Nationalists and Federalists

Nationalists and Federalists

Thomas Allen

Since the ratification of the Constitution of 1788, nationalists and federalists have been struggling to control the government of the United States. With the possible exception of the Cleveland administration, the nationalists have controlled the US government since the election of Lincoln. (Federalists should not be confused with the early Federalist Party of Washington and Adams, which was primarily a nationalist party. As contradictory as it may sound, the Antifederalists of that era were the real federalists.) The following is a comparison of nationalists and federalists.

1– Nationalists support a living constitution where the US Supreme Court, the President, and Congress continuously change the interpretation of the Constitution to meet current needs, i.e., to satiate their lust for power. Among their favorite clauses are the Interstate Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause (which means that anything Congress deems to be for the general welfare), and the Necessary and Proper Clause. They give these and other clauses extremely elastic interpretations.

On the other hand, federalists support a strict, limited interpretation of the Constitution. They advocate interpreting the Constitution to mean what the proponents of the ratification of the Constitution explained it to mean and its intent. Records of their remarks are available in the debates of the ratification conventions, the Federalist Papers, and other writings that promoted the Constitution.

2– While nationalists advocate the consolidation of political power where the national government (a.k.a. the central government, the federal government, the US government, and the general government) has unlimited power, federalists advocate the dispersal of political power where the federal government has limited, enumerated power.

3– According to nationalists, the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of the constitutionality of federal acts (and even most State acts). Thus, the national government is the sole arbitrator of its political power.

Federalists assert that “we the people” of each State, either through their legislatures or special conventions, are the ultimate and final arbitrators of the constitutionality of a federal act. If a State finds that a federal act is unconstitutional, it is void in that State, but it may continue to be applied in the other States.

4– Nationalists maintain that all federal acts are constitutional until the Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional, which it rarely does. (Being a branch of the national government, the Supreme Court cannot be an unbiased arbitrator. Most of the time, it decides in favor of the national government and against the States.) 

However, federalists maintain that only federal acts pursuant to the Constitution are constitutional. Any federal act that does not implement or apply one of the powers expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution has not been made pursuant to the Constitution. Therefore, it is unconstitutional, i.e., it is not a law and consequently void.

5– Nationalists loathe States’ rights. They consider States to be merely administrative districts of the national government.  

Quite the opposite, federalists are ardent proponents of States’ rights. States, i.e., “we the people” of each State, are the heart and soul of the Constitution and the federal government that they created. Without the States, the Constitution and federal government would not exist. Furthermore, each State acting independently is the final judge of the constitutionality of all federal acts. Consequently, if a State finds a federal act unconstitutional, it is duty-bound to nullify that act within its jurisdiction.

6– Nationalists place the power of the national government above all. Therefore, they view secession as treason and a sacrilege.

Federalists place the welfare of their community, people, and land above the federal government. Thus, they view secession as a means of preservation.

7– Nationalists are inclined toward foreign intervention and imperialism and are, therefore, bellicostic. They seek hegemony.

Contrastingly, federalists desire not to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries and seek peace and trade with all. Consequently, they prefer peace to war.

8– Nationalists favor government-business partnerships, mercantilism, protectionism, centralized banking, easy credit (inflation), and government indebtedness. Thus, they favor big business, big labor, and the concentration of economic power. Prosperity is created through mercantilism, i.e., corporate welfare, protectionism, and central banking. 

On the other hand, federalists favor free trade, free markets, free enterprise, decentralized banking, the separation of government and banking, the stable value of money, and minimum or no government debt. Thus, they favor the dispersal of economic power. Free markets create prosperity.

9– Nationals accept the welfare state, for it increases the national government’s control over the people and, consequently, its power.

Federalists prefer private and church charities to governmental welfare. However, if a government is to be involved in welfare, it should be the local government.

10– Nationalists rely on the national government to promote and preserve the virtues of the people. Making people righteous is a primary function of the national government. (Today, perversion is often considered righteousness.)

Federalists rely on the independence of citizens to promote and preserve the virtues of the people. Making people righteous is primarily the work of churches (true churches and not today’s woke churches).

11– Nationalists construe the Constitution as a teleological document (establishing a society based on abstract principles of natural rights, equality, democracy, etc.)

