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.

Three Facts About the South

Three Facts About the South

Thomas Allen

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

States’ Right of Secession

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

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

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

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

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

Music

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

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

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

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

The South Was Right

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

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

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Do Human Races Exist? –Main Article

Do Human Races Exist?

Thomas Allen

Do human races exist? I discussed this issue in comments to two different articles. First, I discussed it with RN1 in comments to an article in “We Love Trump Report”: “Boston Mayor Defends Sending Out Invitations For Segregated Holiday Party” by Russell Bartlett at https://wltreport.com/2023/12/14/boston-mayor-defends-sending-invitations-segregated-holiday-party/. Second, I discussed it with RN2 in comments to an article in The New American: “Burundi’s President Calls for Public Execution of Homosexuals”  by Angeline Tan January 2, 2024, at https://thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/burundis-president-calls-for-public-execution-of-homosexuals/#comment-6359761180. I have changed the pseudonyms of the commenters to protect the guilty. The discussions are in the appendices.

If human races do not exist, how can racial discrimination occur? How can a nonexistent race discriminate against a nonexistent race? Further, if races do not exist, then White supremacy and White privileges cannot exist because the White race does not exist. Yet, progressives and liberals who are the most adamant in the notion that races do not exist are the most vociferous at decrying White supremacy and White privilege.

Most progressives and liberals claim that the various human races are social constructs and do not exist genetically. Many conservatives, such as RN1 and RN2, act as though they agree with them. Conservatives do so by asserting that only one race, the human race, exists; races are merely artificial constructs created by evolutionists. Most proponents of the racial social construct theory are racial nihilists, who believe that human races do not exist or if they do, they are irrelevant. 

According to the racial social construct theory, genetics does not determine a person’s race; societies’ arbitrary choice and selection determine it. Consequently, if races are social constructs, then merely abolishing the White racial construct can abolish White privileges and White supremacy.

The best answer that racial nihilists, like RN1 and RN2,  can give to the question of racial discrimination is that the races exist as social constructs, and, therefore, they and their names are fluid and can change at a whim. (In a limited sense, this is true of everything in nature. The names of everything in the universe can and do change from one culture to another and from one era to another. However, the substance or essence of the thing whose name is changed remains the same.) However, contrary to their belief, the genetics of the races is fixed and cannot change — unless the theory of evolution is correct.

Moreover, many White conservatives, like RN1 and RN2, pride themselves on denying the existence of races or at least not noticing a person’s race. They declare that only one race exists: the human race. Are these conservatives ignorant, stupid, liars, or self-deceivers? Even the nonwhites whom these conservatives seem to be trying to placate openly admit the existence of genetic races. These conservatives are racial nihilists who are practicing the new morality of sacrificing their own race, the White race (a.k.a. Aryan, Adamite, or Homo albus), on the altar of humanity. (See "Old Morality – New Morality” by Thomas Allen.)

Although racial nihilists, most of whom are Whites, claim that human races do not exist, nearly all nonwhites claim that they do exist. Thus, nonwhites show more intelligence and honesty concerning race than do White racial nihilists. (See “Views on Race” by Thomas Allen.)

People who assert that only one race exists are calling Moses and God liars. God  through Moses declares in Deuteronomy 23:2, “No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh.” (See “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2” by Thomas Allen.) If only one race exists, mongrels cannot exist. Since, according to the Bible, mongrels exist, then more than one race must exist.

Also, Jeremiah writes, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). (See "Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race" by Thomas Allen.) The implication is that a leopard cannot change its spots. God created the leopard the way it is; genetics fixes its appearance, character, temperament, etc. Likewise, the Ethiopian cannot change his skin. That is, when God created the Melanochroi and the other races, he genetically fixed their physical appearances and genetically influenced their intelligence, character, temperament, etc. Therefore, the racial characteristics of the human races are fixed and cannot change. They are immutable because God fixed them when he created the races. (Although both RN1 and RN2 give God the credit for creating man, they do not give Him credit for creating the various human races. Instead, they resort to Darwinism, although they deny that they are doing so.)

Nearly all race deniers like RN1 and RN2 confuse race, which is genetic, with ethnicity, which is cultural. Almost everyone can distinguish between a Norwegian and a Swede, who are Aryans (Whites) of the Nordic racial type, on the one hand, and a Zulu and a Tswana, who are Negroes (Blacks) of the Bantu racial type, on the other hand. Anyone who claims that he cannot tell the difference is either brain-dead or a liar. However, almost no one can distinguish between Norwegians and Swedes based on physical appearance. Likewise, almost no one can distinguish between Zulus and Tswana based on physical appearance. Norwegians and Swedes are ethnicities of the Aryan race, and Zulus and Tswana are ethnicities of the Negro race. Thus, races and ethnicities are not the same. Ethnicities are subdivisions of a race and are based on culture. (See “Some Comments on Race and Ethnicity” by Thomas Allen for further explanation of the differences between race and ethnicity.) 

