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 However, today’s ruling oligarchs consider them relative, that is, governmentally granted privileges that can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason.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.

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.

The Effects of Tariffs on the South

The Effects of Tariffs on the South

Thomas Allen, editor

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

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

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

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

More Southern articles.

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.

Founding Documents of Today’s United States

Founding Documents of Today’s United States

Thomas Allen

Most Blacks, progressives, liberals, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, libertarians, Negrophiles, Albusphobes, Dixiephobes, and Confederaphobes (hereafter referred to as “these people”) consider the Declaration of Independence (especially the phrase “all men are created equal”), the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address, the US Supreme Court’s Brown v. Education (1954) decision, and Martin Luther King’s speech “I Have a Dream” (especially the sentence “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”) to be the founding documents of today’s United States. For them, the Constitution should be interpreted considering these five documents. Consequently, they interpret the Constitution to increase the power of the federal government and decrease the power of the States and to force integration and diversity. 

1. Declaration of Independence. For “these people,” the Declaration of Independence contains only one important phrase: “all men are created equal.” They ignore the two most important provisions.

First, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. . . .” This clause acknowledges the right of the people to abolish their government and replace it with another. However, Lincoln and the Republicans denied Southerners this right.

Second, “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States. . . .” This clause shows that each colony declared itself to be a free and independent sovereign State. Each colony became a free and independent nation. (Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary defines “state” as “a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.” Thus, each colony was a free and independent sovereign nation.) These sovereign nations formed the United States and established two governments: one under the Articles of Confederation and another under the Constitution for the United States. However, “these people” have to ignore this clause because it conflicts with the Gettysburg Address.

When the States created a union under these two constitutions, they did so without surrendering any of their sovereignty. Unlike today, where the United States is a consolidated empire with an all-powerful central government and the States are merely subjugated provinces, the United States were originally established as a federation of sovereign republican States and remained so until Lincoln’s War.

Although “these people” preach equality, they do not practice it. They believe that some people are more equal than others. Blacks are more equal than Whites. That is, Blacks are the superior race, and Whites are the inferior race while other nonwhites are in between. Above all of them are the oligarchs.

2. Emancipation Proclamation. Most of “these people” believe that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. It did not. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war propaganda document that freed no slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves. Lincoln even admitted that his proclamation had no legal justification or force, which is why he pushed a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery. 

With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, the genocide of Southerners began. Soon after its issuance, Lincoln’s army began warring against and deliberately killing children, women, and other civilians. This genocide continues to this day.

3. Gettysburg Address. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address did not change the structure of the United States from a federation of sovereign republican States to a consolidated empire. The illegally and unlawfully ratified Fourteenth Amendment did that. (Another important component in changing the United States to a consolidated empire was Lincoln and the Republicans putting in place during Lincoln’s War the unconstitutional American System: protective tariffs, subsidies to businesses, central banking, and the concentration of political power in the federal government.) However, the Gettysburg Address declared the objective and underlying principle of Lincoln and the Republicans. To justify this new governmental structure, Lincoln had to distort (lie about) the historical and political foundations of the United States.

Before Lincoln’s War, the United States were a federation of sovereign republican States. After Lincoln’s War, the United States became a consolidated empire with the Southern States becoming exploited colonies. 

H. L. Mencken, who may be accused of being an iconoclast but who can hardly be accused of being a fire-eating unreconstructed rebel, succinctly summed up Lincoln’s War when commenting on the Battle of Gettysburg and the Gettysburg Address:

Think of the argument in it [the Gettysburg Address]. Put it into the cold words of every day. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — ‘that government of the people, by the people, for the people,’ should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States: The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country — and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.

4. US Supreme Court’s Brown V. Education. In Brown v. Education, the Supreme Court established two new basic principles. First, “feelings of racial inferiority have a constitutional status.”[1] Second, “racial integration is the remedy for these ‘feelings of inferiority.’”[2] Therefore, “private discrimination is a constitutional evil and racial diversity is a constitutional good.”[3] Thus, racial integration is the remedy for the feeling of inferiority. However, an exception exists and that is Whites feeling inferior, and today many Whites feel inferior. (If these Whites did not feel inferior, they would not hate themselves and their race and promote the genocide of the White race.) Racial integration is the primary cause of White feeling inferior.

