Jews’ and Lincoln’s Treatment of Negroes

 Jews’ and Lincoln’s Treatment of Negroes

Thomas Allen

The following are some comments on the Jewish treatment of freed slaves and Lincoln toward Blacks and slaves.

Jewish Treatment of Freed Slaves

In “We Thought They Were White,” Dontell Jackson discusses the prominence of Jews in the slave trade during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. He provides some interesting information about Jewish exploitation of Blacks during Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction:

Writing in the journal of his travels throughout the South in the mid 19th century, author Fredrick Law Olmsted noted: “There is a considerable population of foreign origin, generally of the least valuable class; very dirty German Jews, especially, abound, and their characteristic shops (with their characteristic smells, quite as bad as in Cologne) are thickly set in the narrowest and meanest streets, which seem otherwise to be mainly inhabited by negroes. . . . A swarm of Jews has, within the last ten years, settled in every Southern town, many of them men of no character, opening cheap clothing and trinket shops, ruining or driving out of business many of the old retailers, and engaging in an unlawful trade with the simple Negroes, which is found very profitable.” Similarly, Mark Twain commented: “In the U. S. cotton states, after the war, the Jew came down in force, set up shop on the plantation, supplied all the negroes’ wants on credit, and at the end of the season was the proprietor of the negro’s share of the present crop and part of the next one. Before long the whites detested the Jew.”

Civil War Union William Tecumseh Sherman on arriving in the South was astonished by the number of Jewish carpetbaggers and scalawags that he encountered operating in the Confederate states, saying: “I found so many Jews & speculators here trading in cotton and secessionists had become open in refusing anything but gold that I have found myself bound to stop it.” General Ulysses Grant wrote to the Assistant Adjutant General of the US Army on December 17, 1862, : “I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the specie regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by the Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officer at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department. But they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere. They will land at any woodyard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves, they will act as agents for someone else, who will be at a military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy at an agreed rate, paying gold.”

Lincoln on Blacks and Slaves

Abraham Lincoln is the most idolized President of the United States. Although he never freed any slaves and did not want to live among freed Blacks, he is known as the Great Emancipator and the forefather of racial equality. Furthermore, he is praised for saving the Union, although he destroyed the Union organized under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave the country and converted it into a consolidated empire primarily for the benefit of big business and big finance.

In “The Consolidation of State Power Via Reconstruction, 1865–1890,” Thomas J. DiLorenzo provides some interesting yet little-known information about Abraham Lincoln.

– Lincoln was a White supremacist and believed that the races should be segregated.

– As a supporter of African colonization, he wanted to repatriate freed slaves to Africa or send them to another country; they should not be allowed to remain in the United States as social or political equals of Whites. They certainly should not be allowed to settle in the territories because they were reserved for Whites.

– He married into a slave-owning family, and slave labor from the family’s plantation subsidized him and his wife.

– Lincoln supported the Illinois “Black Codes,” which restricted the trades and occupations of Blacks. (During Reconstruction, the federal government prevented Southern States from adopting such codes.)

– Moreover, he ordered Union officers to return runaway slaves to their owners and required his cabinet to sign a pledge to support the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution.

– When he was in the Illinois Legislature, he supported amending the Illinois Constitution to forbid the immigration of Blacks into the state. Also, when he was in the Illinois Legislature, he voted to deny blacks the privilege to vote. Further, he opposed Negro citizenship and opposed allowing them to serve as jurors or hold public office. Moreover, he favored taxing Blacks to help pay for schools for White children.

– As an Illinois lawyer, Lincoln defended slave owners, but he never defended a fugitive slave.

To DiLorenzo’s list, Clyde Wilson, in “Getting Right With Abe,” adds that instead of emancipating the slaves that his wife inherited, he sold them. Additionally, in “Erasing Black Confederates,” Wanjiru Njoya notes that Lincoln personally supported an irrevocable constitutional amendment, commonly called the Corwin Amendment, that protected slavery forever.

(For more on Lincoln’s attitude toward Blacks, see “Lincoln on the Negro Race” and “Some Nineteenth Century Thought on the Negro” by Thomas Allen.)

With their rapine, Jews, Yankees, and Republicans impoverished the South so severely that more than a century elapsed before Southerners and Southern Blacks recovered from the poverty caused by Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction. 

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Allan Pinkerton

Allan Pinkerton

Thoms Allen 

In To the Victor Go the Myths & Monuments: The History of the First 100 Years of the War Against God and the Constitution, 1776 - 1876, and Its Modern Impact (Appleton, Wisconsin: American Opinion Foundation Publishing, 2016), Arthur R. Thompson provides some interesting information about Allan Pinkerton of the Pinkerton detective fame.