Federalists construe it as a nomocratic document (bringing government under the rule of law).

12– Nationalists lean toward inclusion and, therefore, amalgamation.

Yet, federalists lean toward diversity and, therefore, separation. Moreover, 

federalists are more tolerant than are nationalists.

While nationalists promote the concentration of political, economic, and social power, federalists promote their dispersal.

Regrettably, most State governmental officials have sold their souls to the nationalists. Since most State officials prefer lucre to liberty, the nationalists have bought them with federal grant money. (Nowhere does the Constitution delegate the federal government the authority to issue grants — much less to use federal funds for bribery.)

In summary, while nationalists are centralists, federalists are decentralists (see “Centralism Verses Decentralism” by Thomas Allen.) Furthermore, while nationalists are statists, federalists are libertists (“Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen). Consequently, nationalists prefer the constitution that Lincoln and the Republicans, as further developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court, gave the United States, while the federalists prefer the Constitution of the Founding Fathers (see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen).

Federalism is achieved when more people know the names of their governors and State legislators than know the names of the President and their members of Congress.

Afterthought. Generally, nationalists divide into two major factions. One follows the attributes in the above list. The other follows the political and social attributes, although they disagree about the virtues that the national government should impose and the extent of the welfare state. However, the second faction agrees more with the federalists on economic matters. Further, some nationalists are less favorable to foreign interventionism than others.

Unfortunately, not all federalists are consistent. Many act like nationalists on economic matters. Some federalists are inclined toward the warfare state (foreign interventionism) and welfare states and support such endeavors, especially when their State receives money from the federal government for military bases and various social and welfare programs.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The 1860 Presidential Election Caused the South to Seceded

The 1860 Presidential Election Caused the South to Secede

Thomas Allen, editor

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

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

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

More Southern articles.

Nullification and Interposition – Part 1

Nullification and Interposition – Part 1

Thomas Allen

When people oppose a federal act, most of them support the right of States to interpose and nullify that act. However, they oppose the right of States to interpose and nullify a federal act when they support that act.

Would the people who object to States interposing to thwart the federal government apprehending and deporting illegal aliens have also objected to States interposing to thwart the enforcement of fugitive slave laws? Most would probably support the States interposing and nullifying fugitive slave laws. Yet, the Constitution emphatically requires returning runaway slaves, but it does not expressly require or even authorize the federal government to deport illegal aliens. (See Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.) Nevertheless, one can argue that deporting illegal immigrants is enforcing the nationalization statutes — but that is for each State to decide for itself.

If they are consistent, people who object to a State interposing to prevent the federal government from enforcing immigration laws that a State finds unconstitutional should also object to a State interposing to prevent the federal government from enforcing gun laws that it finds unconstitutional. Conversely, people who support a State interposing to prevent the federal government from enforcing gun laws that the State finds unconstitutional should also support a State interposing to prevent the federal government from enforcing immigration laws that it finds unconstitutional.

  For example, if the federal government outlawed private ownership of so-called assault rifles, most ardent Second Amendment proponents would support States nullifying that law and oppose the federal government overriding the nullification. However, if a State outlawed private ownership of assault rifles, most of these same proponents would urge the federal government to veto such a State law. If the State nullified the federal government’s veto of the State law, these same proponents would urge the federal government to override that nullification. Thus, only a few people support nullification in principle. Most support nullification if it supports their position and oppose nullification if it opposes their position.

Now, let us look at some definitions. “State” can mean either the government of a State or “we the people” of that State, who created the government of that State and are a community distinct and independent of all other States. “We the People” are not all Americans collectively forming one great community. (See “Meaning of ‘We the People’”  by Thomas Allen.) Sovereign power resides in the people of each State (“we the people”) independent of the people of the other States (“we the people” of each of the other States).

Being sovereign, a State may take three actions against an unconstitutional act of the federal government: nullification, interposition, or veto. Nullification nullifies an unconstitutional act regarding the nullifying State. Interposition is a State shielding its citizens from the federal government. Veto is the arresting or inhibiting an unconstitutional act of the federal government within the bounds of the State.