Furthermore, a person’s race can be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his skeleton (see “Skeleton Differences of Human Races” by Thomas Allen). Moreover, a person’s race can also be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen). Also, races differ significantly in nonphysical characteristics (see "Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen).

Human races are as genetically fixed as are human sexes. (Nevertheless, human races [species] can crossbreed and produce hybrids, as can some species of Canis [the dog, wolf, coyote, and jackal] and Bos [the gaur and the gayal, the American bison and the yak, the American bison and the wisent, the American bison and the domestic cattle, and the wisent and domestic cattle].) Although RN1 and RN2 recognize some of the genetic differences between the races, they reject the existence of the human races.

Moreover, RN1 and RN2 and people like them claim that human races do not exist because the Bible does not specifically use “race” in the biological sense. If they are consistent, they would argue that fungi and bacteria do not exist because the Bible does not mention them. Yet, these people accept the existence of fungi and bacteria. Many things exist that the Bible does not mention. Because the Bible does not mention “race” does not mean that human races do not exist.

Both RN1 and RN2 are racial nihilists and consider themselves conservatives. While denying that human races exist, they claim that they can distinguish between the human races.

RN2 displaces far more intelligence than does RN1. RN1 can only repeat catchphrases that he has heard or been taught. He believes that only one race, the human race, exists. He shows little understanding of why he believes that human races do not exist other than he has been told that they do not exist. 

At least, RN2 can explain why he believes that human races do not exist. Although he is wrong, he can offer a plausible argument for his belief.

RN1 criticizes Mayor Wu of Boston for not inviting Whites to her party. Then, he has the audacity to declare that “we’re all the same race. The Human race.” If we are all of the same race, then her party could not have been racially segregated, as RN1 and the article assert. How could she apologize to Whites if Whites do not exist? Likewise, like most people of his kind, RN1 confuses race, which is genetic, with ethnicity, which is cultural.

RN2 rejects the notion that God created the human races. According to him, Darwinian principles, such as mutation, natural selection, and adaptation, explain the origin of the various human races. Although he denies that he is an evolutionist, he uses evolutionist principles. Furthermore, he claims that evolutionists created biological classification. Yet, the first known classifier was Adam, who named the animals. Moreover, modern-day biological classification preceded Darwin’s theory of evolution by about a century. 

Although RN2 states that the principle of “each after its kind” is correct, he implies that it does not apply to humans. If true, we should see East Asians producing Negroes regularly. Despite asserting that human races do not exist, he claims that he can distinguish between East Asians and Negroes.

Like many Christian “creationists” who use evolutionary principles to explain the origins of human races, RN2 prefers using “people groups” instead of “race.” Many evolutionists prefer “geographical populations” instead of “race.” 

Moreover, he errs when he states that “species” is a term that evolutionists invented in the fourteenth century. Since the theory of evolution came into being in the nineteenth century, evolutionists could not have invented a term that came into being four hundred years earlier.

Also, when RN2 asserts that God does not prohibit mongrels in His assembly, he errs. As quoted above, Deuteronomy 23:2 clearly states that God does not allow mongrels in His assembly. RN2 claims that this verse means that pagans are not allowed in God’s assembly. Thus, he translates the Hebrew word for “mongrel” as “pagan.” He is the only person whom I have encountered who gives such a translation. Most others erroneously translate the Hebrew word for “mongrel” as a person of “illegitimate birth,” “illicit birth,” “illegitimate or unlawful marriage,” “forbidden marriage,” “born out of wedlock,” or a similar phrase.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2: Appendices.

More social issues articles.

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 1

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 1

Thomas Allen

In “Racism and the White Backlash,” Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 71–108, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses White backlash, White supremacy, racism, slavery, the American Indian, liberals, and the church. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

(First, I must remind the reader that most conservatives and nearly all conservative commentators consider King a conservative. Furthermore, many conservative commentators assert that King is an archconservative and the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him. Hereafter, all these conservatives are referred to as King-idolizing conservatives. Since King is an archconservative, these King-idolizing conservatives should advocate everything that King advocated.)

King writes, “It would be neither true nor honest to say that the Negro’s status is what it is because he is innately inferior or because he is basically lazy and listless or because he has not sought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.” (P. 71.) (Many, but not all, Negroes proved King correct during the Jim Crow Era. Although many were lazy and listless, many were not, and they lifted themselves up. A vibrant Negro middle class was rising, which is why Stalin sent agents to destroy the Negro middle class. During the Civil Rights Era with all the benefits and privileges given to the Negro, people of all races suspect that the Negro race is inferior to all the other races. If it were not, it would not need these special benefits and privileges. Moreover, the welfare state reveals that many Negroes are lazy and listless.)

King blames all the Negro’s problems on Whites. (The Negro is not responsible for any of his problems.) White America bears the guilt of the Negro’s inferior status (as though genetics affecting nonphysical traits has nothing to do with the Negro’s status). (Because of genetics, races vary significantly in nonphysical traits such as intelligence, reaction time, behavior, rate of maturity, and proneness to certain diseases [see “Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen])

Erroneously, King declares that “since the birth of our nation, white America has . . . proudly professed the great principles of democracy. . . .” (P. 72.) (All the founding fathers who commented on democracy condemned it.)