In Scotland, Allan Pinkerton (1819–1884) became a leader of the Chartists and formed the Glasgow Democratic Club. (Chartists were communistic revolutionists.) As a young man in Scotland, he was involved in radical activity and frequently disobeyed the law. Because of his involvement in the communist Chartist movement, he fled to the United States to avoid arrest.

In 1843, Pinkerton left Scotland and settled in Chicago, where he became the first police detective in Chicago. In 1850, in response to problems that various railroad companies were having that required a security system, Pinkerton partnered with E.G. Rucker to form Chicago’s first detective agency. A year later, the partnership dissolved, and Pinkerton provided the security for the railroads with his own agency, which became known as the Pinkerton National Detective Agency. Lincoln, who was an attorney for the Illinois Central Railroad, became a friend and patron of Pinkerton while he was providing security.

Since Pinkerton was a contact for John Brown, Brown was often a guest at Pinkerton’s house. Frequently, he disobeyed the law and aided and abetted the terrorist Brown. He aided Brown in his move to Kansas. After Brown’s arrest, Pinkerton developed a plan to free him. Disguised as a Southern planter, he learned the layout of the prison and concluded that he could not free Brown. Consequently, the plan never came to fruition. 

As a participant in the Underground Railroad, Pinkerton aided in moving escaped slaves to Canada. Furthermore, he was instrumental in creating the psychological basis for the events that brought Lincoln’s War into being. 

At the beginning of the war, Pinkerton became the Union’s main intelligence officer and helped form the US Secret Service. “As one wag of the day quipped, ‘While Pinkerton's right hand caught lawbreakers, his left hand broke the law.’” (P. 352.)

Pinkerton warned Lincoln that an assassination attempt would be made on him as he journeyed to Washington for his inauguration. As a result, Lincoln disguised himself and switched trains. However, no evidence existed that such an assignation attempt was planned — except in Pinkerton’s mind.

If he were alive today, Pinkerton would be a leading supporter and spokesman for the Democratic Party. His radicalism would have melded effortlessly with that of today’s Democrats.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws

Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws

Thomas Allen

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution)

When the States became members of the United States, they agreed to return fugitive slaves. As time passed and the Puritan Yankee abolitionists became highly influential in New England, New York, and the upper Midwest, the Northern States began refusing to aid in the return of runaway slaves. In other words, they began nullifying fugitive slave laws.

After the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, several Northern States effectively nullified it. (Presumably, Illinois and Indiana had no problem with the fugitive slave laws because they prohibited Blacks from entering them.)

Not unexpectedly, South Carolina objected to the nullifications. One reason that South Carolina gave for seceding was that various Northern States had nullified the fugitive slave laws. The reason that South Carolina listed slavery as a reason for its secession was that it was a prime example of the North’s hostility toward it and the North’s refusal to live by the Constitution.

Ironically, when South Carolina seceded, the Northern States no longer had a constitutional obligation to return runaway slaves to South Carolina. Thus, South Carolina’s secession effectively ended the need for the Northern States’ nullification, as far as South Carolina was concerned, because it was now a foreign country.

For South Carolina to secede to preserve slavery was absurd. Despite Northern States nullifying fugitive slave laws, slavery was better protected in the Union than outside it. Regardless of abolitionist rant, Republicans stressed that they had no intentions of abolishing slavery (see “Slavery Not the Reason” by Thomas Allen).

If South Carolina wanted to keep slavery intact, it would not accomplish that goal with secession. When it seceded, the United States ceased having any obligation to return runaway slaves to it.

Nevertheless, New England’s Puritanism, lust for plunder, and hatred of Southerners prevented them from letting South Carolina and the other Southern States leave the union in peace. The Yankee Puritans had seen the righteous, holy light, and they were determined to ram their vision of a sinless world down the throats of the Southern States despite the desiderata of the South. Puritans must free the world of sin so that Jesus can return — postmillennialism. (While the underlying principle of  postmillennialism is that the Holy Spirit becomes stronger, the underlying principle of today’s popular premillennialism is that the Holy Spirit becomes weaker.) Moreover, they would make the South pay for their liberation from sin by stealing as much wealth from the South as possible. (To the abolitionist Puritans, the greatest sin of all was slavery, despite the Bible not condemning slavery, which is why they abandoned the Bible.)

Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, and most other proponents of nullification taught using it to void unconstitutional federal acts. Although Madison approved of nullifying constitutional federal acts that a State disliked, most of the others did not teach using it to void constitutional acts of the federal government that a State disliked.

According to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, which is quoted above, the Constitution authorized fugitive slave laws. Moreover, it obligated States to return runaway slaves. Consequently, Northern States nullified fugitive slave laws not because they were unconstitutional, but because they disagreed with them. (Since the Northern States controlled Congress, why did they not repeal the fugitive slave laws or rewrite them to address their concerns?)