Nullification is not secession. With nullification, only the nullified federal act is unenforceable; all other federal laws remain enforceable. Confining the agent, the federal government, within the limits of its delegated powers is the objective of nullification. With secession, no federal law remains enforceable in the seceding State because the State is no longer in the union, and, therefore, it is no longer under the jurisdiction of the federal government. It is a foreign nation. Withdrawing as a member of the union relieves the seceding State of the obligations of the association, the union; that is the objective of secession. A seceding State also loses the benefits of the union. Thus, secession returns the seceding State to the relationship that it had with the other States before it joined the union. While a nullifying State remains in the union, a seceding State removes itself from the union. Secession deals with the acts of States that make remaining in the union unbearable. Nullification deals with the acts of the federal government, which is an agent of the States. Whereas secession divides the union, nullification preserves it and the Constitution.

Before the adoption of the Constitution, no State nor all the States could exercise any power over a State without that State’s consent. They were independent nations.

In the Declaration of Independence, the colonies declared themselves to be free and independent States (nations) and not a free and independent State (nation). Furthermore, the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which formally ended the American Revolutionary War, recognized the colonies as 13 independent States (nations). Also, they proposed the Constitution as independent States and ratified it as independent States. The ratifying States bound themselves to the Constitution, but they did not bind any State that had not ratified it.

When a State ratified the Constitution, it bound only its citizens and no other people. Thus, the Founding Fathers’ Constitution formed a union of States and not a union of individuals.

Since the Constitution, which the sovereign States brought into being with ratification, created a general government (the US government, federal government, or general government) as their agent, the created agent has no right to impose its construction of the Constitution on the States or any one of them. Thus, the Constitution of 1787 formed a political community of sovereign States (nations) where each State may determine for its citizens the extent of powers delegated to the federal government and those reserved to the States.

Accordingly, the Constitution of 1789 was a contract between independent sovereign republics, which created an agent, the federal government, to carry out specific and limited activities. Then, Lincoln came along and essentially voided that contract and usurped all the sovereignty and powers of the States, the parties to the contract. (Now, the States have only those powers that the federal government condescends to grant them.)

The Constitutional Convention rejected giving the federal government the power to prevent a State from opposing and preventing (interposing and nullifying) the execution of acts of the federal government. Also, it rejected authorizing the federal government the power to compel a State (its government and “we the people” of that State) to obey federal acts. Furthermore, it rejected giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction over all controversies between the United States and an individual State. Moreover, it rejected giving Congress the power to void State laws that Congress believed interfered with the interests of the union. Thus, the Constitutional Convention endorsed nullification by forbidding the federal government from enforcing its law in a State once that State objected to that law. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the federal government to exercise any control over a State by force, veto, judicial procedure, or otherwise.

Moreover, a common and radical error that many people make is that the federal government is a national government; it is not. It is a confederate government. It is a misconception to view the federal government as a national government that can enforce its will upon the states in the United States' political system. If it were a national government, it would derive its power from a source higher than the States. However, since it derives its power from the States, i.e., “we the people” of each State, it is subordinate to “we the people” of the States, who are the sovereigns. That is, the federal government derives its power from the sovereigns. 

In its sovereign capacity, a State can decide independently for itself whether an act of the federal government is unconstitutional. If a State finds an act of the federal government unconstitutional, it has the right in its sovereign capacity to declare that unconstitutional act null and void. Moreover, the federal government has no right to enforce its notion of its powers against that of a State — the State’s notion prevails.

Nullification is based on the principle that a State has the right to defend its reserved powers from the encroachment of the federal government. Whether the Constitution has granted a particular power to the federal government, each State, as a sovereign, decides for itself. If a State finds that a particular act of the federal government exceeds its delegated authority, that act is null and void. Its citizens have no obligation to obey it. However, a State’s nullification does not affect citizens of other States.

To deny the States the right of nullification to defend their reserved powers results in the federal government deciding the extent of its powers and leads to the federal government assuming powers that the States reserved for themselves. History has proven this usurpation. In 1787, only the most radical Anti-Federalist could have imagined that the federal government would become as bloated and tyrannical as it is today.

Nullification seeks not to resist or diminish the powers of the union, but to preserve them as they are, without decreasing or increasing them. (Increasing the union’s powers can effectively destroy the union — as Lincoln proved — as diminishing them.)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Part 2.