King describes White backlash as the “old prejudices, hostilities and ambivalence.” (P. 72.) (Southerners, whom King loathed, were not prejudiced toward Negroes. Collins English Dictionary defines prejudice as “an opinion formed beforehand, esp an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts.” Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary defines prejudice as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” The attitudes of Southerners toward Blacks were based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Consequently, they were not prejudiced against Blacks.) Continuing, King writes, “The white backlash is an expression of the same vacillations, the same search for rationalizations, the same lack of commitment that have always characterized white America on the question of race.” (P. 72.) (Again King errs. The founding fathers and nearly all Americans before World War I had no ambivalence, vacillations, or lack of commitment concerning race. They were fully committed to the White race. For the founding fathers, the first nationalization law proves that commitment as it only allowed Whites to be nationalized. Moreover, they wrote the Constitution for Whites. [See “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen.] Further, the commitment of latter generations is shown by the treatment and severe restrictions placed on immigrants from Asia. The Negro was a problem for which they had no viable solution although, before Lincoln’s War, many believed that repatriation was the best solution. Even Lincoln favored this solution.)

King writes much about White racism. He uses Dr. George Kelsey’s description: “‘Racism is a faith. It is a form of idolatry.’” (P. 73.) To this, he adds Ruth Benedict's explanation: “‘the dogma that one ethnic group is condemned by nature to hereditary inferiority and another group is destined to hereditary superiority.’” (P. 73.) “Since racism is based on the dogma ‘that the hope of civilization depends upon eliminating some races and keeping others pure,’ its ultimate logic is genocide.” (P. 74.) (Today, racism is Negro racism and not White racism. Negroes adore their race and seek to advance it as the superior race. In this endeavor, they have been highly successful. On the other hand, most Whites are racial nihilists, and many Whites are albusphobes and desire the genocide of the White race. Only the White race is being deliberately genocided. The ever-growing numbers of Negro supremacists far outnumber the almost extinct White supremacists.)

Although White America has not sought deliberately to genocide the Negro, according to King “it has, through the system of segregation, substituted a subtle reduction of life by means of deprivation.” (P. 74.) (If true, why was the Negro middle class growing under segregation?) Again erroneously, King maintains, “If a man asserts that another man, because of his race, is not good enough to have a job equal to his, or to eat at a lunch counter next to him, or to have access to certain hotels, or to attend school with him, or to live next door to him, he is by implication affirming that that man does not deserve to exist.” (P. 74.) (This statement is void of logic, common practices, and common sense. Nevertheless, since segregation laws applied to Whites as well as Negroes, and if King were consistent, he was claiming that Whites did not deserve to exist. [He did seem to believe that Southerners did not deserve to exist.] On the contrary, segregation preserved the Negro while integration genocides him.)

Next, King writes, “Racism is a philosophy based on a contempt for life. It is the arrogant assertion that one race is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races must kneel in submission.” (P. 74). (Based on King’s assertion, today’s the Negro is the superior race because Whites literally kneel in submission before Negroes. During the height of Jim Crow and White supremacy, Negroes were not expected to kneel literally in submission to Whites.)

Again, King errs when he writes, “For more than two hundred years before the Declaration of Independence, Africa had been raped and plundered by Britain and Europe, her native kingdoms disorganized, and her people and rulers demoralized.” (P. 75.) (Negro Africans captured Negroes and sold them to the Europeans. Since they grew rich from the slave trade, these Negro African rulers were hardly demoralized. Moreover, the European slave trade probably would have quickly died if Europeans had to venture inland to capture slaves.)

King credits the Negro as “the creators of the wealth of the New World.” (P. 76.) (If it were not for White management, these Negroes would have created little above subsidence. Haiti illustrates this. Under White rule and management, Haiti was one of, and perhaps, the wealthiest colony in the New World. Under Negro rule and management, it degenerated to become one of the poorest countries in the world.)

Next, King chastises religious leaders for not only not condemning slavery but for using the Bible to justify slavery. (Does King also condemn the Bible? Nowhere does the Bible condemn slavery. Instead, it sets forth a code for the treatment of slaves. Jesus never told slave owners to free their slaves. Neither did Paul nor Peter; rather they told slaves to be obedient to their masters. Because the Bible does not condemn slavery, the abolitionists abandoned it.)

Another error that King makes is that in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court “affirmed that the Negro had no rights that the white man was bound to respect.” (P. 79.) (The Supreme Court ruled that like Indians and unnaturalized immigrants, Negroes were not citizens under the Constitution [see “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen]. Its rulings did not authorize Whites to do as they pleased to Negroes. If a White man murdered a Negro, he was guilty of murder — Whites had to respect the lives of Negroes.)

Correctly, King affirms that the founding fathers preferred the White race to the Negro race. None believe that the Negro race was equal to the White race. (Except for albusphobic Whites and racial nihilists, most people prefer their own race and believe that it is superior, whatever that means, to other races. Negroes do not want equality with Whites, they want to be and are now superior to Whites — except the White oligarchs.)