Nevertheless, if a State disagrees with a federal law that is constitutional, it has the right not to participate in its enforcement. However, it has no right to actively intervene or interfere with its enforcement, as some Northern States did when they nullified fugitive slave laws. If the law was unconstitutional, which the fugitive slave laws were not, a State has the right to interfere with its enforcement.

If the Puritan Yankee abolitionists found slavery so reprehensible that they would destroy the country and its constitution and cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in the process, they could have bought the slaves and set them free much more cheaply and without destroying the country and its constitution. These abolitionists cared only about Black slaves in the abstract. They did not care for them personally as did their owners.

Reconstruction showed how little Northerners cared about Blacks. They threw the slaves into the free-labor market. Most slaves had few skills beyond farm labor, and most had little training in taking care of themselves. Their masters had provided their housing, food, clothing, tools, medical care, etc., and took care of them in old age and when they were unable to work. After emancipation, they immediately had to learn to do all these things for themselves. Many failed, and many died.

Also, the North could have provided freed slaves with farmland in the territories. Yet, it did not because the territories were reserved for Whites.

Unfortunately, too many Blacks still have not escaped the slave mentality. Through various federal and State welfare and civil rights programs, they depend on governments to take care of them, as they had depended on the master — they have enslaved themselves to governments. Worse, they have enslaved taxpayers to support them.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks were making great strides in learning how to care for themselves and to free themselves from a slave mentality. Discrimination and segregation in the North and the South forced them to become independent and rely on themselves. Then came the Civil Rights Era. Consequently, this progress was retarded and thwarted.

Appendix. The Tenth Amendment Center

The Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) is a strong supporter of nullification. However, it goes beyond the teachings of Jefferson and Calhoun. While they wrote that a State has the right to nullify federal acts that it finds unconstitutional, as far as I know, they never promoted the nullification of constitutional acts with which a State disagrees. (When the Northern States nullified fugitive slave laws, they nullified constitutional laws with which they disagreed.) 

However, TAC goes beyond nullifying unconstitutional federal acts. It not only endorses a State nullifying unconstitutional federal acts but also endorses a State nullifying constitutional federal acts that it dislikes — except for Southern States nullifying civil rights acts of the federal government, including those that are unconstitutional, such as school desegregation and integration. (I have not found TAC expressly opposing or condemning the Southern States and communities attempting to nullify federal acts outlawing segregation and forcing integration. However, it does support Communist agents and Communist-front organizations nullifying State and local segregation laws and practices. Consequently, I infer that it opposes States and communities attempting to nullify these federal acts.) Thus, TAC supports Northern States' nullifying fugitive slave laws and opposes South Carolina's objection.

TAC seems to have a low opinion of Calhoun, despite him probably being the most brilliant and original political philosopher that the Western Hemisphere has ever produced, because he supported giving nullification real teeth. Calhoun argued that a State could prevent the enforcement of an unconstitutional federal law within its borders by vetoing it and thus making it unenforceable, as did Vermont’s nullification of the fugitive slave laws, which authorized arresting and penalizing federal officials attempting to enforce the fugitive slave laws. TAC objects to giving nullification teeth — at least in practice. Consequently, TAC rejects a State enforcing its nullification by jailing federal agents who attempt to enforce the nullified act in that State. In its opinion and Madison’s, such nullification allows one State to impose its will on the other States by preventing the enforcement of a nullified act within the nullifying State but not in the other States. Yet, TAC only weakly, if at all, objects to other States imposing their will on the nullifying State. In short, while Calhoun advocates nullification-heavy, TAC and Madison advocate nullification-light.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More political 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.

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.

Republicans Owned Blacks

Republicans Owned Blacks

Thomas Allen

I posted a comment on a comment on “Trump Surprises BLM Activist!” by Vince Quill (https://wltreport.com/2023/11/30/president-trump-surprises-blm-activist/). [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.] My comment was “From 1865 to around 1960, the Republicans owned the slaves; then, the Democrats acquired ownership.” Not surprisingly, my comment received several negative responses. For the most part, these commenters seem to be victims of orthodox establishment propaganda that is called history.

Most of the commenters to the newsletter containing this article are anti-Democrats, anti-RINOs, pro-Republicans, especially pro-Trump, and racial nihilists who practice the new morality. (Interesting, when I commented on another article that most commenters of this newsletter were racial nihilists who practiced the new morality, that comment was censored.) Many have Dixiephobic and, especially, Confederaphobic tendencies. 

This discussion is presented in the appendix. Only the pertinent comments are given.

