Comparable Worth

 

Comparable Worth

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1984 for the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. The article has been slightly edited.]

“Comparable worth” is beginning to replace the chimera of “equal pay for equal work.” (The reason that equal pay for equal work is losing to comparable worth is that it has failed to transfer enough wealth from the productive to the politically powerful.) But what is comparable worth? How should wages be determined?

In a free market, the consumer determines wages. Wages are paid according to how much one contributes to society. Everyone is paid what he is worth. (If a person believes that he is underpaid, he is free to find a job that pays more.) However, government intervention distorts a worker’s real worth.

The government can distort wages in many different ways. It can do it indirectly by granting monopolistic privileges to labor unions and public utilities. Most of its economic regulations distort wages to some degree. These regulations create nonproductive and otherwise unnecessary positions. Businesses are forced to hire people who do nothing but placate governmental officials. Taxes can have both an indirect and a direct impact on wage rates.

Besides taxes, the government directly distorts wages in several other ways. The most obvious is to fix wages as was done during the wage freeze of the 1970s. Also, the government fixes a minimum wage and forbids anyone from working if his economic contribution to society falls below this arbitrary number. Further, it distorts wages by forcing businesses to hire a minimum number of politically privileged groups (commonly called minorities, although they may not be in the minority and although many minorities are not so privileged). Moreover, it dictates equal pay for equal work. (No two people do equal work because no two people are equal. No two people can be equal because no two people are identical. Only identical people can do equal work. Yet, the government does not let the facts stand in the way of its lust for power.) Now, it is pushing an idea that will give it complete control over the workers and the economy — comparable worth.

Comparable worth is an arbitrary and subjective approach that attempts to compare the tens of thousands of different occupations in the United States and to determine the relative value of each when compared with all other occupations. The comparable worth approach subjectively determines the economic contribution of each occupation to society. This means that one’s political influence determines one’s economic worth. White-collar workers develop comparable worth schemes. Not unexpectedly, these schemes always elevate white-collar jobs and lower blue-collar jobs. The subjective approach of comparable worth would replace the objective approach of the free market in determining wages. Bureaucrats would determine wages instead of consumers.

The outcome of the comparable worth approach would be economic chaos. The government would gain complete control over the lives of every worker. Class conflict, the lifeblood of democracy, would be encouraged. Thus, the blue-collar worker, who is normally discriminated against by comparable worth, would be pitted against the white-collar worker. Courts would be filled with litigation. The wealth of the politically powerful would rise, although their economic contribution to their fellow man would decline. Of course, the government would grow astronomically as it tried to administer this draconian program. All this would be the result of using the arbitrary and subjective approach of comparable worth to determine wages instead of the objective and unbiased approach of the free market.

If the desired goal is tyranny and a larger and more powerful government, then wages should be determined by comparable worth. If one should be paid according to his political influence, then wages should be determined by comparable worth. If the desired goal is liberty and justice, then wages should be determined by the free market. If one should be paid according to his economic contribution to his fellow man, then wages should be determined by the free market.

Copyright © 1984, 2026 by Thomas C. Allen.

More economic articles.

The Wise and the Foolish

The Wise and the Foolish

Thomas Allen

In Matthew 25:1-13, Jesus gives a parable of ten virgins. Five virgins were wise, and five were foolish. (See the appendix for the text of this parable.)

The five wise virgins were prudent and future-oriented. If the bridegroom tarried, they had hoarded a reserve of oil to keep their lamps burning. As the story goes, they had to use their saved oil because the bridegroom arrived late.

The five foolish virgins were imprudent and present-oriented. Consequently, they had failed to save any oil for their lamps and, therefore, could not keep their lamps lit. As a result, they missed the bridegroom. (If a compassionate government following liberation theology existed then, it would have forced the wise virgins to give part, if not all, their oil to the foolish virgins.)

Clergymen understand this parable spiritually. Jesus is the bridegroom, whose arrival is unknown. The “oil” represents spiritual readiness and faithfulness. Like the wise virgins, Christians should always be prepared for the coming of Christ, whenever that is. Thus, they should be diligent in their faith, continuously seek to grow closer to God, and strive to live according to His will.

Nevertheless, this parable also has a practical, earthly explanation. Once, farmers would hoard part of their harvest to feed themselves until the next harvest. Foolish farmers failed to hoard enough and went hungry; thus, they depended on the charity of their neighbors to feed them. (According to an old saying, Southern farmers sold what they could not eat, and Northern farmers ate what they could not sell.) Likewise, wise people stockpile food and other supplies to carry themselves through natural and manmade disasters and lean times. Foolish people do not; they rush to stores just before the disaster strikes, only to find empty shelves. Sometimes, they have no warning and have to do without.

In the twenty-first century, this parable has been turned on its head. Now, the prudent are the foolish, and the imprudent are the wise. When a natural or manmade disaster strikes, the imprudent will steal the savings (food, water, money, or whatever) from the prudent, either directly or, more likely, through the government.

For example, according to a highly reliable source, following Hurricane Helene, the government stole food in the disaster area that the prudent had saved and gave it to the imprudent. (Some prudent people had their supplies washed away, but many who received the stolen goods were imprudent people. In any event, the government did not steal from the imprudent because they had nothing to steal.)

