Rothbard on Lincoln’s War

Rothbard on Lincoln’s War

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endnote

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

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

Tariffs as Revenue

Tariffs as Revenue

Thomas Allen

Some people, like President Trump, suggest replacing the federal income tax with tariffs. Tariffs are heralded as a means to increase employment and wages and to reduce, if not eliminate, dependency on foreign sources.

The primary benefit of replacing income tax with tariffs is that the federal government's size would need to be reduced by 80 to 90 percent. That is about the size of the federal government that tariffs could support without exploding debt that would dwarf the current federal debt — this assumes that the tariff is for revenue and not protectionism. 

Replacing the income tax with tariffs will, at least in the short run, result in a large-scale loss of jobs. More than a million federal employees will lose their jobs. Likewise, a much larger number of people whose livelihoods depend on federal contracts will lose theirs. Also, many State and local employees will lose their jobs because these jobs depend on federal grant money. Many people whose jobs depend on the federal government will become unemployed.

Additionally, if the goal of the tariff is to promote and protect domestic companies, the federal government will collect even less revenue. The more effective that a tariff is at protecting domestic companies, the less the country imports. Fewer imports result in less revenue for the federal government.

Exports buy imports. The less the country imports, the less it can export. Conversely, the less the country exports, the less it can import. If the country imports less, the federal government collects less revenue. As the country approaches autarky, the federal government becomes smaller for want of revenue — if tariffs are the primary source of revenue. By then, most of the federal government’s budget will be used to prevent smuggling.

Also, many people believe that the exporters pay the tariffs. They do not. Consumers of the importing country pay the tariffs. In this respect, tariffs are like sales taxes; the buyer pays the tax; the seller does not.

One great advantage resulting from abandoning the income tax is that it frees the slaves from the largest slave owner in the country, the US government. Slavery is defined as one party or person owning the labor of another. The income tax is a tax on labor; that is, the amount of labor that it takes a person to pay his taxes is the amount of labor owned by the US government.

If the purpose of tariffs is revenue, then the same percentage should be levied on all imported goods without considering the product imported or the country of origin. Thus, the federal government does not pick favorites or winners and losers by levying higher tariffs on some imports than on others.

Appendix 1. Reciprocal Tariffs

President Trump has implemented reciprocal tariffs on countries that levy tariffs on imports from the United States. His goal is for these countries to eliminate their tariffs on imports from the United States in exchange for the United States eliminating their tariffs on imports from their countries. However, such reciprocal tariffs are unconstitutional — at least under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave the United States.

The Constitution delegates to Congress the authority to levy tariffs. It does not delegate the President such power. Consequently, Congress would have to levy the reciprocal tariffs and give the President the authority to implement them. Even if Congress enacted such a law, it would be unconstitutional. According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the Constitution authorizes Congress to levy tariffs for revenue and for no other reasons, such as protectionism or reciprocity. The goal of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs is to eliminate tariffs and, consequently, eliminate raising revenue from tariffs.

Appendix 2. Replacing the Income Tax with a National Sales Tax

For years, some people have been promoting replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax. If a sales tax is to replace the income tax, it needs to be done by constitutional amendment. This amendment must clearly prohibit all taxes on income from whatever source (wages, salaries, tips, dividends, interest, capital gains, etc.). Also, it must fix the maximum tax rate. Further, it must clearly define in great detail what can be taxed and what cannot be taxed. Moreover, it must not provide any outs, such as national or economic emergencies or war. Most importantly, the amendment needs to be written so that someone with an IQ of 70, which is about the average IQ of federal judges, can understand it.

Appendix 3. Eliminating the Corporate Income Tax

The North Carolina General Assembly is moving toward eliminating the corporate income tax. If it retains an income tax, it should eliminate the personal income tax instead of the corporate income tax. Why? Corporations (C corporations, S corporations, B corporations, limited liability companies, nonprofits, closed corporations, professional corporations, etc.), unlike a natural person, are creatures of the government and have privileges that individuals do not have. Moreover, the personal income tax enslaves people. Corporate income taxes do not because corporations are not living beings (contrary to what the US Supreme Court and many libertarians believe).

Moreover, a natural person has a natural law right to privacy. The income tax is a massive invasion of privacy. On the other hand, being creatures of the government, corporations have no right to privacy; the government has every right to know what its creatures are doing. (If we have a government of, by, and for the people, and if the people are the masters and the government is the servant — as our politicians continuously remind us — then the people have the right to know everything about the government, including information classified as top secret; the government has no right to secrecy. By extension, the people also have a right to know everything that a corporation does.)