The South's Greatest Blunder

The South's Greatest Blunder

Thomas Allen, editor

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

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

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

More Southern articles. 

Three Facts About the South

Three Facts About the South

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are the States’ right of secession, music, and the South was right.

States’ Right of Secession

Nowhere does the Constitution deny a State the right to secede. Secession is not expressly stated in the Constitution because the States reserved that right in the Tenth Amendment. 

Each of the original 13 States had seceded twice when they ratified the Constitution of 1787. First, they had seceded from Great Britain, and then they seceded from the Union formed by the Articles of Confederation. That the States would deny themselves the right to secede from the Union formed by the Constitution of 1787 is absurd — especially since the Constitution did not expressly deny them this right. Even New York and Virginia declared in their ratification that they retained the right to secede. Further, the New England States claimed that they had the right to secede. Moreover, the Declaration of Independence asserted that the States (the colonies) had the right to secede. Thus, the Southern States had the right to secede in 1861.

Besides, when the States drafted the Constitution of 1787 and joined the federation created by that Constitution, they retained their sovereignty. (Because the States were republics and the Constitution guaranteed each State a republican form of government, the States could not surrender their sovereignty and still remain republics. [See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.]) Sovereigns have the power to secede from any union or federation to which they have acceded.

When the Southern States seceded, they were merely exercising their right as sovereigns to leave the Union peacefully as the States did from the Union created by the Articles of Confederation. The Tenth Amendment guaranteed the right of secession.

For a more detailed discussion of a State’s right to secede, see Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States: Its Causes, Character, Conduct, and Results, volume 1, by Alexander H. Stephens, 1868.

Music

How long will it be before American music is outlawed? Why should American music be outlawed? Because, with rare exception, all neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians are Dixiephobes. They loathe the South and Southerners. Therefore, they disdain everything Southern.

What does this have to do with music? All significant genres or styles of American music of any significance originated in the South. Thus, American music is the product of slavocracy, Jim Crow, White supremacy, and their descendants. Rock ‘n roll, jazz (including ragtime, boogie-woogie, Dixieland, and swing), blues, country, bluegrass, rhythm and blues, soul, funk, Tejano, Cajun, zydeco, gospel, spiritual, sacred harp, barbershop, and more are Southern. All of them came out of the South.

Because of their hatred of the South, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians seek to destroy everything that is Southern. Consequently, American music, which is really Southern music, must be destroyed. They have to destroy Southern music before it completely contaminates the virtues of Yankeedom.

(Reference: Daniel, Tom. “Academy of Southern Music.” Abbeville Institute: The Abbeville Blog, June 1, 2021. https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/bthe log/academy-of-southern-music/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d073b88d-f677-448c-9c41-191b5e0c631f accessed June 2, 2021.)

The South Was Right

In “The Power of the Powerless” (November 4, 2020), James Rutledge Roesch provides an excellent description of the Puritan Yankee mentality that wars against the South, which proves that the South was right (https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/the-power-of-the-powerless/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c24f9d1b-a791-4b69-be6a-ca8b5d96ed4b):

In the meantime, however, we can take some bittersweet solace in the fact that despite the sadistic iconoclasm against the symbols of the American South, the polarisation/radicalisation of American politics, the dysfunction of the American system of government, the corruption of the American party system, the degeneracy of American culture, and the disintegration of American society represents the ultimate vindication of the Southern critique of American millenarianism (i.e. “The City Upon A Hill” and “The Last, Best Hope for Mankind”), American gnosticism (i.e. “The More Perfect Union” and “The Indissoluble Union”), American teleocracy (i.e. “The Proposition Nation” and “The Redeemer Nation”), American hubris (i.e. “The Exceptional Nation” and “The Indispensable Nation”), and other Hebraic-Puritan “isms” and “ologies” from the Left and the Right to which our compatriots up north have proven so susceptible throughout our country’s very young life.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Cussons on the Hypocrisy of the Puritan Yankee

Cussons on the Hypocrisy 

of the Puritan Yankee

Thomas Allen

In  United States “History” as the Yankee Makes and Takes It (1900, third edition) pages 68–69,  John Cussons describes the hypocrisy of the Puritan Yankee. His description fits today’s neoconservatives and especially progressives and wokesters. His description follows.