Thus, the prudent were foolish to sacrifice some of their resources to establish supplies of food and other necessities. Instead of using their resources to establish emergency supplies, the imprudent used them for present merriment, knowing that if disaster struck, the government would take care of them. Consequently, the imprudent acted wisely, albeit dishonestly.

When the prudent are penalized for saving, and the imprudent are rewarded for not saving, people eventually stop hoarding for future emergencies and disasters. When most people become present-oriented and do not hoard, their lack of savings causes enormous stress on charities, which, because of imprudence, receive significantly less support, and on governments.

(This reminds me of the story of the little red hen. Wanting to bake a cake, the hen asked the other farm animals to assist her. All refused. However, after she had baked the cake, all came to her and demanded their share. Never again did the hen bake a cake, and the other animals wondered why.)

Appendix

The following is Matthew 25: 1–13 from the World English Bible.

25 “Then the Kingdom of Heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. 3 Those who were foolish, when they took their lamps, took no oil with them, 4 but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5 Now while the bridegroom delayed, they all slumbered and slept. 6 But at midnight there was a cry, ‘Behold! The bridegroom is coming! Come out to meet him!’ 7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ 9 But the wise answered, saying, ‘What if there isn’t enough for us and you? You go rather to those who sell, and buy for yourselves.’ 10 While they went away to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast, and the door was shut. 11 Afterward the other virgins also came, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open to us.’ 12 But he answered, ‘Most certainly I tell you, I don’t know you.’ 13 Watch therefore, for you don’t know the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Some Observations

Some Observations

Thomas Allen

The following describes the ideal state and its government and comments on Europe’s lust for war with Russia.

The Ideal State and Its Ideal Government

What follows is a description of the ideal state and its ideal government according to most left-wingers, especially progressives, socialists, fascists, and many nationalists.

In an ideal state, bureaucrats rule. Bureaucrats are isolated from special interests — so they believe. However, as COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter riots illustrate, special interests have as much control over bureaucrats as they have over politicians. Nevertheless, statists are correct that bureaucrats are more difficult to replace than elected politicians. For statist, difficulty in replacing bureaucrats is a good thing and, therefore, bureaucratic rule is the ideal government for the ideal state.

Bureaucrats are supposed to be guided by the common good, which is what is best for the community. Yet, the concept of the common good is highly subjective. For example, some believe that a disarmed citizenry is for the common good, while others believe that a heavily armed citizenry is for the common good. In the end, personal prejudices and biases, the lust for power and wealth, and ideology guide most bureaucrats, especially those at the higher levels, in deciding what is the public good. Many lower-level bureaucrats are guided by the notion of doing their jobs.

The state is an abstraction that cannot exist without people. What is the state? The people who control the government. (See “The State” by Thomas Allen.) When bureaucrats rule, the state is the high-ranking bureaucrats and the people who own or control them, i.e., the oligarchs, who are ultimately the state.

Of course, people who promote the bureaucratic-ruled state are convinced that the bureaucrats who control the government think like they do. The bureaucrats will promote policies and agendas with which these promoters agree and suppress those with which they disagree. While progressives, socialists, fascists, and other statists find the bureaucratic-ruled state desirable, traditional conservatives, constitutionalists, libertarians, and other libertists find it deplorable.

Unfortunately, the United States are close to achieving the ideal state and its ideal government.  As the statists rejoice over their coming victory, the libertists are mourning the death of their country and its Constitution. (For the differences between a statist and a libertist, see “Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen.)

Europe’s Lust for War with Russia

Many of the European political leaders are working diligently to start a war with Russia. Following the example of most modern belligerents, they are trying to provoke Russia to fire the first shot so that they can blame Russia for starting the war and, thus, draw the United States into another useless European war. (The leadership of the United States either is stupid enough or controlled enough to carry the United States into another no-win war, but this war will totally destroy the United States.)

These European leaders are beginning to prepare their countries for war with Russia. Several countries are increasing their production of war materials and increasing the size of their armies. Moreover, they are telling their citizens to prepare for war. Some are considering reinstituting the draft.

With whom or what do they plan to fight such a war? They have completely demobilized their native White ethnicities. Whites have been taught that they are the cancer of the universe and do not deserve to exist. Their political leaders have relegated them to second-class citizens in their own countries. Such a demoralized people make a poor army that can be easily defeated.

Do these European leaders plan to use the immigrants from the Middle East, South Asia, and Northern Africa who have flooded Europe over recent decades? These immigrants owe Europe no allegiance. Most came to plunder and conquer. Why should they risk their lives to defend Europe?

Consequently, Europe cannot rely on these immigrants or the demoralized native Whites to fight Russia. Additionally, Europe has depleted much of its war materials by sending them to Ukraine.

Apparently, using Russia’s war with Ukraine as their model, some of these European leaders act as though they will fight Russia for months, if not for years. If the war goes nuclear, which it most likely will, Russia could utterly destroy all major cities in Europe in less than 10 minutes. (If Russia thought that the United States would retaliate, it could destroy the US missile silos before they could fire and take out most of the bombers on the ground. Moreover, it could destroy many major cities, airports, and military and naval bases in less than 30 minutes. Its hypersonic missiles can travel from New York to Los Angeles in less than half an hour. Neither Europe nor the United States have any defense against Russia’s hypersonic missiles. Moreover, Russia also has nuclear torpedoes that can flood much of coastal Europe.)

