwards, it was multiracial.

As a result of the Fourteenth Amendment, the descendants of the people who built this country, i.e., Whites, Aryans, are being genocided. In 1950, 89 percent of the population was White; by 2020, only 61 percent were White.

Between Monroe and Lincoln, many of the presidents and other political leaders favored a consociated national empire and, with one exception, would not have objected to what Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment did to the country. That exception was the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country. After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, all presidents, except for Cleveland, supported a consolidated national empire, where the States were no longer independent republics but were districts of the empire. Moreover, before World War II, nearly all would have objected to the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country.


Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Thus, if right to vote for judicial officers of a State is denied to any eligible voter (male citizens 21 years old and older at that time), the number of Representatives in the House of Representatives shall be reduced in the proportion to the number of male citizens denied the vote to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Only in 21 States do the voters elect all judges. In the other States, the Supreme Court and most appellate court judges are appointed or selected by the legislature. Therefore, only the 21 States where all judges are elected should have representation in the House of Representatives.


Endnote

1. Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment voided the first part of Article IV, Section 2, which guarantees States a republican form of government. Only a sovereign can have a republican form of government; only a sovereign can be a republic. Therefore, a State must be sovereign to have a republican government. As a sovereign, a State, i.e., “we the people” of that State, has the right to decide if an act of the federal government is Constitutional. If a State finds that an act of the federal government is unconstitutional, it may nullify that act and prevent its enforcement in that State. Moreover, it may withdraw from the compact, i.e., secede. However, Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment stripped the States of their sovereignty, and, consequently, they denied the States the right to have a republican form of government. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.)


Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.