Next, he discusses the struggle that Washington and Jefferson had with slavery. At least, King comes closer to what Jefferson meant by “all Men are created equal” than most of today’s conservatives. “Jefferson’s majestic words, ‘all men are created equal,’ meant for him, as for many others, that all white men are created equal.” (P. 81.) (Some understand the phrase even more narrowly to mean that all Englishmen were equal in their rights. When Jefferson and others wrote about their struggles with slavery before the abolitionist movement, their dislike for the institution of slavery was the issue and not the Negro. They had no desire to make Negroes the political and social equals of Whites. Certainly, they would have detested making the Negro their superior as has been done today. Moreover, King failed to mention that many, maybe most, Americans before Lincoln’s War thought the solution to slavery was repatriation. Societies were established to repatriate freed slaves. They even established a country, Liberia, in Africa for the freed slaves. Suddenly freeing the slaves as the Republicans did at the end of Lincoln’s War and filling the country with freed Negroes was the last thing that they wanted. Correctly, they thought that the two races could not live harmoniously in the same country — and today’s race problem proves them right.)

Then, King discusses the torment that slavery caused Lincoln. Lincoln believed that the solution to the Negro problem was to colonize the Negro in Africa or the West Indies. Lincoln held this position well into his war. Later, he changed his position and “issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the Negro from the bondage of chattel slavery.” (P. 83.) (Like most people, King errs when he claims that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the Negro from slavery. It did not free any slaves in areas under the control of the Union army. It only freed slaves beyond the control of the Union army. Moreover, Lincoln lacked the constitutional authority to free slaves. But then, like Lincoln, King never cared about the Constitution. Consequently, no King-idolizing conservative should care about the Constitution. The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily issued as war propaganda. Likewise, Congress had no constitutional authority to free slaves — thus, the need for the thirteenth amendment. [This amendment freed no slaves in the defunct Confederate States because they were free before this amendment was ratified. It only freed slaves in the Union States.])

Then, King complains, “Four million newly liberated slaves found themselves with no bread to eat, no land to cultivate, no shelter to cover their heads.” (Pp. 83-84.) (Unfortunately for these Negroes, they were liberated into a society without a welfare state, although Congress established the Freedmen’s Bureau to provide some assistance, where playing the race card was meaningless and where merit determined one’s survival.) According to King, to free these Negroes without the government supporting them was a great injustice. (Apparently, King wanted these Negroes to exchange their plantation masters for federal bureaucrat masters. Moreover, if the White man had to support these Negroes, how could they be the White man’s equal?)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 2

More social issues articles.

King on Black Power – Part 2

King on Black Power – Part 2

Thomas Allen

According to King, Black Power has many positive aspects compatible with the civil rights movement. However, he believes that its negative value prevents “it from having the substance and program to become the basic strategy for the civil rights movement in the days ahead.” (P. 45.) Further, “Black Power is a nihilistic philosophy born out of the conviction that the Negro can’t win. It is, at bottom, the view that American society is so hopelessly corrupt and enmeshed in evil that there is no possibility of salvation from within.” (P. 45.) (Regardless of Black Power, the Negro did win. Yet, now, many Negroes still believe, and many Whites agree, that American society is hopelessly corrupt and enmeshed in the evil of racism, whatever that means, and White supremacy, even though that died decades ago.)

After commenting on the hostile reaction that he received from the Black Power folks in Chicago, King concluded that they had lost patience because all the benefits that the civil rights movement promised had not come to fruition. (Within a decade, they not only received the benefits that King promised and advocated, but they also received much more. Now, they can even become doctors, engineers, executives of major corporations, high-ranking government bureaucrats, etc. with their race being their primary qualification and often their only qualification. One of the few high-paying occupations that they have earned by merits instead of race is athletics.)

King criticizes the Black Power movement because “it rejects the one thing that keeps the fire of revolutions burning: the ever-present flame of hope.  . . . The Negro cannot entrust his destiny to a philosophy nourished solely on despair, to a slogan that they cannot implement into a program.” (P. 47.) 

Next, King comments on the Negro’s disappointments and frustrations. (The Negro may have been disappointed in King’s day. However, today, he should have none, for he has far more privileges and benefits than King ever demanded. Yet, the Negro is still not satisfied and demands more — even the genocide of the White race. His insatiable greed and the kowtowing of Whites keep him from ever being satisfied.)

Continuing, King writes, “We Negroes, who have dreamed for so long of freedom, are still confined in a prison of segregation and discrimination.” (P. 47.).  (Whatever discrimination that Negroes face today is the result of merit and not of race, which is why Negroes want advancements and rewards to be based on race. Today, the White race is the only race discriminated against. If Negroes are still not free, it is because their demands have destroyed freedom for everyone.)