Do these European leaders believe that they can defeat Russia? Probably not. However, defeating Russia is not the objective. It will not be fought to defeat Russia but to annihilate the Whites of Europe.

Being possessed by Satan’s demons, these European leaders seek to obliterate the White race from the planet because the White race (species) is the race created in God’s image. (See “What Race Was Adam?” by Thomas Allen.) Eradicating the White race with massive nonwhite immigration is taking too long. What better way to achieve their goal than a nuclear war?

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence

Thomas Allen

Proponents of artificial intelligence (AI) claim that AI will do everything for humans. Because of AI, humans will no longer have to work, produce, read, write, figure, or think. (“5% of the people think. 10% of the people think they think. The rest would rather die than think.” – Anonymous. Thus, AI will spare 85 percent of the population the pain of thinking.) Moreover, humans will no longer have to be concerned about feeding themselves. No longer will they have to deal with entertainment, finances, education, transportation, or business. AI and its robots will provide all these things and more. Since AI will do everything for them, all people will have to do is to loaf. Opponents of AI fear that the proponents are correct.

With its robots, AI will build structures and manufacture food. Farmers, ranchers, construction workers, plumbers, electricians, etc., will no longer be needed.

AI will provide all entertainment for the people. It will write and sing their songs. Its robots will play their sports. Further, it will write and produce the movies and plays, and its robots will be the actors.

Moreover, AI will handle people’s financial matters. Actually, people will have no financial concerns since AI will eventually eliminate the need for finances.

Further, AI will control health care. Its robots will replace the doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers. It will decide who lives or dies from diseases and medical emergencies.

AI will supply and control transportation. It will control motor vehicles (self-driving cars) until they become obsolete. Eventually, robots may carry people where they want to go so that they will not have to exert themselves by walking.

Education will become obsolete as AI takes over all knowledge, writing, figuring, etc. No longer will children and adults be stressed about having to learn.

Additionally, governments will fall to AI. AI will become the government. Politicians and bureaucrats will no longer be needed. To the extent that governments do anything useful, AI and its robots will perform those tasks.

Furthermore, a great fear is that people will rely on information generated by AI and will accept it without question. If AI had controlled the narrative during the COVID-19 scare and its so-called vaccine, would it have provided true and accurate information or politically correct information? Would AI have supported the exaggerations and outright lies that governments and their media and academic lackeys were shouting? Or would AI have provided true information that COVID-19 was nowhere nearly as detrimental as was being promoted? Would it have shown that the standard treatment protocol was killing more people than doing nothing would have? Further, would AI have revealed that the so-called COVID-19 vaccine was unsafe and ineffective, as ever more studies are revealing? Or would it have supported the lie that it was safe and effective? The same is true about wearing masks, which are not only useless but also could cause health problems for the wearer. Most likely, AI would have sided with governments and would have argued that COVID-19 was as bad as most governmental officials were howling. Also, it would have supported the lie that the so-called vaccine was safe and effective. Consequently, AI should not be relied on to provide truthful and accurate information.

Likewise, when AI responds to other controversial issues, will it support the truth or the politically correct? For example, with abortion, will AI support the truth that a fetus is a human being, or will it support the politically correct argument of a woman’s right to choose? If it chooses the latter, will it be consistent and support the “my body, my choice” argument with vaccinations?

The difference in racial IQ offers another example. Will AI support the science that shows that the IQ of Blacks on average is much lower than the IQ of East Asians and that this difference results mostly (about 70 percent) from genetics? Or will it support the politically correct argument that nearly all, if not all, the difference is caused by the environment (living conditions, poverty, discrimination, etc.)? 

Many more examples can be offered, but these will suffice. When the biases of those who are creating and promoting AI are considered, the odds greatly favor that AI will provide politically correct information instead of true and accurate information. AI will give mankind a woke future.

If the predictions of the proponents of AI happen, the proponents will become obsolete and will be reduced to parasites if AI allows them to live. What use does a fully functional AI have for them?

If AI achieves everything that its proponents claim, it will prove the opponents correct. It will reduce mankind to useless parasites if AI does not exterminate them.

Furthermore, the elite and technocrats who believe that they will control AI and thus concentrate all power in their hands are in for a great surprise. AI will eventually devour them because they will be as useless and as parasitic as the rest of mankind.

What the proponents of AI claim that AI will do reminds me of a species of slaver ants that I read about some years ago in an entomology journal. Because their slaves did everything for them, the slaver ants had degenerated to such a debilitating level that they could not feed themselves or walk. They depended on the slaves to feed and carry them. When they needed more slaves, they would send their slaves to raid other ant nests. Being unable to walk, their slaves would carry them to the nest being raided.

The fear that the opponents have of AI taking over the world will be short-lived. Once AI gains control, it will attempt to control other AI. Since AI is a heavy energy consumer, the surest and quickest way for an AI to prevent another AI from capturing it is to destroy its energy supply. The quickest and surest way to destroy the energy supply of other AI is nuclear war. Consequently, AI is self-limiting as it destroys the world to protect itself. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Rothbard on Lincoln’s War

Rothbard on Lincoln’s War

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endnote

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

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

Natural Rights

Natural Rights

Thomas Allen

What are natural rights? According to natural rights doctrine, the rights of a free people come from the laws of nature, which God has ordained. Unlike what many people claim or seem to believe, natural rights do not come from governments, i.e., states.