What caused the negative comments was that “the Republicans owned slaves.” Although this phrase is a little hyperbola, it is the truth.

During Reconstruction, carpetbaggers and scalawags, backed by the Union army, used freed slaves to aid them in their plunder of the South. As payment, Blacks filled many elected and appointed political positions and used their new power to further plunder the South. They increased the debt in some Southern States so unbearably high that these States repudiated their debts following the end of Reconstruction.

In the South, Republicans maintained control of Blacks during Reconstruction. In the North, Republicans gained control of Blacks by giving them the vote via the Fifteenth Amendment.

After Reconstruction, Republicans maintained control of Blacks, although they mostly neglected them. Moreover, Republicans left the control of race relations to the States where it constitutionally belonged.

In the South, States made voting difficult for Blacks primarily for two reasons. (1) During Reconstruction, Blacks had proven their incompetence at participating in government.  (2) Most Blacks would have voted for Republicans, the party that had destroyed the South.

During the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the Democrats started replacing Republicans as owners of Blacks. The Democrats acquired ownership of Blacks by offering them more booty and privileges than the Republicans were offering. President Johnson sealed the deal with the Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty.

Moving on to the founding of the Democratic Party, E claims that the modern Democratic Party was formed in 1828, and Jefferson was not a founder of it. He is deceiving with a partial truth. Apparently, he hates Democrats and does not want anything with “Republican” in its name to be associated with the Democratic Party. (You will notice from E’s comment to my comment on the founding principles of the Republican Party, that ignorance and stupidity consume him. Since he cannot refute my claim, he resorts to name-calling. He is the one who has drunk the cool aid of orthodox establishment propaganda, which is erroneously called history.)

According to Compton’s Pictured Encyclopedia (1957), The World Book Encyclopedia (1971), and Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (1983), the Democratic Party grew out of the Democratic-Republican Party, which Thomas Jefferson founded. The Democratic-Republican Party advocated a strict interpretation of the Constitution and States’ rights. In 1828, it split into two parties: the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party, which the Whig Party later absorbed. Representing the Eastern interest, the National Republican Party advocated nationalism, protective tariffs, and centralized banking (then called national banking) — policies that the Republican Party advocated after the collapse of the Whig Party. Representing the Western and Southern interests, the Democratic Party advocated States’ rights, tariffs for revenue only, and an independent Treasury — thus, it continued the original policies of the Democratic-Republican Party that Jefferson founded but under a shorter name.

When wokeism and political correctness do not consume it, the Democratic Party claims Jefferson (the first president of the Democratic-Republican Party) and Jackson (the first president of the Democratic Party) as its founders.

As for Abraham Lincoln, whom all these commenters idolize, he believed in and promoted corporate welfare (subsidies to big businesses), protective tariffs (a form of corporate welfare), internal improvements (a form of corporate welfare), national banking (now called centralized banking), and preserving the territories for Whites (Black should be kept out of them). (I suspect that these commenters oppose corporate welfare and centralized banking, although they may support corporate welfare in the form of protective tariffs.) Lincoln’s job as president was to serve big business and convert the United States from a federation of sovereign nations to a consolidated empire. In this task, he was highly successful.

Appendix

The following are the original comment I commented on and the pertinent comments that followed. The pseudonyms have been changed to protect the guilty. 

C: Yep, democrats keeping their slaves on the plantation since the end of the Civil War. Only they no longer house them on their property.

Me to C: From 1865 to around 1960, the Republicans owned the slaves; then, the Democrats acquired ownership.

E to Me: That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. You must be reading those revisionist history books.

The foundation of the Republican Party was on abolitionism (that means that a person is AGAINST slavery, and not for it), and the Democrat Party was so adamantly for it, at least one Republican Congressman was murdered on the Floor by a Democrat (but because he was a Democrat, he apparently was never charged, just like today). After losing the Civil War, the Democrat Party formed the KKK, to intimidate and kill “uppity niggers”that dared to speak up. In the 1960’s, the Democrat Party went on a new path: make blacks willing slaves, by offering them money to have babies, not marry, not get an education, and as a result, they were beholden to the Democrat Party for all "free money" and such they got.

D to E: Thank you, you explained it a lot better then I did, but I was trying to explain it as simply as I could because thats [sic] how you have to for some people that never listened in history class. About the black babies they should read about the abortionist herself Margret [sic] Sanger. And if anyone doesn’t think Librals [sic] aren’t trying to bring Socialism to us, they could read the 8 rules of socialism by Saul Alinski [sic]. Oh and lets [sic] not forget Democrats voted into Congress a good friend of Joe Biden’s The one Head Master of the KKK, ROBERT BYRD. And Hillary Clinton done [sic] her college thesis on Saul Alinski [sic] and praised how great she thought he was.