Comparing Black Power to Garvey’s Back to Africa movement, King writes, “The Black Power movement of today, like the Garvey ‘Back to Africa’ movement of the 1920s, represents a dashing of hope, a conviction of the inability of the Negro to win and a belief in the infinitude of the ghetto.” (Pp. 48-49.) (Although the Negro won, his connate traits still keep many in the infinitude of the ghetto. However, refusing to accept responsibility for his failure to escape the ghetto mentality, the Negro still blames nonexistent White supremacy. Moreover, if Garvey had succeeded, most of the race problems of the United States would not exist.)

King remarks, “Black Power is an implicit and often explicit belief in black separatism.” (P. 49.) King adamantly opposed Black separation. He preferred a society where all races are amalgamated and homogenized into indistinguishable mongrels. Such amalgamation is the objective of the oligarchs. Moreover, Black separation preserves the Negro and his uniqueness, which the policies that King promoted destroy. While King expressed a desire for Negro unity and Black identity, his integrationist policies destroy instead of preserving them. Moreover,  under Black separation, Negroes would govern themselves.)

Further, King declares, “that effective political power for Negroes cannot come through separatism.” (P. 49.) (So, Negroes governing themselves do not give them effective political power. Apparently, King thought that Negroes needed to integrate with Whites to govern themselves effectively. Thus, King implies that Negroes cannot effectively govern themselves without the assistance of Whites.)

Some Black Power adherents and King thought small — gaining control of and governing counties and cities. King’s small thinking is one reason that he opposed Black Power — controlling a few counties would give the Negro little influence in State politics. Instead, he preferred focusing on getting Negroes elected to Congress (where they could push the federal government to bully the States into surrendering unconditionally to King. If King had thought big, he would have advocated Negroes having an independent country ruled by Negroes.) While many Black Power adherents wanted the Negro to be independent of Whites, King did not.

Continuing, King writes that “the Negroes’ problem cannot be solved unless the whole of American society takes a new turn toward greater economic justice.” (P. 51.) The federal government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to create new jobs, low-cost housing, quality integrated education, etc. for the benefit of the Negro. Also, State and local governments have spent many billions of dollars more for the benefit of the Negro. (Thus, for King, the solution to the Negro’s problem is looting Whites for the benefit of Negroes.)

In condemning Black Power, King remarks that “the weakness of Black Power is its failure to see that the black man needs the white man and the white man needs the black man.” (P. 54.) (Whites are not dependent on Negroes. However, if Negroes want to live in a technologically advanced society, they are dependent on Whites.)

King declares, “Negroes should never want all power because they would deprive others of their freedom.” (P. 55.) (Negroes have not gained all power — White oligarchs prevent that — but in alliance with progressive Whites, they have deprived Whites of their freedom. For example, no White can refuse to hire or serve a Negro because of his race, which makes him a slave of the Negro.)

Continuing his attack against Black Power, King asserts, “Probably the most destructive feature of Black Power is its unconscious and often conscious call for retaliatory violence.” (P. 56.) Nevertheless, King admitted many people in the Black Power movement were not advocates of violence. Yet, others believed that only violence would bring liberation.

Another reason that King opposed the violence of Black Power was that it would not work. (However, over time, riots and the threats of riots earned more booty for Negroes that did peaceful demonstrations.)

King notes that “power and morality must go together, implementing, fulfilling and ennobling each other.” (P. 61.) (Unfortunately, he errs. With rare exception, those who wield political power lack morality.)

About segregation, King writes, “Racial segregation is buttressed by such irrational fears as loss of preferred economic privilege, altered social status, intermarriage and adjustment to new situations.” (P. 61.) (Irrational or not, these fears have come to pass. Not only have Whites lost economic privileges, but they have also lost economic neutrality. Whites have to give Negroes preferential treatment in hiring [affirmative action and quotas]. Interracial marriages have soared since the late 1960s. No longer can Whites have any kind of public social activity without allowing Negroes to participate.) According to King, Whites should free themselves of these fears (and surrender unconditionally and genocide themselves along with genociding the Negro via integration and the resulting miscegenation. Of course, this genocide would be in the name of love.)

King states that the Negro will not “be totally liberated from the crushing weight of poor education, squalid housing and economic strangulation until he is integrated, with power, into every level of American life.” (P. 64.) (Now, Negroes are so thoroughly integrated that many of them desire segregation. Moreover, Negroes have more power, especially political power, than Whites except for the White oligarchs. Yet, integration and power have not liberated many of them from poor education, squalid housing, and economic strangulation. Although the welfare state has alleviated much of his economic strangulation, he still lags behind Whites educationally even as academic standards have been lowered to his level. His poor education is the result of his innate genetic lack of intelligence and intellectual capabilities. Again, King preaches the wrong solution to the Negro’s problems.)

Another flaw that King sees in ”the Black Power movement is that it talks unceasingly about not imitating the values of white society, but in advocating violence it is imitating the worst, the most brutal and the most uncivilized value of American life.” (P. 66.) Also, he condemned Negroes perpetrating violence against other Negroes.

King blames the Negro’s desperation for the rise of Black Power. If it were not for White supremacy and segregation, the Black Power movement would never have happened.