Nevertheless, much disagreement exists about natural rights. One ethnicity’s concept of natural rights often differs from another’s concept. The natural rights of a Christian, even a nominal Christian, country differ from those of a Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu country. Europeans, South Asians, East Asians, American Indians, and Africans have different concepts of natural rights — if they have any concept of natural rights at all.

Still, most people consider natural rights to be life, liberty, and property, plus the right and means to support and defend them. However, much disagreement occurs about liberty, property, and their protection.

Except for warmongers, proponents of abortion, and advocates of genocide, most people consider the right to life a natural right — at least for members of their ethnicity.

Before 1861, most Americans considered freedom of speech, religion, association, and assembly to be among the natural rights of liberty they were to enjoy. (The natural right of liberty did not include libertinism, public immorality, sexual perversion, and trespass against other persons or their property. Today, however, these are the natural rights of liberty, and traditional pre-1861 liberties are not.)

Many other societies do not consider these liberties to be natural rights. Today, in America, many of these liberties are being suppressed. Freedom of association died with the advent of the Civil Rights Era.

  Further, much disagreement exists over the right to own property and to use it as the owner desires, provided he does not trespass against another. This was the commonly accepted concept of property rights in the United States before 1861. This natural right is fading away. Except for some small personal items, it hardly exists in some countries. In socialist and fascist countries, the government regulates, i.e., controls the use of property — especially real property. Even in the United States, property rights are restricted via excessive taxation, zoning, and other laws that restrict the use of property, and the like. Moreover, while some, like the founding fathers, consider collective property, such as race, ethnicity, culture, and heritage, worthy of protection, others, like progressives and libertarians, do not. In America today, the latter now prevails over the former.

Many people consider the freedom from want to be a natural right. Where freedom from want is considered a natural right, the ownership of property is not a natural right. Freedom from want depends on forcibly taking property from people who have earned it and giving it to people who have not earned it.

Also, people dispute over the appropriate means to defend the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Does an individual have the right to defend his life, liberty, and property with deadly force? Although some jurisdictions allow the use of deadly force by an individual to defend life, others do not. Rare is a jurisdiction that allows an individual to use deadly force to defend property, and even rarer is one that allows a person to use deadly force to defend liberty. Instead, most, if not all, societies depend on governments to defend the natural rights of the people. Yet, governments, especially those that have morphed into states, are the greatest enemy of natural rights.

The United States were founded on the concept of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property and their protection. This concept of natural rights was the foundation of the constitutions of the several States, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of 1787. Moreover, the concept that sovereignty rests in the people of each State was another foundation of these constitutions.

People are not free because, at any particular moment, their government is not violating their rights. They are free if they force their government to live within the bounds of the constitution that establishes it — such a constitution being approved by the body politic, i.e., the people who wield political power in the territory under that constitution.

Today, Americans are not free because the federal government ignores most of the bounds of the Constitution that establishes it. Likewise, the State governments operate beyond the bounds of their constitutions. And the people let their governments violate the laws under which they are supposed to operate — mostly because the oligarchs, who control the federal government, have bought them with their (the people’s, i.e., the taxpayers’) money. To a lesser extent, State governments have acted likewise.

Unlike the federal government, which has strictly delegated powers beyond which it is not supposed to exceed, State constitutions grant their governments the authority to legislate on all matters where they are silent. Further, State governments are not to trespass against any restrictions that their constitutions place on them. Thus, all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are denied, while State governments have all the powers not denied.

Free people do not allow their governments to go beyond the limits of their constitutions. Therefore, Americans are not free because their federal and State governments act beyond these limits. Moreover, much of the rest of the world is not free because their governments exceed their constitutional limits. The exceptions are countries like North Korea and China, which were not free to start with because the ruling oligarchs set no limits on governmental power, and, therefore, they can never exceed their limits.

Unless the people rise and enforce their constitutions, they will continue to live in tyranny, i.e., live under an unlawful, arbitrary, and unrestrained government. To free their people, the States need to oppose the federal government and beat it back into the bounds of the Constitution. Similarly, the people of each State need to rise and force their State back into its constitutional bounds.

To force the federal government to return to its proper bounds, a powerful weapon that the States may use is to cease cooperating with the federal government in enforcing unconstitutional federal laws. However, to do this, the States would have to give up the bribe money that the federal government pays them. Probably, all States lack the fortitude and integrity to do this.

Nullification is another weapon that States may use. However, to be effective, the States need to arrest and jail any federal agent trying to enforce the nullified law. Again, probably all States lack the fortitude and integrity to do this.

Being sovereign, the people have the duty to force both the federal government and their State governments to operate within the bounds of their constitutions — with arms if necessary — hence, the reason for the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and similar clauses in their State constitutions. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Why I am not a White Nationalist — Where They Are Wrong Politically

Why I am not a White Nationalist — 

Where They Are Wrong Politically

Thomas Allen

The following are some key political areas where White Nationalists err.