This Supreme Court ruling gives the federal government almost absolute control over everything anyone does. Consequently, it destroys all freedoms and liberties.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is based on a false premise. While the ruling justifies integration, it also justifies diversity. Yet, racial integration leads to amalgamation and homogenization, which destroys diversity.

5. Martin Luther King’s Speech “I Have a Dream.” Although King advocated judging people by the content of their character instead of their race, he wanted Blacks to be judged by their race and given special benefits and privileges. At least subconsciously, he knew that judging Blacks by their character placed them at a disadvantage. Judging Blacks by their character is a losing situation for Blacks. When compared with Whites and most other races, Blacks overall are more lethargic, lazy, impulsive, violent, criminally inclined, vociferous, rowdy, sexually immoral, irresponsible, superficial, childlike, and demanding.

Moreover, if Blacks were judged by merit, most would lag behind most Whites because they innately have lower intelligence and intellectual capabilities. Only in most sports and menial labor do they have an advantage over Whites. Because Blacks lag behind Whites in the most prestigious professions, quotas become necessary to fill these professions with Blacks who are less qualified than Whites. 

Constitution. Through these five documents, “these people” interpret the Constitution. Consequently, to implement these five founding documents, the federal government may undertake any action necessary to prevent discrimination against Blacks and other nonwhites except East Asians and to force discrimination against Whites. Moreover, they interpret the Constitution such that political power is concentrated in the federal government and the States are reduced to subjugated provinces. 

Furthermore, using these five documents, they interpret the Constitution to give advantages, benefits, and privileges to Blacks and other nonwhites at the expense of Whites. Thus, the Constitution requires discrimination against Whites although “these people” assert that the Constitution forbids racial discrimination.

Consequently, the implementation of these founding documents abolishes the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the country — in principle if not in words, i.e., the words of the Constitution remained the same but their meaning changed. Thus, the implementation of these five documents suppresses liberties and freedoms, especially the freedom of speech, religion, and association.

Summary. The following summarizes the five founding documents of today’s United States:

1. The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are equal — except Southerners, Afrikaners, Palestinians, and a few other despicable ethnicities who are only worthy of genocide.

2. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the Black slaves (so “these people” claim), but it has resulted in Whites being enslaved to support Blacks and other nonwhites with welfare and job preferences.

3. The Gettysburg Address outlines the change in the political structure of the United States from a federation of sovereign States (we the peoples) to a consolidated empire under an all-powerful central government that the oligarchs control for their benefit.

4. The US Supreme Court Ruling on Brown v. Education has led to forcing integration and diversity (although the two conflict) and giving Blacks benefits and privileges at the expense of Whites. 

5. The “I Have a Dream” speech provides the camouflage for discriminating against Whites and making Blacks the superior race.

Endnotes

1.  Jesse Merriam, How We Got Our Antiracist Constitution (Claremont Institute), p. 5.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Jefferson and States’ Rights

Jefferson and States’ Rights

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Gottfried and Equality

Gottfried and Equality

Thomas Allen

In “Flawed Reasoning on CRT,” Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, September 2021, page 9, Paul Gottfried discusses equality. This article is somewhat confusing —at least to me. At times, he writes as though he favors equality of opportunity while at other times he seems to believe that equality of opportunity is unachievable because of genetics. Thus, to seek to achieve equality of opportunity leads to a loss of liberty. (He is ambivalent about genetics. Most of the time he appears to hold that genetics are irrelevant — not so much in this article as in others.) Moreover, he seems obsessed with equality but writes that people should not be obsessed with it.

Gottfried writes, “In America we are committed to the proposition that ‘all men are created equal’ [Lincoln’s assertion].” He continues, “America stands for equality of opportunity [the neoconservative position], not equality of results [the progressive position]. . . .” Since he is not a fan of Lincoln and disagrees with many of the neoconservatives’ positions, that he would support their positions on equality seems strange. His opposition to equality of results is in keeping with his political philosophy.

Yet, he opposes the obsession with equality and making it the overriding goal of the country. He prefers “a government under the law providing its citizens with ordered liberty.”

According to him, until the country “achieves a more level playing field,” equality of results is a more correct answer than equality of opportunity. However, he fails or refuses to recognize the importance of genetics. Genetics prevents a level playing field.