Proprietaries, partnerships, and associations that do not have a charter from a government should be treated as individuals. Likewise, churches that are not incorporated should be exempt from income taxes. Individuals and organizations exempt from income tax should not report any kind of income to the government.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More economic 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.

Antisouthernism

Antisouthernism

Thomas Allen

“Our” political leaders are falling all over themselves to kowtow to Jews — especially Zionist Jews. They are pushing laws that punish people for antisemitism, which includes making negative remarks about Jews, Israel, or Zionism. 

Yet, none of “our” political leaders oppose antisouthernism. On the contrary, most are antisoutherners and seek to destroy Southerners and Southern heritage and culture.

Merriam-Webster defines “Southernism” as “an attitude or trait characteristic of the South or Southerners especially in the U.S.”  American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “a trait, attitude, or practice characteristic of the South or southerners, especially in the United States.” Thus, Southernism is the attitudes, traits, or characteristics of Southerners or the South; i.e., Southernism is Southern heritage and culture. “Anti” means “against, opposed to, [or] prejudicial to” (Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary). Therefore, antisouthernism is being against, opposed to, or prejudicial to the South, Southern culture and heritage, and Southerners. Antisoutherners are Dixiephobes; that is, they have an intolerance for, an aversion toward, a dislike of, and a disrespect for the South, Southern culture and heritage, and Southerners.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” (https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism, accessed May 9, 2024.)

A good description of antisouthernism can be obtained by applying IHRA’s definition of antisemitism and the examples that it gives. Thus, antisouthernism is a certain perception of Southerners that may be expressed as hatred toward Southerners (we see this frequently in movies and the news). Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisouthernism are directed toward Southerners or their property, toward Southern communities and institutions (we saw a great deal during the Martin-Luther-King era of the civil rights movement and during and following the Black Lives Matter riots and in between these two).

Using IHRA illustrative examples as a guide, we find the following:

– Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing (presently a minor issue) or harming Southerners (a persistent problem) in the name of a radical ideology or political views. (The destruction of the South and its culture and heritage and the genocide of Southerners have been occurring since the beginning of Lincoln’s War.)

– Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Southerners. (This is easily seen in movies, television shows, books, and articles. Most of the time, Southerners are presented derogatorily.)

– Accusing Southerners as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoings committed by a single Southerner or group, or even for acts committed by non-Southerners. (An example is that Southerners are solely responsible for slavery, which, according to many antisoutherners, did not exist before Southerners created the institution.)

–Identifying the facts, scope, mechanisms, or intentionality of the genocide of Southerners and the deliberate destruction of the South and its heritage and culture during Lincoln’s War, the First Reconstruction, and the Second Reconstruction, especially during the Civil Rights Era. 

–Denying Southerners their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of the Confederate States of America was and is a racist endeavor. (Denying Southerners the right of self-determination was the primary objective of Lincoln’s War despite Lincoln and most Northerners being more racist than most Southerners.)

–Applying double standards by requiring of Southerners a behavior not expected or demanded of any other people, especially Yankees and nonwhites.

–Associating the South with Nazi Germany and Southerners with Nazis (national socialists).

Far too many Southerners are antisoutherners. Most political leaders in the South are either scalawags (i.e., traitors) or carpetbaggers (those who move to the South to plunder it or, worse, those who want to remake Southerners in their own Yankee image). Unfortunately, many Southerners who are not scalawags are antisoutherners. They offer no resistance to antisouthernism and usually go along with the destruction of Southern heritage and culture.

An example of antisouthernism is the treatment of Silent Sam on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). It was a monument erected to honor students of UNC who defended their country and State from an invading horde. Antisouthern protestors tore down the statue. Instead of sending these vandals to prison for the destruction of property, most political leaders supported the destruction of the statue and, therefore, offered no opposition. An antisouthern judge defeated the few who tried to save the statue.

Another example is Governor Cooper of North Carolina, who supported the removal of Silent Sam. To the disgrace of his ancestors, Cooper showed his hatred of the South by removing the Confederate monuments from the State Capitol grounds. Also, he violated his COVID-19 ukases by marching with Black Lives Matter to demonstrate his antisouthernism — his loathing of the South, its culture and heritage, and his hatred of his ancestors. Cooper is an excellent example of a scalawag, i.e., a traitor.

Cooper is just one of the many scalawags that North Carolina has produced during the Second Reconstruction, which began in 1954. Among the few political leaders in North Carolina who are not scalawags and are true Southerners are I. Beverly Lake Sr. and Jr.