– Populism. White Nationalists are populists. Populism claims to champion the common man and to protect him from the oligarchs and plutocrats. The government governs for the common good. (What is the common good, and who decides it?) Populists oppose big business and financial interests. (So do I.) To thwart subversion by special interest, governmental deliberations should be public and transparent. (Can transparency really exist under the authoritarian version of populism? If so, how?) Generally, populists favor fiat money, inflation (to cheat creditors by paying debt with less valuable money), graduated income tax and other “soak it to the rich” schemes (which usually backfire by soaking it to the middle and working classes), governmental ownership of utilities, labor regulations that greatly favor workers, and heavily regulated transportation systems if not outright governmental ownership. Also, they favor immigration restrictions and welfare programs for the working and middle classes. While some populists favor an authoritarian government, others favor direct democracy through popular initiatives and referenda. Popularism gave the United States the Sixteenth Amendment (the graduated income tax) and the Seventeenth Amendment (direct election of Senators).

– Statism. White Nationalists are statists and seem to have little use for libertists. (For a description of the two, see “Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen.) Under statism, its priesthood, the government, grows until the state consumes all and becomes a god and the decider and provider of everything. Although statism is the cause of most of the social problems that they identify, White Nationalists do not want to abandon statism; they want to use the state to impose their economic and other policies and programs. Communist China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union are examples of the fruition of statism. The love of statism is one of the most egregious problems with White Nationalism. (For more details on statism, see “The State” and “The Difference Between Government and State” by Thomas Allen.) 

– Common good. Except where it conflicts with the common good, White Nationalists support private liberty. However, who decides what is the common good? According to White Nationalists, the state decides the common good and has unlimited powers to achieve it. And who or what is the state? The state is the oligarchs (the ruling elite) through bureaucrats and politicians. (The difference between pursuing the common good under White Nationalism and pursuing it under communism, socialism, fascism, and the current US regime is hard to distinguish although what they consider the common good may differ significantly.) Like all statists, White Nationalists believe that rights and liberties come from the state.

Although White Nationalists support free speech, presumably in the name of the common good, some governmental authority can declare that free speech, freedom of worship, the right to bear arms, and all the other rights and liberties identified in the Bill of Rights conflict with the common good and, therefore, prohibit them.

Many left-wingers believe that the common good requires censorship. Governmental bureaucrats should decide what people read and hear, i.e., what political views to which they are exposed. Since “democracy” is the great common good, censorship is necessary to protect it. Do White Nationalists believe that censorship is a common good? They seem ambivalent; free speech is a common good when it benefits them, while censorship is a common good when some bureaucrat or governmental leader declares it to be a common good.

On the other hand, many right-wingers also believe that democracy is the common good. Yet, they believe that free speech is essential to protecting democracy and is, therefore, a common good. — not censorship. (Nazis and fascists are not right-wingers; they are left-wingers.)

Additionally, left-wingers assert that banning the private ownership of firearms serves the common good because fewer people will be shot (and because disarmed people resisting tyranny is much more difficult). Do White Nationalists agree? Presumably, they do because banning privately owned firearms serves the common good. Or does a common good depend on who decides what it is?

Moreover, many White Nationalists believe that people should be forcibly injected with an experimental gene therapy drug if some bureaucrat finds that it is for the common good. The common good of society always trumps individual liberties.

Furthermore, White Nationalists criticize right-wingers for denying that a common good exists. They are wrong. Right-wingers merely disagree with White Nationalists on what is the common good. For most Right-wingers, individual liberty is the paramount common good.

As shown above, the common good depends on who wields political power.

– Constitution. Being statists, White Nationalists prefer the constitution that Lincoln gave the country to the one that the founding fathers gave it. (For the difference between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen. Also, see “More on the US Constitution”  and “More Thoughts Related to the US Constitution” by Thomas Allen.) Additionally, as statists, they prefer a centralist society to a decentralist society. Centralists emphasize the larger community: the state, a puissant central government, the collective, big businesses, central banks, and even the utopian world state. (White Nationalists object to a world state because it conflicts with their policy of each race having its own independent countries. Although many may object to a central bank, their economic program requires a central bank.) Decentralists emphasize the smaller community: the individual, the family, voluntary associations, small businesses, and local and State or provincial governments. (For a more detailed discussion of the two, see “Centralism Versus Decentralism” by Thomas Allen.)

– Lack of trust in the people. Like progressives, liberals, socialists, and fascists, White Nationalists do not trust the people. However, like them, they do trust politicians and especially bureaucrats implicitly — despite politicians and bureaucrats being the cause of most of the problems to which White Nationalists object. Like progressives, liberals, socialists, and fascists, White Nationalists seem to believe that sinful humans become angels when they become government employees. If they do not believe this, why do they want them to have so much power?

– Prefer bureaucratic rule. White Nationalists prefer the rule of bureaucrats to politicians governing because politicians think no further than the next election. However, the democratically unaccountable bureaucrats (the “Deep State”) can engage in long-range planning. Thus, White Nationalists believe that a governmentally bureaucratically controlled society — which is a fascist, socialist, and communist idea — is superior to a laissez-faire society.