Me to E: The foundation of the Republican Party was to keep Blacks out of the territories, to subsidize big business, and to establish central banking, which it did with the national banking law. The Republicans could have aided the freed slaves by giving them land in the territories. However, since the territories were preserved for Whites, they didn’t. They wanted them to stay in the South as punishment for Southerners. Moreover, Lincoln stated that he had no intention of freeing the slaves until he could use freeing the slaves as war propaganda. He always said that he was fighting to preserve the Union, which is why nearly all Northerners fought. His Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves because it only applied to slaves in places that the Union army did not control. It exempted places under the control of the Union Army. Moreover, if Lincoln had gone to war to free the slaves, he would not have had much of an army because Northerners would have rebelled. Most Northerners despised the abolitionists almost as much as Southerners despised them. Northerners feared if slaves were freed a significant number of them would migrate to the North, and they did not want Blacks in the North. Further, the slaves were freed in the Confederate States before they were freed in the Union States. The KKK was created to protect Southerners from an occupying army as the French did during WWII. Unfortunately for the Blacks, they were the tools that the carpetbaggers and scalawags used to pillage the South, and thus, they received the brunt of the retaliations. The people who formed the KKK disbanded it a few years later. However, the KKK was later resurrected, and in the 1920s, it was stronger in the Republican North than in the Democratic South. This will surprise most of these people who cannot think beyond “Democrats created the KKK” and “all are Democrats evil,” Jefferson is the father of the Democratic Party, and the last truly Jeffersonian president was a Democrat, Cleveland.

E to Me: Oh, my God; you drank the whole jug of Cool-Aid! Just where did you get this claptrap? From the Democrat Party website? I suppose that next, you’ll inform us, that the Democrat Party was really the party of Black Freedom, and it was the Republican Party that wanted to keep the slaves, right?

Stop trying to greenlight us, and try to convince us that a turd is really a Baby Ruth bar.

For everyone’s edification, the modern Democrat Party was formed in 1820, not by Jefferson; he was long-dead by then.

Me to E:  Revisionist history books are often closer to the truth than are establishment orthodox history books. Examples are the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and 9-11.

Me to Me: Those who give the down votes on this comment [on revisionist history] must believe the official story of the Kennedy assassination and the official governmental conspiracy story of 9-11 because they are the orthodox history of these events. If they are consistent, they believe that the COVID so-called vaccine saved millions of lives while killing almost no one because that the establishment orthodox history.

D to Me: Such BS . Guess history wasn’t one of your strong subjects. This is a little bit of history, Abraham Lincoln - A REPUBLICAN writer of the emancipation to free the slaves. DEMOCRATS FOUGHT AGAINST IT. AND has had the blacks under their thumb for 200 + years later and a commie loving Democrat in office again that’s letting every TOM, DICK and HARRY cross their open border, has every Communist country pointing nuclear weapons at us, has depleted our oil supplies, and our military, there’s no way we’d ever win. I’m glad blacks are waking up.

H to Me: You need to catch up on your history. Democrats have been changing the history so know one will know the truth about what they did. The civil war proves that the Republicans wanted freedom of slaves and the democrats did not. The democrats started the KKK, THEY WERE SYMPATHIC [sic] TO THE Nazis, THEY SUPPRESSED THE BLACK COMMUNITY AND TREATED THEM LIKE 2ND CLASS CITIZENS FROM THE GET GO. Blacks mostly voted Republican from after the Civil War and through the early part of the 20th century. That’s not surprising when one considers that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, and the white, segregationist politicians who governed Southern states in those days were Democrats. Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku, WAS A BLACK BUSINESS MAN WHO SOLD SLAVES!!!! Nwaubani Ogogo's slaves were sold through the ports of Calabar and Bonny in the south of what is today known as Nigeria. IMAGINE THAT.

Me to H: Much of my information comes from the time that the Republicans were in charge of writing history. Your sources of the civil war, which was not a civil war, seem to come from the Democratic, liberal, progressive, and neoconservative sanitized version of that war. How could the KKK be sympathetic to the Nazis when the Nazis did not arrive until about 70 years later? By that time, most KKK organizations were governmental sting operations to entrapped dimwits. Lincoln was a racist bigot who wanted to repatriate all Blacks. Since slavery was better protected within the Union than outside the Union, slavery was not the cause of the war. (Here are some comments that Lincoln said about Blacks: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2019/10/lincoln-on-negro-race.html. Here is what the typical antebellum Northerner thought of Blacks: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-antebellum-northerners-opinion-of.html. Here is evidence that slavery did not cause the war: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2012/12/slavery-not-reason.html. Of course, you are too lazy and opinionated to read them.)