Nikki Haley is another example of an antisoutherner, a Confederaphobe, and a Dixiephobe. As governor of South Carolina, she supported removing the Confederate flag from the State Capitol grounds and succeeded in getting it removed. At least, she initially and correctly said that Lincoln’s War was not about slavery.  However, she soon repented of her heresy and claimed that war was about slavery.

Not to be outdone, Georgia produced three consecutive antisouthern Confederaphobic governors. Governor Zell Miller announced his intention to replace the Georgia State flag because it contained the Confederate battle flag; however, he failed. Then, his successor Governor Roy Barnes managed to replace the flag with a flag that had only a minor reference to the Confederacy. Next, Sonny Perdue was elected governor of Georgia, partially on a platform of allowing Georgians to choose their own flag in a State referendum. Yet, he did not allow them to choose the flag that Barnes had replaced, which would probably have been the flag chosen if the voters had been allowed to choose it. These three governors showed their Confederaphobia, which is antisouthernism.

Like Cooper, Haley, and the governors of Georgia, most political, academic, business, and religious leaders in the South are antisouthern. They have supported the removal and destruction of Confederate monuments and have removed or destroyed them. They have renamed buildings named after prominent Southerners. Even the federal government shows its antisouthernism by renaming military installations named after Confederate officers. Memorials to the Confederacy and prominent Southerners, such as Washington and Jefferson, are razed throughout the South and in the rest of the country.

Antisouthernism prevails throughout America, especially in the South. Jews are treated much better in America than are Southerners. Far more Southerners are victims of antisouthernism than are Jews of antisemitism. 

When protesters demonstrate against Jews, Israel, or Zionism, most political leaders rush to the aid of the Jews. However, when protestors demonstrate against Southerners or the South, most political leaders rush to join the protestors.

A Jew may display Jewish symbols and show pride in his Jewish heritage and ancestry without fear of reprisal from school administrators. However, a Southern cannot display Southern symbols or show pride in his Southern heritage and ancestry without fear of reprisal. If he does, most likely the school administrator will censor him and may even expel him. The same is true of many businesses and governmental establishments; they support Jewish symbols, etc. but are intolerant of Southern symbols, etc. 

Antisouthernism reveals the hypocrisy of the diversity and inclusion ideologues. If diversity and inclusion ideologues believed what they promote, they would not be antisouthern, yet nearly all of them are. They go out of their way to exclude true Southerners although they may occasionally accept traitorous scalawags. To these ideologues, Southern heritage and culture and even Southerners themselves are only worthy of annihilation.

The population of Southerners far exceeds that of Jews, both in the United States and worldwide. Yet, the political, economic, and social influence and power of Southerners are insignificant compared to that of Jews. Perhaps that is why Southerners, like Afrikaans, are personal non grata. Like Afrikaans, Southerners are slated for extinction. Genocide is their destination.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

King on Shattered Dreams

King on Shattered Dreams

Thomas Allen

In “Shattered Dreams,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 87–97, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses people’s reactions to shattered dreams and peace. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by writing, “One of the most agonizing problems within our human experience is that few, if any, of us live to see our fondest hopes fulfilled.” (P. 87.) (This statement is one of the most truthful ones that King ever wrote.) Continuing, King asks, “Is there any one of us who has not faced the agony of blasted hopes and shattered dreams?” (P. 87.) Then, he comments on the shattered dreams of some famous men. “Shattered dreams are a hallmark of our mortal life.” (P. 88.) (King may have thought that his dreams were shattered just before he died, but they were not. Most came to pass after his death. He failed to live long enough to see the Negro become the White man’s superior. Nor did he live long enough to see himself and the Negro idolized, and one of his speeches become a founding document of modern-day America. Within a few years after his death, America adopted almost everything that he advocated. However, a guaranteed income is one of his dreams that has yet to come true. Though he did not live to see the fulfillment of his dreams, most of them came true. Now that America is on the verge of shattering, have his dreams made America a better place?)

Next, he comments on reactions to shattered dreams. “One possible reaction is to distill all of our frustrations into a core of bitterness and resentment.” (P. 89.) Such people frequently “develop a callous attitude, a cold heart, and a bitter hatred toward God, toward those with whom he lives, and toward himself. Because he cannot corner God or life, he releases his pent-up vindictiveness in hostility toward other people. . . .  He loves no one and requires love from no one. He trusts no one and does not expect others to trust him. He finds fault in everything and everybody, and he continually complains.” (P. 89.) This type of reaction often leads to various physical ailments and mental problems.