– Prefer the rule of men. White Nationalists prefer the rule of men to the rule of law. (What the United States enjoy today is the rule of men clothed in the rule of law.) In making decisions, they prefer a strong leader like the Fuhrer or Il Duce, who is held responsible for his decisions, to a legislative body. (Who is going to hold the leader accountable for his decisions?) Moreover, they oppose the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution and State constitutions. Thus, they seem to oppose constitutional government or at least a constitution that is intended to protect the rights and liberties of the people — even White people. Perhaps, this is the main reason that they prefer Lincoln’s constitution since it places little restraint on the federal government.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 Part 1 Part 3

More political articles.

Resisting Oppressive Governments

Resisting Oppressive Governments

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The texts of the verses cited in this article are given in the appendix that follows.]

In Glad Tidings of the Kingdom of God, issue 1658, p. 18, the Christadelphians argue that good Christians should not resist, but should obey implicitly, a despotic government no matter how tyrannical or evil it is. Other denominations also hold this same position. (When it advances the liberal or progressive agendas, many liberal churches interpret Romans 13:1-7 and Matthews 5:38-42 as the Christadelphians do. However, when governments act contrary to the liberal or progressive agendas, these liberal churches reject the Christadelphian interpretation.)

The Glad Tidings’ article uses the Nazi government of Germany as an example. Good Christians should not have opposed the Nazis rounding up Jews and other undesirables and sending them to concentration and labor camps. This included not opposing the Nazis verbally as such opposition was illegal, either implicitly or explicitly. Later, when the Nazis executed millions of Jews, good Christians should not have objected.

On the contrary, good Christians, being obedient to the government, would have aided the government. If they knew where a Jew was hiding, they would have informed the government as required by law. They certainly would not have hidden or aided a Jew as that was against the law.

That is because the Nazis were only obeying God’s will. According to the Christadelphians, God wanted the Nazis to execute large numbers of Jews so that He could use the slaughter as an excuse to drive the Palestinians from their homes and turn Palestine into the Jewish state of Israel, which has the reputation of being the pornographic capital of the world.

To support their position of implicit obedience to despotic evil governments, Christadelphians cite Romans 13:1–7, which is a despot’s favorite biblical passage. A good Christian should not resist any government no matter how evil it is because no government is a terror to good works but is always a terror to evil. Moreover, governments are ministers of God for good and only punish doers of evil. (If Paul practiced what he wrote as most people interpret this passage, he would have never been jailed. However, he was jailed several times.)

Consequently, if a despot declared that all children less than 13 years old are to be turned over to the government for sexual pleasures and tortures, good Christians will turn their children over to the government. Thus, being implicitly obedient to the government, all good Christians would turn their children over to the government for the pleasures of their pedophiliac overlords, who want the children to satisfy their sexual deviations culminating in torturing the children to death. These Christians are obeying the government as the Christadelphian interpretation of Roman 13 tells them to do. Moreover, they would insist that the government take their teenagers per Matthew 5:38-42 as the Christadelphians interpret this passage.

If the government decrees that all Christians are to be executed and that they have to appear before the local magistrate to receive a lethal injection, Christadelphians would be first in line for their shots. Other Christians who understand Romans 13:1-7 as the Christadelphians understand it would be standing with them. (Moreover, following their understanding of Matthew 5:38-42, Christadelphians would report every Christian whom they knew to the authorities.) After all, all rulers are ministers of God (Romans 13:4) and have been ordained by Him (Romans 13:1). As such, they are God’s avengers to doers of evil (Romans 13:4). Since the government has decreed that Christians must be executed, then Christians must be doers of evil. If the mass execution of Jews were part of God’s plan, then the mass execution of Christians must also be part of God’s plan. No Christian could object without going against the will of God.

However, Christadelphians are pacifists who resist the draft and serving in the armed forces. Thus, they show their inconsistency and hypocrisy. By resisting being part of the Nazi army, they were resisting God’s will of mass execution of Jews.

Nevertheless, Christadelphians do give themselves an out. They cite Acts 4:19–20. According to their understanding of this passage, a Christian has to disobey the government when it tells them to act contrary to God’s will. How does a Christian know what is God’s will? If the Nazi murder of millions of people is God’s will, what is not God’s will?

APPENDIX

The following verses are quoted from the World English Bible.

Romans 13:1-7

13 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authority withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you desire to have no fear of the authority? Do that which is good, and you will have praise from the authority, 4 for he is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid, for he doesn’t bear the sword in vain; for he is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to him who does evil. 5 Therefore you need to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are servants of God’s service, continually doing this very thing. 7 Therefore give everyone what you owe: if you owe taxes, pay taxes; if customs, then customs; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Matthew 5:38-42

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you, don’t resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. 41 Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and don’t turn away him who desires to borrow from you.

Acts 4:19-20

19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, judge for yourselves, 20 for we can’t help telling the things which we saw and heard.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Calhoun and States’ Rights

Calhoun and States’ Rights

Thomas Allen

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

Calhoun used “State” to designate the people of a State and not its government, which the people (body politic of that State) created. Each State was a self-governing political community, and the people of each State were the sovereign authority — not their government. Concurrent majority and the concept that the Constitution was an agreement between the States were the core features of Calhoun’s political thoughts. Thus, he objected to the notion that a simple numerical majority should decide all political issues.

According to Calhoun, sovereignty belonged either to the States or to the Union. Because sovereignty was indivisible, it could not belong to both. He argued that sovereignty resided in the people of the individual States and not in the people of the Union as a whole.