The founding principles of the Republican Party were hatred of the Constitution and Southerners, disunion, and the concentration of political power in the federal government. Being a White man’s party, the Republican Party had little use for Blacks — free or slave. (https://tcallenco.blogspot....[?])

Moreover, the Democratic-controlled Confederate states freed their slaves before the Republican-controlled Union States freed theirs. Further, Blacks received the vote in the South before they received it in most of the Northern States.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues.

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.

King on a Knock at Midnight

King on a Knock at Midnight

by Thomas Allen

In “A Knock at Midnight,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 53–64, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses various devastations facing mankind with an emphasis on the decline of moral standards, the church, and race. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by discussing the potential for a third world war and its devastation. Then, he mentions some of the devastation from which science has saved mankind. Unfortunately, science cannot save mankind from the destructive forces that he now possesses — nuclear weapons.

Such a bleak future causes many people to have emotional and psychological problems. Fear, anxiety, and depression paralyze many.

Next, King discusses the moral crisis. “Moral principles have lost their distinctiveness.” (P. 55.) For many people, absolute right and wrong become what the majority accepts. “Right and wrong are relative to likes and dislikes and the customs of a particular community.” (P. 55.)

Continuing, King remarks that the cardinal sin has become “Thou shalt not be caught.” Consequently, “the cardinal virtue is to get by.” (P. 55.) He writes, “The Darwinian concept of the survival of the fittest has been substituted by a philosophy of the survival of the slickest.” (P. 55.)

Then, King comments on the church. Church membership has grown, yet moral standards, i.e., not only sexual morality but also honesty, integrity, etc., have declined. (The church has continued to fail to achieve one of its important missions: instill high moral standards. Today, moral standards continue to decline along with church membership. Not only is sexual immorality rising, but so are lying, stealing, etc.)

King blames the rise of immorality on a loss of faith. “[M]en have lost faith in God, faith in man, and faith in the future.” (P. 57.) For many people, life is meaningless. Yet, without hope, a person cannot really live.

Next, King writes, “Everybody wishes to love and to be loved. He who feels that he is not loved feels that he does not count.” (P. 58.) (A person wants people whom he knows to love him — especially the people whom he loves. He seeks love in the concrete instead of in the abstract. King implies that people desire to be loved in the abstract. Abstract love is the type of love that abolitionists gave the slaves. Once the slaves were free, most abolitionists offered them no personal love or assistance. On the other hand, most slave owners loved their slaves, and most slave owners cared about their slaves when they were freed, and many tried to help them.)

Then, King discusses the plight of the Negro. Patiently, the Negro has knocked on the door of the Christian church begging for social justice. He chastises the church for not condemning racial segregation and failing to promote integration. (Today, King would praise the church. With rare exceptions, all churches condemn racial segregation and promote integration. The few who question integration are mostly mute. A strong correlation seems to exist between the church promoting integration and social justice and the decline of the relevance of the church and the rise of immortality [stealing, lying, sexual perversion, etc.]. Has the church’s replacement of the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King made the country better?)

Continuing, King states, “What more pathetically reveals the irrelevancy of the church in present-day world affairs than its witness regarding war?” (P. 59.) (If King means to bring about peaceful solutions, he is right. If he means supporting bellicosity, he is wrong. Today, most churches seem to prefer war to peace — especially when Israel is involved.) He notes that during World War II, churches endorsed and supported the warmongers.

Next, King condemns the church for not siding with the poor over the rich. (That is, the church does not promote forced wealth distribution, the welfare states, a guaranteed income, etc. that King advocated as the solution to what he considered economic injustice. Most churches today advocate King’s economic policies. Nevertheless, such promotion has hastened rather than slowed the church’s decline into irrelevance.) King condemns the Russian Orthodox Church because it “became so inextricably bound to the despotic czarist regime that it became impossible to be rid of the corrupt political and social system without being rid of the church. Such is the fate of every ecclesiastical organization that allies itself with things-as-they-are.” (P. 59.) (Today, most likely, King would praise these churches that have allied with the federal government in implementing most of King’s social and economic recommendations. Does this explain the decline of the church into irrelevancy? These churches have to be abolished before people can free themselves from King’s crippling policies.)

Then, King remarks that the church is “the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state and never its tool.” (P. 59.) (Throughout the Civil Rights Era, the church has been a poor conscience. It has been more of a tool than a guide or critic.) According to King, if the church does not actively advance the struggle for peace, economic justice (the welfare state), and racial justice (integration, quotas, etc.), it will atrophy into an irrelevant social club. (Although the church has failed as a peacemaker, it has ardently advanced King’s economic and social justice. Still, it has atrophied into an irrelevant social club.)