These new rulers [Puritan Yankees of the 1850s] had chiefly distinguished themselves as the enemies of existing institutions — their political and social creed being, in effect, “Whatever is, is wrong.” They were fond of execrating the Union as “a league with hell,” and denouncing the Constitution as “a covenant with death.” They derided the highest courts of the land as “crimping houses of iniquity,” and vilified the old flag as “a flaunting lie!”

But on coming into power they threw off all disguise, and shamelessly started a war of conquest in pretended defence [sic] of the very principles and symbols which they had so bitterly reviled.

With paralyzing logic they mutilated the States on the plea that the States were “indestructible”; they debarred them from the Union while declaring the Union to be “indissoluble,” and they tore the Constitution to tatters while pretending that they were the only class who reverenced its “inviolability.” Having thus approved themselves the only true champions of “the sacred principle of government by consent,” they rounded out their perfect work by converting the States into satrapies, and holding them under bayonet rule until the conquered peoples consented to ratify the whole of their rump performances.

Puritan Yankees favored secession and nullification until the Southern States used them. For most of the Jefferson and Madison administrations, the New England States, the home base of the Puritan Yankee, threatened secession. Massachusetts threatened to secede because of the Louisiana Purchase and argued that it had the right to secede. When Jefferson attempted to embargo trade with Europe during the Napoleonic War, the New England States threatened to secede. Several New England States discussed secession during the War of 1812. Connecticut and Massachusetts nullified Congress’ call for State militias.

Moreover, Puritan Yankees did not oppose slavery until the importation of slaves became illegal after 1808. Yankees had been the primary importers of slaves. Later, many Yankees became ardent abolitionists. As a result, like many other Northern States, the New England States nullified fugitive slave laws.

However, when the Southern States seceded and ended the “league with hell,” these abolitionists did not want to let them go. By then, the Puritan Yankees had gained control of the federal government. Now, they were going to use their newfound power to force their utopia on the world, starting with the South. They were going to save Southerners from their evil, heathen ways and convert them into the image of the Puritan Yankee. They started their conversion in the South and have metastasized across the world. America’s attempt to create American hegemony across the world is nothing more than the Puritan Yankee trying to remake the world in his own image.

One thing that Cussons seemed not to have anticipated was that most Southern leaders would lose their moral fortitude. Most Southern political, business, academic, and religious leaders would become scalawags. They would sell their souls to the Puritan Yankee and then genocide the Southerner, their own people. What the scalawags have not done, the carpetbaggers have. The genocide of the Southerner is mostly completed. (This genocide has been mostly cultural instead of physical. However, the United Nations considers the deliberate destruction of a people’s culture to be genocide. Destroying an ethnicity’s culture destroys the ethnicity.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Revisionist History

Revisionist History

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion in Comments

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

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

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

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

Confused: Your above analysis is incorrect and illogical.

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

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

Please stop hurting the cause.

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

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

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

Confused: Go bake some cookies, hon.

END

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

Another Discussion with the Imbecile

Another Discussion with the Imbecile

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

Revisionist History

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

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

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

Slavery and the Cause of Lincoln’s War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phobia

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

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

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

Appendix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me to Imbecile: You are too stupid to learn.

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

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

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

THE END

Endnotes

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

2. Ibid., p. 194.

3. Ibid., p. 195.

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

5. Ibid., p. 337.

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

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

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

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

A Discussion with an Imbecile

A Discussion with an Imbecile

Thomas Allen

In response to an article about some people wanting to use the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent Donald Trump’s name from appearing on ballots, I posted a comment. In my comment, I noted that Lincoln and the Republicans rebelled against the Constitution, but the South did not. (https://wltreport.com/2023/09/01/president-trump-scores-huge-court-victory-election-ballot/#comment-6277814175) [Note: If you go to this site, you will not see my comments because it has banned me. Apparently, I objected too much about it censoring my comments telling the truth about God’s "chosen people" and their political movement.]