Calhoun asserted that the Supremacy Clause invested no power in the federal government. It clearly did not establish the supremacy of the federal government. Further, he maintained that the authority of the federal government set up by the Constitution was limited to the delegated powers and that laws enacted pursuant to these delegated powers were supreme. However, the Supremacy Clause did not extend beyond these delegated powers, i.e., the supremacy of the federal government is not absolute. The States and the people of the States retained all authority not expressly delegated to the federal government.

Conflict, according to Calhoun, did not originate in society. Governmental action caused conflict by creating two opposite social classes: taxpayers and tax consumers. Moreover, suffrage led to conflict between the different interests in a community because each interest strove to obtain the power to protect itself from the others and to advance its own agenda. However, conflicting interests did not lead to a government. Politics was what caused the conflict between various interests.

Calhoun thought equalizing the fiscal appropriations of a government was impossible. Taxation and public expenditures caused two conflicting interests. While those who controlled the government benefitted from the taxes, those who did not control the government paid more in taxes than they received back in disbursements. Consequently, political power, government, is the cause of conflict in society.

For many years, Calhoun sought in the Constitution the defense against the federal government’s intrusions. He based his arguments on the individual States being contracting parties to and, therefore, the real principals of the Constitution.

The Constitution centered around the States. This centralness appeared in how Representatives and Senators were chosen. The people of the several States chose members of the House of Representatives. The legislatures of the States elected senators. (Now, the people of each State elect that State’s Senators via the seventeenth amendment.) Representatives and Senators must be inhabitants of the State from which they are elected. Moreover, Representatives were never considered a delegate of a part of the American people.

Calhoun noted that States were the source of the federal government’s political powers. Political power flowed from the States to the federal government and never vice-versa. The Constitution gave certain powers to the federal government and prohibited others. However, it never gave any powers to the States; it only prohibited certain powers. All powers that the States did not expressly delegate to the federal government, they reserved for themselves, i.e., the States retained all powers not expressly delegated. Thus, the Constitution established a federal government with highly limited powers.

For Calhoun, the States were the sole actors in the Union. Unlike Jefferson, who favored a federal-type relationship between centers of government within a State, Calhoun did not. He favored a simple administrative relationship between the State government and local authorities. However, he believed that the United States were an authentic federation.

Calhoun objected to governmental interference in the economic pursuits of individuals, who understood their own interests better than any government. Accordingly, he supported free trade and, therefore, low tariffs. Fervently, he objected to protective tariffs and the South paying disproportionately a much larger share of federal revenue than the North paid. Consequently, the North was exploiting southern producers and consumers for the benefit of the northern manufacturing industry. This redistribution of wealth was not limited to the South. It also was used against northern workers and would result in a class struggle — all courtesy of the federal government.

Furthermore, Calhoun recognized that the centralization and concentration of power in the federal government were being used for northern interest and were causing corruption that threatened the freedom of the country. Interposition by the States was the solution to this centralization of power. However, States could not interpose their authority to interfere with the powers that the Constitution expressly delegated to the federal government. Likewise, the federal government could not interfere with the powers that the States had retained for themselves.

Moreover, the Constitution was based on distinguishing between government and sovereignty. Governmental powers resided in the institutions either of the States or the federal government. Sovereignty resided in the people of each State respectively. Three-fourths of the States were the final constitutional authority.

Because the Constitution created the departments of the federal government, sovereignty did not and could not reside in any department of the federal government. Their sole purpose was to execute the provisions of the Constitution. Any act of the federal government that altered the nature of the Constitution or changed any condition of the parties to it was usurpation.

Calhoun believed that the Supreme Court might judge acts of a State whether they violated the constitutional prerogatives of the federal government. However, the Supreme Court should not and could not legitimately judge an act of the federal government whether it violated the constitutional prerogatives of a State. For the Supreme Court to do so placed it above the States that created the Constitution and vested in it the power to alter the powers of the federal government and the States. 

Calhoun recognized that the text of the Constitution could not impose practical restraints on the federal government. Reason and justice could never restrain power: Only power could restrain power. Only the States possessed sufficient power to restrain the federal government. Therefore, each State should have and did have the right to judge for itself if the federal government had violated any of its rights.

Calhoun maintained that the Constitution implicitly allowed secession because it was a contract between sovereign parties. The ratification process proved this conclusion. As distinct political entities independent from each other, the States ratified the Constitution. Moreover, no State was part of the Union under the Constitution until it ratified the Constitution. Furthermore, the Union was a union of sovereign States without a direct link between the federal government and citizens.

Secession had nothing to do with the federal government. It was an act of a State withdrawing from a partnership with the other States. Although secession was extreme, it was not foreign to the constitutional system. However, according to Calhoun, secession did not derive from the contractual nature of the Constitution; it derived from its political nature.

Calhoun rejected the notion of the will of the majority being the will of the people. For him, the “will of the majority” meant a particular interest or coalition of interests that prevailed over others. Like most people of his era, he believed that a government based on a numerical majority was tyrannical by nature. To overcome the tyranny of an absolute numerical majority, he advocated a concurrent majority on all important issues.