Equality of opportunity is more of a chimera than equality of results or equity as it is now commonly called. Does a five-foot, fat, klutz have the same opportunity of becoming a professional basketball center as does a seven-foot, agile, athlete? Does a dimwit have the same opportunity of becoming a doctor or engineer with a Ph.D. as does a genius? The answer to both questions is “no” although proponents of equality of opportunity would have to argue otherwise. For the klutz, their solution is more training though training will not overcome his genetically caused height disadvantage. For the dimwit, their solution is more education although education will not overcome his genetically caused low IQ. 

However, the proponents of equality of results can give the illusion of equality by forcing a professional basketball team to use the klutz as its starting center. Also, they can force a company to hire the dimwit as an engineer or doctor instead of the genius. Moreover, they can force the company to use the work of the dimwit engineer or doctor.

Genetics guarantees that some will have an advantage over others at the starting gate. At conception, genetics predestine some people to be tall or geniuses and others to be short or dimwits; most fall in between. Environment decides how people will use their physical and mental abilities or to compensate for their lack of these abilities. Even then, genetics influence the how.

Only despotism can retard and suppress the more gifted and advance and raise the less gifted. But even here genetics will dominate. Genetics give some people the advantage of becoming a despot. Thus, genetics along with opportunity will be a major factor in deciding who will be the despot. 

Where a despot exists, equality cannot exist. Of necessity, despotism divides society into two classes: the ruler and the ruled. Only a few have the opportunity of being the despot; thus, equality of opportunity does not exist. Moreover, equality of results cannot exist in a despotism since the ruler has the power and the ruled are his slaves, which is a highly unequal result.

People should learn to live with the hand that Deity, fate, or nature dealt them and cease being obsessed with equality — be it equality of opportunity or equality of results. Their lives would be much happier.

An obsession with equality leads to envy, and envy leads to an obsession with equality. Envy is highly destructive and results in misery. Consequently, God commands people not to envy.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

An Inquiry into the Amendments of the U.S. Constitution

An Inquiry into the Amendments of the U.S. Constitution

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1985 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. Since this was originally written, another amendment has been added to the U.S. Constitution.]

Does the present constitution for the United States reflect the principles embodied in the original document approved by the States between 1787 and 1790? No, the amendments that have been added to it since 1865 have materially changed it. The amendments adopted before 1865 limited the powers of the United States government and preserved the rights [i.e., powers] of the States and the liberties of their citizens.

The first ten amendments, commonly called the Bill of Rights, protect the liberties of the people by limiting the power of the United States government. The Tenth Amendment is the States’ rights amendment. It reserves the powers not delegated to the United States government for the States. Unfortunately, this amendment is now almost forgotten.

The Eleventh Amendment, which was ratified in 1795, is another States’ rights amendment, but it is the last States’ rights amendment. This amendment prevents a State from being sued against its will.

The Twelfth, Twentieth, and Twenty-fifth Amendments are technical in nature. The Twelfth Amendment, which was ratified in 1804, changes the method of voting for President and Vice President. The Twentieth Amendment, which was ratified in 1933. changes the date on which the Presidential and Congressional terms begin. It also clarifies filling the office of the President and Vice President should they become vacant. The Twenty-fifth Amendment further clarifies filling of the offices of the President and Vice President should they become vacant. It also describes the procedures to be followed if the President is temporarily unable to discharge his duties.

The Thirteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1865, outlaws slavery and does change one of the principles in the original Constitution. However, slavery was a dying institution, and the economics of this institution would have soon ended it. Thus, slavery would have ended in fact even if this amendment had never been ratified. Therefore, this amendment has no real effect on the Constitution because the principle it removed, slavery, would have been voluntarily abandoned anyway.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, is one of the three most pernicious amendments ever adopted. This amendment is rivaled only by the misconstrued commerce clause in Section 8 of Article I in destroying the States and the liberties of the people thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment is the foundation of most civil rights laws, forced integration, federal control of schools, and the other miscreant legislation that has extinguished the liberties of the people in their social and political affairs. This amendment legalized the concept of dual citizenship. Heretofore, a person was a citizen of a State and owed his loyalty to that State. Through this amendment, the United States courts have applied the first eight amendments to the States. (Actually, the United States courts do not apply the first eight amendments in toto. Whimsically, they sort of pick and choose what to apply. The guiding light seems to be using the first eight amendments to protect criminals from actions by the States while not protecting law-abiding citizens from encroachment on their liberties by the States.) Also, this amendment disenfranchised most of the loyal political leaders of the South. Moreover, it began the formal conversion of the United States government from a republic to a democracy. Perhaps more than any other amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment has undermined the basic principles of the Constitution. [Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment was never lawfully adopted. Therefore, it should be given no weight in constitutional arguments.]

The Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments are also blows to States’ rights and contrary to the principles in the Constitution. The Fifteenth Amendments, which was ratified in l870, eliminates race as a qualification for voting. The Nineteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1920, eliminates sex as a qualification for voting. The Twenty-fourth Amendment, which was ratified in 1964, eliminates the payment of taxes as a qualification for voting. The Twenty-sixth Amendment lowers the voting age to eighteen. [Ironically, an eighteen-year-old can vote himself into despotism, but he cannot legally buy a bottle of whiskey to celebrate his vote.] Heretofore, each State determined the qualification of its voters. These amendments deny the States this right. The qualification for voting in most States may comply with these amendments even if they were not part of the Constitution, but not all. Obviously, the voting qualifications of some States would be contrary to one or more of these amendments, or else they would not be needed, Thus, a majority of the States have coerced a minority into accepting their voting qualifications. The coerced minority has been mostly the Southern States. Not only does the doctrine of States’ rights suffer from these amendments, but these amendments add to the subversion of a republic to a democracy.

The Sixteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1913, has done much to destroy the liberties of the people and rob them of their  property. It is one of the three most pernicious amendments adopted. This amendment gives the United States government the power to levy income and inheritance taxes. It is contrary to Part 4 of Section 9 of Article I, which prevents the United States government from levying any direct taxes unless these taxes are levied in proportion to the population of the State. The enforcement of this amendment has virtually vetoed the Bill of Rights. The Sixteenth Amendment is of the envious, by the envious, and for the envious. It is obviously contrary to the basic principles of the Constitution.

The Seventeenth Amendments which was ratified in 1913, has done more than all the other amendments combined to destroy the Republic and convert it into a democracy. This amendment removes the election of Senators from the legislatures of the States and makes Senators popularly elected. Thus, the States are no longer represented. The last check against the tyranny of the majority has been removed. (The Electoral College ceased being a check long ago. It was supposed to be the best men in each State electing the best man in the United States to be President. Now it is a gang of party hacks electing another and bigger party hack who is often a demagogue.) Without a doubt, this amendment has utterly shattered the doctrine of States’ rights and has put the remaining liberties of the people at great risk. Clearly, this is one of the three most pernicious amendments adopted.

The Eighteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1919, is the prohibition amendment. It is contrary to the basic principles of the Constitution and has been repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment.

The Twenty-second Amendment, which was ratified in 1951, limits the term of the President, It makes mandatory the long-standing tradition of no one serving more than two terms as President. This tradition had been violated by a liberal Yankee Democrat. This amendment is in keeping with the basic Constitution.

The Twenty-third Amendment, which was ratified in 1961, gives the District of Columbia the right to participate in the Electoral College. The intent of the Constitution is to keep the District of Columbia out of federal politics since it is the seat of the United States government. This amendment violates this intent and is an affront to States’ rights. It makes the District of Columbia equal to the States in selecting the President and Vice President. Thus, it is another blow to States’ rights.

[In 1992, the Twenty-seventh Amendment was adopted; it had been proposed in 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, it is in accordance with the basic principles of the Construction. It delays laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives.]

The Constitution as it now stands with its amendments does not reflect the principles for which our forefathers fought in the 1770s and l860s. It does not reflect the principles for which most people  believed that they were fighting in the four wars of this century [that is, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War]. The amended Constitution is completely alien to the Constitution as originally adopted.

The amendments to the Constitution since 1865 have destroyed the basic principles embodied in it to the point that it is amazing that any remnants of republicanism, States’ rights, and individual liberty still exist. The only hope that Southerners have to regain these lost ideals of republicanism, States’ rights, and individual liberty is a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Copyright © 1995, 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

A Letter: Southern National Party

A Letter: Southern National Party

Thomas Allen

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

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

Copyright © 1986, 2019 by Thomas C. Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

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.

Libertarianism on Ethics and Order

Libertarianism on Ethics and Order

Thomas Allen

The following discusses libertarian ethics and the libertarian view of order verse liberty.

Libertarian Ethics
The following is an example of ethics in a libertarian society. It is also the ethics of the Puritan Yankee.