King condemns the notion of a Negro church and a White church. The church should be fully integrated. (Apparently, King prefers a mongrel church and wants to destroy an important part of the Negro culture: the Negro church. Contrary to what King believes, Whites did not initiate racially separate churches; Negroes did — at least in the South. In the South, Negroes used to attend the same churches that Whites attended. However, they wanted their independence, so they established their own churches.)

Continuing, King describes two types of Negro churches. “One burns with emotionalism, and the other freezes with classism.” (P. 60.) The emotional church reduces “worship to entertainment, places more emphasis on volume than on content and confuses spirituality with muscularity.” (P. 60.) The class church “has developed a class system and boasts of its dignity, its membership of professional people, and its exclusiveness.” (P. 60.) Its “worship service is cold and meaningless, the music dull and uninspiring, and the sermon little more than a homily on current events.” (P. 60.) (King’s objection to both types of churches seems to be that they did not fervently preach King’s economic and social justice.)

King writes, “The church today is challenged to proclaim God’s Son, Jesus Christ, to be the hope of men in all of their complex personal and social problems. Many will continue to come in quest of answers to life’s problems.” (P. 61). (Many churches are failing this challenge because they preach the gospel of King and his disciples.)

In closing, King comments on the bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama.

Like many people, King is good at identifying problems but poor at providing solutions. Although King does not offer specific solutions for most of the problems that he discusses, he implies that implementing what he advocates will solve them. However, his solutions only exacerbate the problems rather than alleviate them. One of his problems is believing that the Bible teaches integration and amalgamation. On the contrary, it teaches segregation and separation.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on Love in Action

King on Love in Action

by Thomas Allen

In “Love in Action,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 31–41, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses Jesus’s crucifixion and the lessons it teaches, such as forgiveness and spiritual blindness, and the need for moral enlightenment. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King cites Luke 23:34: “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (P. 33) (Once more, King does not practice what he preaches. He never seems to forgive Southerners and segregationists for resisting his agenda.)

Continuing, King praises Jesus for his ability to match his words with action. (King often fails to match his words with action. However, he does imply that he fails to meet the standards set by Jesus.) He chastises people for promoting the principles of Christianity but who practice paganism, who claim that they want peace while preparing for war, or who ardently plea for justice yet pursue injustice.

Next, King discusses Jesus’s teaching about forgiveness. (However, King seldom shows forgiveness for Southerners and never for segregationists.) He notes, “Forgiveness is not an occasional act; it is a permanent attitude.” (P. 33.) (King never acquires this attitude.)

Then, King writes, “Yet Jesus taught them that only through a creative love for their enemies could they be children of their Father in heaven and also that love and forgiveness were absolute necessities for spiritual maturity.” (P. 33.) (Based on his attitude toward Whites in general and Southerners and segregationists in particular, King never achieves spiritual maturity.)

Continuing, King comments, “The potential beauty of human life is constantly made ugly by man’s ever-recurring song of retaliation.”  (P. 34.) (In a sense, King’s movement is based on retaliation — getting even for wrongs, real or perceived. It is void of the forgiveness that Jesus taught and that King claims that people ought to have.)

Next, King states his opposition to capital punishment. “Capital punishment is society’s final assertion that it will not forgive.” (P. 34.) He seems to imply that criminals should not be punished for their crimes (except segregationists). (Perhaps the reason that he opposes punishing criminals for their crimes is that on a per capita basis, Negroes commit far more crimes than other races. Also, many of his followers are rioters who are arrested for various crimes although most are never tried.)

Then, King remarks that Jesus “did not seek to overcome evil with evil. He overcame evil with good.” (P. 35.) (Once again, King falls short of Jesus’s teachings. His movement has brought far more evil than good.)

Besides forgiveness, King states that Jesus taught about people’s spiritual blindness. The men who urged his crucifixion “were not bad men but rather blind men.” (P. 35.) (Many of the men who advocated the crucifixion of Jesus were bad men, such as the Pharisees, who were disciples of Lucifer.)

According to King, people who consider war as the solution to the problems of the world, are not bad men but are blind. (Contrary to what King claims, many of these men are not blind; they are bad men. They are disciples of Lucifer; they are evil people.)

Correctly, King asserts, “Wisdom born of experience should tell us that war is obsolete.” (P. 36.) (The way that most political systems are designed, the worst men become rulers. Most rulers are power-hungry, sociopathic, sadistic miscreants. Most of the rest are stupid puppets whom power-hungry, sociopathic, sadistic miscreants manipulate and control. Rarely does a wise statesman rule.)

King is a proponent of disarmament. (King-idolizing conservatives take note: You need to promote disarmament even if it is unilateral.)