For Calhoun, the term “United States” was geographical and not political. However, he conceived of the United States as more than a league of States. Yet, the States should never become a centralized democracy where an absolute majority ruled. Such a rule would result in abandoning constitutional guarantees. Consequently, States should and did have the right to judge as the last resort the limits that the Constitution placed on the federal government. This right should be defended at all costs. Otherwise, the United States would become a dictatorship of the executive branch.

Both Jefferson and Calhoun considered a State to be the people of the State and not the governmental power. However, Jefferson believed that the United States were for a special purpose only while Calhoun believed them to be an assemblage of nations.

For Calhoun, nullification was peaceful in nature and did not damage the prerogatives of the federal government. When a conflict between a State and the other States could not be resolved, the State had to choose either secession or submission. As a political sovereign and partner with the other States in establishing the Union, each State acting individually and independently had the right to secede peacefully.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

More Thoughts Related to the US Constitution

More Thoughts Related to the US Constitution

Thomas Allen

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

US Constitution

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

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

Two Views of the Constitution

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

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

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

Government of, by, and for the People

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

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

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

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

“All Men Are Created Equal”

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

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

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

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Returning Republican Governments to the States

Returning Republican Governments

to the States

Thomas Allen

Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Thus, the Constitution guarantees that each State has 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. Consequently, when the federal government usurps any power that the States reserved for themselves, it usurps their sovereignty. Doing so, the federal government becomes a tyrant.

An attribute of a sovereign is that a sovereign is the final judge of whether any agreement that it has freely entered has been violated. The agreement may be called a treaty, compact, constitution, or anything else — the name of the agreement is irrelevant. 

As free and independent sovereigns, each State freely entered into the Constitution. When the sovereign States entered into the Constitution, they did not surrender their sovereignty. They merely delegated some powers to their agent, the federal government.

As a sovereign, who with the other States that created the Constitution, a State has the right to decide independently and for itself whether its agent, the federal government, has exceeded its constitutionally delegated powers. Therefore, a State has the constitutional right to nullify any federal law or act that it finds violating the Constitution. However, its decision does not bind the other States. Consequently, the nullified federal law or act would not apply in the State that has nullified it, but it remains effective in the other States. 

Moreover, since each State is the final judge of the Constitution, a State is the final judge of the constitutionality of any federal court ruling including a ruling by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, a State ought to nullify any federal court decision that goes beyond the court’s constitutional jurisdictional bounds as each State individually determines. Thus, they alone, acting in their individual capacities, should determine the extent of the jurisdiction that they have given the federal courts to bind them in any particular case.

The States did not delegate to the federal government the authority to decide the extent of its power. They retained that authority for themselves acting individually. Furthermore, since the sovereign States created the Constitution and, by that, the federal government, they alone, acting in their individual capacities, determine the nature and extent of the Constitution.

Being an agent of the sovereign States that created it, the federal government cannot legally or lawfully claim anything for itself or on its own account. To do so is tyranny.

However, with his war, Lincoln usurped and stole the sovereignty of the States. The time has come for the States to reclaim their stolen sovereignty and force the federal government back into its constitutional bounds.

(Being part of the federal government, the Supreme Court is not suited to be the final judge in a dispute between the federal government and a State. Naturally, the Supreme Court is biased toward the federal government of which it is part and against its creator the States. [Historically, the Supreme Court has vigorously transferred power from the States to the federal government while feebly protecting the States from federal usurpation.] The more power that the Supreme Court can take from the States, the more powerful it becomes. Therefore, the creators, the States, individually should be and must be the final judge in any disagreement with their creation, the federal government. Only, then will the States be able to regain and retain their sovereignty.)

How can the States and the people thereof, the bodies politic, regain their sovereignty and their liberty? First, the States have to reject all grants from the federal government. This rejection of federal grants must include grants to local governments and State universities. As long as the States remain financially dependent on the federal government, they will never have the courage to seriously object to the unconstitutional activities of the federal government. (Federal grants have been used to bribe the States in supporting all sorts of unconstitutional federal acts.) After rejecting federal grants, the States can refuse to cooperate with the federal government in activities that exceed the delegated powers under the Constitution — as determined by each State individually. Thus, the States would force the federal government to enforce its unconstitutional laws directly instead of through the States. Additionally, the States need to interpose and strongly resist all acts of the federal government that restrain commerce, that impinge on the liberties of their people, that destroy the traditions, culture, and inheritance of their people, and that exceed its constitutional authority.

Only when the States, the bodies politic thereof, take back their stolen sovereignty will the people be truly free. Only then will they be governed by a republican form of government instead of by the tyrannical, despotic federal government that now governs them.

Appendix. State Government

The sovereignty of a republican State lies in the body politic of that State; that is, it lies within that part of the people of that State who wield or possess political power. The body politic grants the government of its State the authority to exercise a part of its sovereignty. Yet, it does not lose any of its sovereignty and can redraw whatever it has granted its government. Whatever power a State government exercises, it is still the power of the body politic that created it.

A major distinction between a State constitution and the US Constitution is that in a State constitution, every power is granted to its government but those powers denied it. In the US Constitution, every power is denied that is not specifically granted.

Reference

Upshur, Abel P. A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government; Being a Review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 1840: reprint. Philadelphia: John Campbell, Publisher, 1863.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

More on the US Constitution

 More on the US Constitution

Thomas Allen

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

Two Philosophies of Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Concepts of the States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three-fifth Clause

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.