About another reaction to shattered dreams, King writes, “Another common reaction by persons experiencing the blighting of hope is to withdraw completely into themselves and to become absolute introverts.” (P. 89.) These people do not enter the lives of others or allow others to enter their lives. “Such persons give up the struggle of life, lose their zest for living, and attempt to escape by lifting their minds to a transcendent realm of cold indifference.” (P. 89.) They become detached from the world, and cynicism often cripples them. Such a person may become schizophrenic. 

Next, King describes a third reaction to shattered dreams. “A third way by which persons respond to disappointments in life is to adopt a fatalistic philosophy stipulating that whatever happens must happen and that all events are determined by necessity. Fatalism implies that everything is foreordained and inescapable.” (P. 90.) These people succumb without resistance to whatever they consider their fate. They believe that they have no freedom and that external forces control them. “To sink in the quicksands of fatalism is both intellectually and psychologically stifling.” (P. 91.) With his discussion of fatalism, he concludes, “But fatalism stymies the individual, leaving him helplessly inadequate for life. Fatalism, furthermore, is based on an appalling conception of God, for everything, whether good or evil, is considered to represent the will of God.” (P. 91.) (An obdurate Calvinist might dispute King on this issue. To the obdurate Calvinist, man is just a robot executing his God-given program. Otherwise, if man had any freedom, God would not be sovereign. [See “God the Great Programer: Predestination Theology” by Thomas Allen.])

Then, King describes how people should react to shattered dreams. “The answer lies in our willing acceptance of unwanted and unfortunate circumstances even as we still cling to a radiant hope, our acceptance of finite disappointment even as we adhere to infinite hope.” (P. 92.) People should accept their shattered dreams, but they should not forget their dreams. They should turn their defeat into an asset.

Next, King turns his discussion to the Negro. “We Negroes have long dreamed of freedom, but still we are confined in an oppressive prison of segregation and discrimination.” (P. 93.) (Negroes have gained their “freedom.” They have been so successful at slaying segregation that many now seek segregation. [See “More Social Issues Related to Blacks” by Thomas Allen.] Negroes have turned discrimination against Negroes into discrimination against Whites. Has this freedom of which King dreamed made the country any better?)

King asks should Negroes conclude that segregation is God’s will and resign themselves to it. (If they believed the Bible, they should have because the Bible teaches segregation and condemns integration. Nevertheless, King does not appear to believe the Bible and, like Lincoln, quotes it to deceive people.)

King condemns the failure to oppose segregation as blasphemy. (Although it is biblically ordained,) segregation is unjust and should be opposed using his “nonviolent” tactics. “By recognizing the necessity of suffering in a righteous cause, we may possibly achieve our humanity’s full stature.” (P. 93.) (The Negro leaders of the civil rights movement did not suffer much, at least not in King’s sense of the word. Most were well-paid and got to integrate with Whites. Unfortunately, the Negro achieved King’s goals not so much by raising the Negro as by pulling down the White race. The decline in educational standards is evidence.)

King writes, “Our present suffering and our nonviolent struggle to be free may well offer to Western civilization the kind of spiritual dynamic so desperately needed for survival.” (P. 94.) (Regrettably, King’s civil rights movement did not provide Western civilization the kind of spiritual dynamic that it needed to survive. What his movement did was to provide Western civilization with evil spirits that have hastened its demise.)

Continuing, King states, “We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope.” (P. 94.) Following this advice was the secret to the survival of the Negroes’ slave foreparents. (How does King know?) Then, he describes how he saw slavery. (The slaves who survived the trip and were sold in what became the United States were better off than if they had remained in Africa. If they remained in Africa, most likely, their captors would have killed them because they had no value. On the other hand, if no market existed for slaves, they may not have been captured. Nevertheless, most of their descendants would live a better life in slavery than they would have lived in Africa in freedom — although except for the autocratic kings, witch doctors, and perhaps a few others, no one was really free in the Western sense of the word. For whatever reason, most Negroes seemed doomed to live undesirable lives, whether remaining in Africa or living in slavery in the Americas. However, some slaves in the Americas gained their freedom. In Haiti, all slaves became free in 1804, but their lives did not improve and, in some respects, became worse. If given a choice in the 1950s, most Haitians would have gladly left the land of the free to live in the land of segregation and discrimination.)