Then, an imbecile responded: “Like continuing SLAVERY?” At first, I thought that he was ignorant and was confusing the Fourteenth Amendment with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. Consequently, I replied that the Fourteenth Amendment had nothing to do with slavery. “However, it does prove that Negroes were not and could not be citizens under the Constitution that the founding fathers gave us.”

Instead of trying to refute my statement, he smeared me with today’s greatest smear word: “racist.” Thus, he proved that he lacked the intellect to refute me or that he knew that I was right and could not refute me.

Responding to his reply, I stated that “it takes one to know one.” Then, I noted that he was a racist by several of the 800 definitions of racist in “Are You a Racist?” and asked which one he was using for me. He answered with more derogatory invectiveness. Our discussion is in the Appendix.

After discussions with this imbecile in other articles, I can make more intelligent inferences about him. He suffers from the worst sort of stupidity: arrogant stupidity. Moreover, he is a Confederaphobe and a staunch Zionist. No truth is going to enter his brain. (I respond to him not to educate him because he is beyond salvation but to educate others.)

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 

It prohibits persons who had taken an oath to support the Constitution and who had engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution from holding public office.

The South did not rebel against the Constitution. Before Lincoln became President, almost everyone in the country knew that a State had the right to secede.

The Constitution that the Confederacy adopted was similar to the US Constitution but with some improvements. These improvements included:

1. The President served a six-year term and could not be reelected for another term.

2. The President had a line-item veto of appropriation bills.

3. The House or Senate could require cabinet secretaries to appear before it to answer questions.

4. Bills that Congress passed could only address one subject.

5. It prohibited protective tariffs.

6. It prohibited subsidies to private companies and corporate welfare.

7. States could enter treaties with other States to regulate waterways.

8. States could levy taxes on ships using their waterways.

9. States could impeach certain federal officials.

Also, States were allowed to issue bills of credit, paper money, which was regressive. The US Constitution prohibited the States from issuing bills of credit.

On the other hand, Lincoln and the Republicans did rebel against the US Constitution. They uprooted and overthrew the very foundation of the Constitution.

Before Lincoln’s War, the United States were a federation of sovereign nations. After Lincoln’s War, the United States became a consolidated empire with the States subjugated to provinces. The United States became what Lincoln declared them to be in his Gettysburg Address.

Completing this conversion from a federation of sovereign nations to a consolidated empire was the Fourteenth Amendment, which was illegally and unlawfully ratified. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, a person was a citizen of the United States by being a citizen of a State. After the Fourteenth Amendment, a person was a citizen of a State by being a citizen of the United States. Negroes were not citizens under the original Constitution. (For more on the Fourteenth Amendment and citizenship, see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen.)

Except for Coolidge, especially Cleveland, and possibly Harding, no President has even attempted to keep his oath of office since Buchanan. Therefore, with these three exceptions, all Presidents since Buchanan, including Trump, rebelled against the Constitution if they swore their oath to the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the United States. However, if they swore their oath to the Constitution that Lincoln gave the United States, then no President rebelled against the Constitution. Rebelling against Lincoln’s Constitution is difficult. (For the difference between the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the United States and the Constitution that Lincoln gave the United States, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

If Trump’s name is removed from ballots according to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, then Biden’s name and most other candidates who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution ought to be removed.

Appendix

Me: “The way Section 3 reads, Lincoln and the Republicans rebelled against the Constitution and overthrew it. The Confederates fought to preserve it; their Constitution was almost identical with some improvements.”

Imbecile: “Like continuing SLAVERY? You’e [sic] a brain-dead revisionist!”

Me: “The 14th amendment has nothing to do with slavery. However, it does prove that Negroes were not and could not be citizens under the Constitution that the founding fathers gave us.”

Imbecile: “. . . and a disgusting RACIST!!”

Me: “It takes one to know one. By several definitions of racist, you are also a racist. Which of the 800 definitions of racists are you using (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2016/04/are-you-racist.html)”

Imbecile: “It’s impossible to argue with the brain-less, the brain-washed, and/or the brain-dead, and you, sister, are all three, so adios!” [He did not attempt to argue his point; he immediately resorted to name-calling. He called me “sister” because my user name is Cassandra, who is a mystical Greek character who could see the future, but no one would believe her.]

Me: “At least I did not resort to insults and name calling.”