A city government decides to pursue the libertarian goal of abolishing itself. As part of this program, it privatizes its water and sewer system and its streets. Thus, it sells its waters and sewer system to A Company. Also, A Company buys the city streets. Finally, the city government abolishes itself.

Moreover, the city was built over a geological formation that requires wells to be drilled thousands of feet deep to produce water.

Now, having a monopoly over water and transportation, A Company raises water rates a hundredfold, which is the price just below the cost of drilling a well. (Some libertarians argue that monopolies are impossible.) If any customer fails to pay his water bill, the company immediately cuts off his water. Next, the company prevents any water from being transported over its streets. It also charges the residents an exorbitant fee for using its streets.

Without water, the residents are forced to sell at a great loss — if they can find any buyers, which is doubtful. Magnanimously, the company offers to buy their property at 0.01 percent of its last tax evaluation. If this offer is rejected, the resident has to either abandon his property or let the company take it for nonpayment of his water bill and street usage.

After the residents have been forced to abandon their property or sell it to A Company at a tremendous loss, A Company owns the city. Now, it can do with the city whatever it pleases to do.

Puritan Yankees would compliment the managers of A Company as shrewd businessmen. Because these shenanigans were by a private company, libertarians would defend the company’s actions. They would argue that the residents should have bought insurance to protect themselves from such an event. However, what insurance company would insure such an unknown, unpredictable event — at least at an affordable price? Libertarians would argue that the residents should have sold before A company established its monopoly, although some libertarians deny the possibility of monopolies. In short, the typical libertarian would blame the residents for their predicament and not the company.

As an alternative to insurance, the residents could hire a private security firm to protect their interest and to obtain water for their use and access to the streets. In retaliation, A Company hires a security firm to maintain its monopoly. Soon, the two security firms are warring, and the might of arms solves the disagreement.

Such are the ethics of the typical libertarian. They are almost indistinguishable from the ethics of the Puritan Yankee. A major difference between the two is that the Puritan Yankee does not hesitate to use the government to gain an advantage, while the libertarian loathes using the government.

Order and Liberty
Libertarianism, especially the anarcho-capitalist wing, is built on the false foundation of the notion that liberty and order are antagonistic principles. That is, liberty and order limit each other. As one increases, the other decreases. Locke, Blackstone, Hobbes, and Rousseau, among many others, espouse this notion. This notion led to the French Revolution.

Opposing this notion that liberty and order are antagonistic principles is the notion of the divine sanction of government. Under this notion, an increase in order leads to an increase in liberty. True liberty can only exist within the bounds of divine law. A just government maintains these bounds. (Despotic governments cause disorder and, by that, reduce liberty. Moreover, order may require a government, but it abhors a state because a state leads to disorder.) This is the notion that lead to the American Revolution.

Adherents of the antagonistic principle believe that natural liberty is a state of perfect freedom where a person acts as he thinks fit, without any restraint or control, i.e., the power to act as each man wills and pleases. Thus, public order reduces private liberty.

On the other hand, adherents of the divine sanction notion believe that natural liberty is a state where a person acts as he thinks fit within the bounds of divine law, i.e., the power to act as God wills. Thus, public order is necessary for private liberty.

Under the antagonistic principle, civil society arises from a surrender of individual rights; therefore, the right, power, or authority of society is derived from a transfer of individual rights. The law and government restrain the liberty of human will.

Under the divine sanction notion, civil society arises from a right originally possessed by all, i.e., from a solemn duty originally imposed upon all by God; therefore, the right, power, or authority of society is not derived from a transfer of individual rights; thus, neither the right to life nor liberty is transferred to society. The law and government restrain the tyranny of human will.

According to the antagonistic principle, freedom can be extracted and exist apart from the social whole. According to the divine sanction notion, freedom is inseparable from the social whole: Freedom cannot be separated from right reasoning.

Advocates of the antagonistic principle believe, or at least act as though they believe, that man is innately good, which is contrary to all history. Advocates of the divine sanction notion believe that man is naturally sinful, which history and personal experience easily support.

Thus, libertarianism rests on the false premise that humans are naturally good. Unbridled capitalism, as long as governmental collaboration is avoided, can sufficiently regulate, control, and suppress any sinful tendencies — so, libertarians believe. For the most part, a free-market economy may adequately regulate economic order and liberty. However, it fails as a regulator of political and social order and liberty.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.