A major reason that King rejected the Black Power movement was that it competed with his Freedom Now movement and diverted resources and people from King’s movement. Moreover, in some respects, the Black Power movement accomplished more for Negroes than did King’s Freedom Now movement. Unlike King’s integration movement, which ultimately leads to the genocide of the American Negro, the Black Power separation movement seeks to preserve the American Negro.

Carmichael had a higher opinion of the common Negro than did King. While Carmichael believed that Negroes could advance independently of Whites, King believed that Negroes were dependent on Whites for their advancement. While history shows that the Jim Crow Era proved Carmichael right, the history of the Civil Rights Era has proven King right.

For King and most other Negroes, the Negro has no responsibility for his problems — either in causing them or in solving them. Whites, especially Southerners, are the cause of all the Negro’s problems. Therefore, Whites should solve the Negro’s problem by giving Negroes special privileges and benefits and all their wealth; in short, Whites need to enslave themselves to the Negro until their genocide is completed.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 1.

More social issues articles.

A Look at a Proponent of the Lincoln Constitution

A Look at a Proponent of the Lincoln Constitution

Thomas Allen

A proponent of the modern US Constitution that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans as furthered developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court gave the United States claims that it is superior to the one that the founding fathers gave the country. To support his claim, he cites several Supreme Court rulings: Baker v. Carr, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

An explanation of each of the aforementioned Supreme Court rulings follow:

– Baker v. Carr: This ruling gave federal courts absolute power over drawing legislative and Congressional districts. This ruling led to establishing electoral districts of equal population on the principle of one person, one vote for State legislatures and congressional districts. Thus, States had to draw districts that shifted representation from rural areas to urban areas. Consequently, rural areas, which are typically more conservative than urban areas, lost political power. Moreover, at the time of this ruling, more Blacks lived in rural areas than in urban areas in the South. Thus, shifting representation from rural to urban areas resulted in under-representing Blacks. To overcome this problem a covert quota system was imposed on the Southern States. To ensure Black representation (overrepresentation) and to guarantee the election of Black candidates, Blacks and Negrophiles are concentrated in the districts that guarantee that Black candidates are elected. However, the States are forced to draw district boundaries so that such an outcome is not obvious.

– Roe v. Wade: This ruling legalized abortion. As a result, a large number of Black babies have been murdered. As a weapon to genocide Blacks, this ruling has been highly effective. Without abortion, the Black population would be much higher than it is.

– Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka: This ruling outlawed school segregation and led to the integration of Blacks into White society. Consequently, Blacks have been integrated and amalgamated with Whites. Integration is amalgamating Blacks with Whites, and, thus, it is leading to the genocide of Blacks. Consequently, this ruling has been a leading cause of the genocide of the American Negro.

– Lawrence v. Texas: This ruling legalizes homosexual activity. Thus, homosexual activity among Blacks was encouraged and increased. With Black men having sex with other men and Black women having sex with other women, the opportunity to reproduce is greatly reduced. Again, another ruling leading to the genocide of Blacks.

– Obergefell v. Hodges: This ruling legalized same-sex marriages. It leads to the genocide of Blacks in the same way that Lawrence v. Texas does.

Amazingly, this proponent omitted Loving v. Virginia. This ruling legalized interracial marriages. More than any other ruling of the Supreme Court, this ruling has resulted in genociding Blacks as interracial marriages have exploded over the years since this ruling. Thus, because of this ruling, Blacks are being bred out of existence, which is genocide. 

Although most of these rulings are hostile to White supremacy, they also promote the genocide of Blacks. Thus, they are far more harmful to the American Negro, the American Black, than is White supremacy. At least White supremacy promotes policies that preserve the Black race while these rulings lead to policies that genocide Blacks.

According to this proponent, these rulings have undone many of the racist rulings and laws of the past. For him, White supremacy is highly destructive of liberty. Also, for him, liberty is civil rights. Based on the Supreme Court rulings that he cites, he is a homophile and an albusphobe (and subconsciously a Negrophobe).

This proponent believes that White supremacists control the country and that the 1619 Project is the true history of the United States. (At least, he is partially correct. The founding fathers did establish the United States under the Constitution of 1787 as a White man’s country. [See “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen.]) Further, he believes everything that the establishment and ruling elite indoctrinate about race and is an adherent of Critical Race Theory.

Being a proponent of the Lincoln constitution, he must also approve the dysgenic results of the Lincoln constitution. The Lincoln constitution has brought the welfare state, which has led to the degeneration of Blacks. The welfare state encourages the reproduction of low-quality people and discourages the reproduction of high-quality people. Thus, Blacks with lower IQ and character — low-quality Blacks — are paid to reproduce. Moreover, high-quality Blacks, Blacks with higher IQ and character, are more likely to marry outside their race — thus, leading to the genocide of higher quality Blacks.