Then, King proceeds to comment on slavery. “Slavery in America was perpetuated not merely by human badness but also by human blindness.” (P. 37.) (Whereas King excuses most other evils, including the crucifixion of Jesus, as a result of human blindness, he declares that slavery in America resulted primarily from human badness.) “Men convinced themselves that a system that was so economically profitable must be morally justifiable.” (P. 37.) (No mention is made of Africans enslaving their fellow Negroes and selling Negro slaves for a profit to Europeans and others.) To justify slavery, theories of racial superiority were developed. (Racial supremacy did not disappear with the civil rights movement. It merely shifted from White supremacy to Black supremacy.) Religion, the Bible, philosophy, and science were mobilized to support White supremacy. (Now, religion, the Bible, philosophy, and science are mobilized to prove White inferiority.)

Continuing, King states that the blindness that justified slavery is found in racial segregation. He writes, “Although some men are segregationists merely for reasons of political expediency and economic gain, not all of the resistance to integration is the rear-guard of professional bigots.” (P. 38.) Some seek to preserve segregation because they believe that it “is best for themselves, their children, and their nation.” (P. 38.) (Segregation was less divisive and destructive than integration has been. Integration has been so demoralizing and destructive that today more Negroes are openly segregationists than are Whites.)

Correctly, King comments that segregationists claim that God is the first segregationist. Then, to disprove their argument, he offers the absurd example that some segregationists used: “Red birds and black birds don’t fly together.” (These segregationists failed to use an authentic and appropriate example of God being the first segregationist. God segregated Cain from his family after he killed Able.) 

Next, King claims that the segregationist argument that the Negro’s brain is smaller than the brain of the White man is pseudo-science. (The notion that Negroes have smaller brains on average is not pseudo-science. Actual measurements show that the average Negro brain is smaller than the average White brain.)

To support his assertion that the idea of an inferior or superior race is false, King cites several anthropologists, all of whom are left-wing Negrophiles. (If no inferior or superior races exist, why is the White race considered so inferior that it must be exterminated and policies are in place to genocide it? Such policies include miscegenation, unrestricted nonwhite immigration, affirmative action, and never-ending wars involving countries that are predominately White.)

Then, King says that the four primary types of blood are found in all races. (Nevertheless, a person’s race can be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his blood. See “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen.)

Correctly, King writes, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” (P. 39.) (The history of the United States for the last 160 years proves this statement. Unfortunately, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity have been accelerating at an accelerating pace as the years pass. The point has been reached that if the White race becomes any more ignorant and stupid, it will perish. When it perishes, so will Western Civilization and the material advantages that it has given the world.)

Then, King comments that the church is the moral guardian of the community. It must continuously remind people “that they have a moral responsibility to be intelligent.” (P. 39.) However, the church has often failed in this task. (Obviously, King is saying that the church has failed to condemn adequately the sin of segregation and to preach fervently the virtues of integration. Today, the reverse is true: Segregation is ardently condemned, and integration is fervently praised. Is the country, which now is close to splintering, any better off?)

Continuing, King remarks that Christians need to avoid intellectual and moral blindness. (That is, they need to support integration and oppose segregation. Also, they need to support a guaranteed annual income and the welfare states.) Not only must people conquer their sins, they must also conquer their ignorance.

King warns that if Western Civilization continues to degenerate, it will fall hopelessly into a bottomless void. (The programs and policies advocated by King, most of which Western Civilization has adopted, have hastened this deterioration.)

King notes that “intellectual and moral blindness is a dilemma that man inflicts upon himself by his tragic misuse of freedom and his failure to use his mind to its fullest capacity.” (P. 40.) (Unfortunately, King was never able to overcome his intellectual or moral blindness. On the contrary, he seemed to have reveled in them.) Continuing, he writes, “Only through the bringing together of head and heart —  intelligence and goodness — shall man rise to a fulfillment of his true nature.” (P. 40.) (Again, King failed. He never succeeded in uniting intelligence and goodness. He was seldom kind toward Southerners and never toward segregationists. Whatever intelligence that he had, he used to destroy them.) He defines intelligence as “a call for open mindedness, sound judgment, and love for truth.” (P. 40.) (Thus, since King was closed-minded, seldom showed sound judgment, and had little love for the truth, he lacked intelligence. To him, segregationists were closed-minded. Segregationists lacked sound judgment, while integrationists had sound judgment. Segregationists hated the truth, but integrationists loved the truth.)

Except in the eyes of King-idolizing conservatives, King, like the rest of us, falls far short of the example that Jesus gives us. He lacks forgiveness. Moreover, he is spiritually blind. Also, he suffers from sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Regrettably, King fails to practice what he preaches, which is a common human trait.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.