King remarks that people should not let adversity stop them from pursuing their dreams. Then, he comments on Paul facing adversity. Although Paul never achieved his dream of going to Spain (as far as we know), he never quit doing the Lord’s work. Paul was never complacent. He had learned “the distinction between spiritual tranquility and the outward accidents of circumstances.” (Pp. 95-96.)

King concludes with a brief discussion of peace. To the world, peace is beautiful weather, plenty of money, a body and mind free of aches and pains, and the achievement of dreams. However, these are not true peace. True peace “is a calmness of soul amid terrors of trouble, inner tranquility amid the howl and rage of outer storm, the serene quiet at the center of a hurricane amid the howling and jostling winds.” (P. 96.)

Through faith in Jesus, a person obtains true peace. (I wonder if King ever obtained true peace. If he is judged by his works, it is doubtful.)

In closing, King writes, “Our capacity to deal creatively with shattered dreams is ultimately determined by our faith in God.” (P. 97.) “The Christian faith makes it possible for us nobly to accept that which cannot be changed, to meet disappointments and sorrow with an inner poise, and to absorb the most intense pain without abandoning our sense of hope, for we know . . . in life or in death. . . . ‘that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.’” (P. 97.)

In this essay, King discusses various ways people respond to shattered dreams. He offers sage advice on how people should react. This essay is one of his more inspiring ones.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on the Death of Evil upon the Seashore

King on the Death of Evil upon the Seashore

Thomas Allen

In “The Death of Evil upon the Seashore,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 75–86, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses evil, Israelites gaining their freedom from the Egyptians, colonialism, slavery, and segregation. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by discussing the reality of evil and comments on the Biblical description of evil. Evil exists; it is real. He remarks, “We see it [evil] expressed in tragic lust and inordinate selfishness. We see it in high places where men are willing to sacrifice truth on the altars of their self-interest.” (P. 76.) Evil is seen “in imperialistic nations crushing other people with the battering rams of social injustice.” (P. 76.) It is also seen in war.

Next, King discusses the Israelites held as slaves in Egypt. “Egypt symbolized evil in the form of humiliating oppression, ungodly exploitation, and crushing domination, and the Israelites symbolized goodness in the form of devotion and dedication to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (P. 77.) (King uses the Israelite enslavement in Egypt as an analogy. Egypt represents the South, which is evil, and the Israelites represent the Negroes, who are holy.) “Pharaoh [Southerners] stubbornly refused to respond to the cry of Moses [King]. . . .” (P. 77.) When the Israelites were freed from their slavery, they left Egypt. (Here, King departs from his analogy of the Egyptians enslaving the Israelites. When the Israelites gained their freedom from Egyptian oppression, they left Egypt. They did not integrate with the Egyptians. If King were true to his analogy, when he freed the Negroes from the oppression of segregation and discrimination, he would have led them out of the South. Instead, he led them to integrate with their oppressors [Southerners].)

Then, King notes “that evil is recalcitrant and determined, and never voluntarily relinquishes its hold short of a persistent, almost fanatical resistance.” (P. 77.)

Continuing, King notes that the story of the enslavement of the Israelites and their subsequent freedom “is revealed in the contemporary struggle between good in the form of freedom and justice and evil in the form of oppression and colonialism.” (P. 79.) Then, he comments on colonialism. According to King, “most of the Asian and African peoples were colonial subjects, dominated politically, exploited economically, and segregated and humiliated by foreign powers.” (P. 77.) (Most Asian and African countries subjected to European imperialism have a higher standard of living today than they would have without European imperialism.) With a focus on India, he comments on the colonies freeing themselves from European powers.

Next, King discusses the Negro’s struggle for freedom and justice. “In America the Negro slave was merely a depersonalized cog in a vast plantation machine.” (P. 80.) (Southern compassion brought down the South. When the Jewish Dutch slavers brought their leftover slaves that they failed to sell in the Caribbean to Virginia to sell, the Virginians should have refused to buy and let the Dutch dump their unsold slaves in the ocean. Instead, being compassionate, they bought the Negroes and treated them as indentured servants. When they had worked off their purchase price, they were set free. However, one Negro, Anthony Johnson, refused to let his Negro servant go free and got the court to declare him a lifetime servant, i.e., a slave. [See, “Two Great Black Leaders” by Thomas Allen.] Thus, a Negro brought Negro slavery to what would later become the United States.)

King writes, “For more than two hundred years Africa was raped and plundered, her native kingdoms disorganized, and her people and rulers demoralized.” (P. 80.) (He gives the impression that Europeans did the plundering.  On the contrary, Negroes did the plundering. Negroes would raid neighboring tribes and sell their captives to Europeans and Arabs.)