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles

Four Comments on Political Issues

Four Comments on Political Issues

Thomas Allen

Blow four items are discussed. They are two ways of addressing secession, saving “our Democracy,” the difference between progressives and conservatives, and inalienable versus unalienable.

Two Ways of Addressing Secession

There are two ways of addressing secession: the Wilsonian and the Lincolnian.

  According to the Wilsonian principle, all nations capable of maintaining their own country should have their own country. (A nation or nationality is a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country.) Since the people of the Donbass region are capable of maintaining their own country, they should have their own independent country, which they have done with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. (Through a plebiscite, the people of these two countries voted to join Russia, and Russia accepted them.)

According to the Lincolnian principle, once a region is part of a country, it can never secede and form an independent country unless it wins that right with war. Thus, being part of Ukraine, the two oblasts of Donbass can never be independent countries unless they defeat Ukraine in war. Furthermore, under the Lincolnian principle, Russia has the right to annex Ukraine because Ukraine seceded from Russia and did so without defeating Russia in war. 

Under the Wilsonian principle, the Ukrainian people deserve their own countries. However, under the Lincolnian participle, they do not unless they defeat Russia in war. 

Likewise, under the Lincoln principle, China has the right to annex Taiwan. Under the Wilsonian principle, China has no right to annex Taiwan; the Taiwanese deserve their own country, or perhaps several countries since several ethnicities inhabit Taiwan.

“Saving our Democracy”

According to the Democrats, the purpose of the January 6 select committee, the violation of due process in arresting and detaining the January 6 protestors, the censoring of people who claim that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election, and the lynching of Donald Trump is to protect “our Democracy.” The reason that Trump supporters were rallying in Washington on January 6 was to protect “our Democracy.” They were protesting the Democrats stealing the 2020 presidential election — and plenty of evidence supports the conclusion that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election.

Furthermore, Democrats are notorious for doing what they accuse others of doing. Thus, Democrats accuse Trump and his followers of destroying “our Democracy” while Democrats destroyed “our Democracy” by stealing the presidential election. Democrats stole the election, so they blame Trump and his followers for trying to steal the election.

Difference Between Progressives and Conservatives

G.K. Chesterton explains the difference between progressives and conservatives. About progressives, he writes, “The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.” About conservatives, he writes, “The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” Thus, progressives begin idiotic programs, and conservatives preserve them. Worse, Conservatives make the progressive programs operate more efficiently and effectively.

Seldom do conservatives eliminate progressive mistakes. Prohibition is an example of a progressive program that has been eliminated — and that was because progressives abandoned it. 

Another progressive program that has been abolished is eugenics. Conservatives did not end eugenics; progressives did. Progressives replaced eugenics with the genocide of the White race, which racial nihilistic conservatives only weakly oppose. (Paradoxically, the genocide of the hated White race leads to the genocide of the beloved American Negro.)

Inalienable vs. Unalienable

Some people stress a great difference between inalienable and unalienable. For them, the two words mean entirely different things — even opposite meanings. They maintain that unalienable rights cannot be transferred whereas inalienable rights can be. Following are some dictionary definitions of the two words.

These definitions are from Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition: 

– "inalienable," adj. Not transferable or assignable (inalienable property interests). — also termed unalienable.

– "unalienable," adj. See INALIENABLE.

Thus, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, the two words mean the same thing. It makes no distinction between the two.

Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives the following definitions:

– INALIENABLE, a. Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable. All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable. The estate of a minor is inalienable, without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature.

– UNALIENABLE, a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.

According to Webster, the two words seem to mean the same thing — especially, since he defines “inalienable” to mean “unalienable.”

The following are definitions of "unalienable" from other dictionaries:

– “Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable” – American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

– “law a variant of inalienable” – Collins English Dictionary.

– “not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.” – Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary.

– “inalienable” – Merriam Webster.

The following are the definitions of "inalienable" given in these four dictionaries:

– “That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights” – American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

– “not able to be transferred to another; not alienable” – Collins English Dictionary.

– “not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights” – Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary.

– “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred” – Merriam Webster

“Unalienable” and “inalienable” look like they mean the same thing. Merriam Webster even defines “unalienable” to mean “inalienable.” What is the difference?

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political 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.