Furthermore, this proponent of the Lincoln constitution believes that the races of man are fictions, i.e., a social construct; therefore, the races do not exist. Yet, he denies the logic of his belief because he believes that White supremacy and racism are the country’s biggest problems. Logically, if the races do not exist, then White supremacy and racism cannot exist. If the races do not exist, then no one can be superior to or discriminate against a nonexistent race. Consequently, civil rights laws and court rulings on racial integration are unnecessary and are an irrational intrusion on the rights of the people in the name of a fiction. It would be better for Congress and the courts to confess the truth that races do not exist and, therefore, racial supremacy, racial discrimination, and racism do not and cannot exist. Thus, all civil rights issues are resolved.

As shown above, the constitution that Lincoln gave the country is not only detrimental to liberty, it also genocides the American Negro. Moreover, it creates irrational and illogical people like this proponent of the Lincoln constitution.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

More Social Issues Related to Blacks

More Social Issues Related to Blacks

Thomas Allen

White supremacy, preservation of the American Negro, segregation at universities, and social justice reforms are discussed below.

White Supremacy

Do White supremacists exist in the United States today? Yes, a majority of the White population in the United States is White supremacists.

White supremacy is alive and prospering. However, it is not in the form of the stereotypical Klansman of yesteryear, who is now almost extinct. Today’s White supremacists are progressives, liberals, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, many libertarians. Today, White supremacists are those who support the civil rights movement and the welfare state because they believe that Blacks cannot succeed on their own. They need Whiteys’ succor. If these people want to see a White supremacist, all that they need to do is to look in a mirror.

White supremacy today exists as White parentalism toward Blacks. These Whites believe that Blacks can only advance and prosper with Whitey’s aid. Thus, they have granted Blacks many privileges that they deny themselves, such as affirmative action, quotas, lower scores for college entrance, and set-asides. Further, these White supremacists support the Civil Rights Acts, the welfare state, and most of the programs of Johnson’s Great Society and their descendants. 

Moreover, Blacks who support or believe the claims of civil rights and welfare proponents believe in White supremacy because they believe that Blacks are so inferior that they can accomplish nothing without Whitey’s granting Blacks special privileges.

Preservation of the American Negro

If conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians were asked if the American Negro, the Black race of America, should be preserved and saved from genocide, all would answer yes. Likewise, if asked if they opposed policies that resulted in the genocide of the American Negro and supported policies that preserved the American Negro, they would again answer yes.

However, if one looks at the policies that conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians promote and the policies that they oppose, one would discover that they have lied. They do not care about protecting the American Negro from genocide. If they wanted to save the American Negro, they would support policies that segregate and separate the races. Moreover, they would oppose policies that integrate and amalgamate the races. Therefore, they act oppositely from their assertion about their desire to preserve the American Negro, the Black race of America. The exception is that some liberals and progressives weakly promote some policies that aid in the preservation of the American Negro. 

Segregation at Universities

Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) sent a letter to Attorney General Barr urging him to investigate the “alarming trend of racial segregation” occurring at some universities. Universities are allowing nonwhite students to create race-based dormitories and events for Blacks and other “people of color.” (Whites are not granted such privileges except by exclusion.)

Specifically, they object to one major university having racially segregated online discussion groups with racially segregated moderators. Thus, the university created a discussion group for nonwhites only and another for Whites only.

Also, they object to another major university holding “segregated training sessions for resident assistants (RA), students who oversee dorms and enforce policies and rules.” One session was for resident assistants who were White, and another was for resident assistants who were Black and other people of color. The nonwhite session was described as “Healing Space for Staff of Color,” and the White session was described as “White Accountability Space.”

These two senators claim that such segregation violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. They express sadness about the growing trend of segregation, especially on college campuses. (These two senators err in believing that the Civil Rights Act applies to segregation by nonwhites. It intended to prevent Whites from segregating. It was never intended to prevent nonwhites from segregating.)

These two senators rail against the defense offered by the universities. The universities’ defense is that racial segregation gives “members of certain racial groups, especially minority groups, spaces where they can discuss shared concerns and issues. Thus, these defenders attempt to portray racial segregation as a tool to further diversity.” (Blacks who are seeking segregation and the university administrators who approve these requests for segregation show much more intelligence than these two senators. Unlike these senators, Blacks know that segregation promotes diversity. They know that segregation preserves diversity while integration destroys diversity. [See “Diversity” by Thomas Allen.])

Like neoconservatives and liberals, Senators Cotton and Loeffler believe that the United States are a creedal country and not a genetic country. (Also, these two senators are racial nihilists, who practice the new morality, and have no qualms about genociding the American Negro. Genociding the American Negro will be the result of the policies that they are urging.)

(Reference: “Public Colleges Defy Federal Law with Racially Segregated Events to Further Diversity,” Judicial Watch, November 13, 2020, https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/public-colleges-defy-federal-law-with-racially-segregated-events-to-further-diversity/, accessed December 2, 2020.)