King comments on Jefferson’s opposition to slavery and the agony that it caused him. (However, King does not comment on Jefferson’s recommended solution, which was the physical separation of the races — the Biblical solution.)

Then, King comments on Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation. According to King, the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. (Like most people, King fails to understand that the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves. It only applied to slaves in areas beyond the control of the Union army. Slaves in the Union States and slaves in the parts of the South controlled by the Union army remained slaves. Moreover, slaves in the South gained their freedom before slaves in the Union States gained theirs.)

Continuing, King declares that although “Negroes enjoyed certain political and social opportunities during the Reconstruction,” Southerners were determined to keep them in slavery. (During Reconstruction, many Southerners were stripped of their political rights. [About the Battle of Gettysburg and Reconstruction, H.L.  Mencken wrote, “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.”] To cope with the sudden flood of ignorant, gullible, freed Negroes on the labor market, the Southern States enacted labor codes modeled after those in the North. However, the federal government quickly voided these codes in the South. Before Lincoln’s War, both free and enslaved Negroes were more integrated in the South than they were in the North. Negro collaboration with carpetbaggers and scalawags during Reconstruction to plunder the South is a root cause of the racial problems in the South. Also, because of the large number of Negroes in the South, the South resorted to statutory regulation of race relations. Because of the small numbers of Negroes in the North, the North could rely on customs, deed restrictions, labor unions, etc. to regulate race relations.) King considers segregation a new form of slavery.

King writes, “Despite the patient cry of many a Moses, they refused to let the Negro people go.” (P. 81.) (When Pharaoh let the Israelites go, they left Egypt. Never did King have any intention of leading the Negroes out of the country. If they were going to leave the country, they would have received a great deal of support and almost no opposition. However, even if King had tried to lead them to another land, most Negroes would not have followed him. Despite segregation, discrimination, and oppression, they knew that life in the United States, even in the South, was better for them than anywhere else that they could go. Nevertheless, the Pharaoh-Moses approach would have solved America’s race problems.)

King approves the Supreme Court’s desegregation ruling. However, the ruling is just the beginning; more is needed. (The more needed was forced integration. The desegregation ruling quickly turned into forced integration. Desegregation allows a student to go to the school of his choice, i.e., a Negro child could go to a White school if he so chooses and vice versa. Integration, like segregation, assigns students to a school based on race. Desegregation quickly degenerated into integration because the only way that a school could prove that it was fully desegregated was to be fully integrated.)

Continuing, King notes, “that evil carries the seed of its own destruction.” (P. 82.) (Being contrary to God’s law, integration is evil and carries the seed of its own destruction. The deterioration of the United States is evidence of this seed of destruction.)

Next, King states, “Because sin exists on every level of man’s existence, the death of one tyranny is followed by the emergence of another tyranny.” (P. 83.) (We are currently living in the tyranny of the civil rights movement, Zionism, and fascism in its various forms.) People in the civil rights movement must “avoid a superficial optimism [and] . . . a crippling pessimism.” (P. 83.) 

Then, King comments on God working in the world. He is convinced that God is on his side. (Except for atheists and perhaps agnostics, most evil-doers are convinced that God is on their side. That God was on King’s side is questionable because what he promoted is contrary to what the Bible teaches. If God were on his side, it is in the sense that He was on the side of the Assyrians and Babylonians when He sent them to punish Israel and the Jews by removing them from their homelands.)

In closing, King discusses some of the evils that Negroes have endured. (First, despite all the evils that have been inflicted on Negroes in America, Negroes in Africa have endured worse evils. Second, all races have suffered from evil.)

Throughout this essay, King uses the analogy of Moses (King) freeing the Israelites (Negroes) and leading them across the Red Sea (out of the country). However, King had no intention of completing the analogy.  He was not going to lead the Negroes out of America or even the South. On the contrary, he wanted to do what God would have prevented Moses from doing. Unlike Moses, who wanted to lead his people from the evils of Egypt, King wanted to integrate his people into the evils of the South. (For King, everything was evil in the South except the Negro and Communists.)

King often implies, if not right out states, that the Bible commands integration and condemns segregation. However, the opposite is true. The Bible contains stories promoting segregation and separation — the Exodus story, which King uses in this essay, is the best known. I know of no stories in the Bible supporting integration and amalgamation. On the contrary, there are stories condemning such acts.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues 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