Social Justice Reform

Social justice reform is easy. All that the government has to do is to release all Blacks from prison and exempt all Blacks from all laws. Then, Blacks would no longer have to pay taxes or obey traffic laws. Moreover, they will no longer be arrested for any crime including battery, theft, rape, or murder. Also, they should be allowed to take any job of any White including that of a CEO of major corporations. Further, the employer cannot require Blacks to do any work and cannot fire them. Blacks may take the house of any White along with his furniture, cars, and all other property, and the White may not object. Also, Blacks may use White women, men, and children for their sex toys without any objection from the White toys. Thus, Blacks will have received justice — if they can stop killing each other long enough to enjoy the fruits of their thefts.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Josephus Daniels

Josephus Daniels

Thomas Allen

Josephus Daniels (1862–1948) owned the Raleigh News & Observer from 1898 until his death in 1948 when the paper passed to his descendants. He is reputed to have been a White supremacist, who used his paper to promote White supremacy. (Now, the owners, who bought the paper in 1995, use the newspaper to promote Black supremacy.) Daniels was the Secretary of the Navy (1913–1921) under President Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt’s ambassador to Mexico between 1933 and 1942.

One of the most despicable acts of unconditional surrenders to Black supremacy has to be the Daniels family taking down Josephus Daniels’ statue. His family took down the statue before even a threat was made. His grandson and great-grandson are a disgrace to their grandfather and great-grandfather. Moreover, this act is a blatant violation of the Fifth Commandment; it greatly dishonors one’s ancestors. If Daniels was as detestable as his family claims, why did they erect a statue in his honor?

Would Daniels be proud that his descendants who have become White-hating, racial nihilist, wokespersons, and social justice warriors, who worship Black supremacy, Black privilege, and Black power? Or, would he be disappointed in and ashamed of them? Regardless, their action is so disgraceful that no self-respecting Black will want to have anything to do with them — other than to take their wealth.

When the war comes, Blacks will take out the albusphobic, Dixiephobic, Confederaphobic Whites who destroy memorials to Southerners and other Whites quicker than they will any so-called White supremacists because these will offer no resistance. They see their duty as sacrificing themselves to their Black masters.

What will Whites receive from the removal of the Daniels’ statue and other statues of Whites? They will receive nothing desirable. Blacks will repay them with ever more degrading demands. If these demands are not met with alacrity and abasement, Blacks will vandalize, riot, loot, burn, and kill until they are met with extortionary and usury interest. Why should not Blacks behave like this when all they face are White albusphobes, who beg to surrender to Blacks so that the Blacks can whip them without mercy? Such is the just reward for anyone who destroys their family heritage the way that the Daniels have.

Now is the time for the Raleigh News & Observer to take the honorable action. It needs to go out of business immediately. Its buildings need to be torn down. All its equipment and other property need to be scrapped. Nothing should be salvaged because it would contaminate the new owner with racism and White supremacy. Josephus Daniels’ racism and White supremacy have so contaminated the News & Observer that no amount of repentance can redeem it. His descendants tried for years to cleanse the taint of racism and White supremacy before they sold the paper to another. Even the new owner has failed. Once an organization is infected with White supremacy and racism, it is beyond redemption. It must be eradicated. That is why the White race, especially those who grovel, needs to be genocided. If you do not believe me, ask Black Lives Matter.

These albusphobic, Dixiephobic, and Confederaphobic Whites, who enthrall themselves as wokespersons and social justice warriors, will avail themselves of nothing. Black Lives Matters and Blacks, in general, cannot respect such groveling self-abasing White albusphobes and consider them a joke — although their words and actions often say otherwise. Blacks see White albusphobes as traitors to their White kindred and, therefore, use them to advance the Black agenda of Black power, Black privilege, and Black supremacy. Consequently, removing the Daniels’ statue and other statues of Southerners will only lead to more violence and racial disharmony and more demands by Blacks and more surrenders by Whites. The only reason Blacks do not want to genocide the White race is that they need White slaves to produce wealth for them to plunder. However, far too many Whites do want to genocide the White race to rid the universe of its greatest disease: whitism.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Black Supremacy and White Privilege

Black Supremacy and White Privilege

Thomas Allen

Presented below are a letter-to-the-editor on the removal of Confederate statues, White supremacy versus Black supremacy, Whites prostrating before Blacks, self-respect, and the death of the White race.

Letter
People who want to remove Confederate monuments and memorials are filled with hate of the South (Dixiephobia) and especially everything related to the Confederacy (Confederaphobia). Yet, these same people preach tolerance and diversity. However, they are among the most intolerant people and despise diversity. They cannot tolerate anything related to the South and especially the Confederacy, which illustrates their hatred of diversity.

They say that Confederate monuments and memorials are hurtful: They hurt the feelings of Blacks. Thus, they must come down. Yet, these Confederaphobes care nothing about the feelings of the people who revere these monuments and memorials as honoring their ancestors who defended their homeland from the invading horde during Lincoln’s War.

Confederaphobes are extremely self-centered and selfish people, who demand all be sacrificed to satisfy their bigotry, prejudices, and desires. They do not want any remembrance of the Confederacy or even the South.

According to my wife, who is a refugee from a Communist country, among the first things that the Communists did when they started taking over the country was to tear down historical and cultural monuments and memorials. The destruction of Confederate monuments and memorials comes straight out of the Communist handbook.

White Supremacy Versus Black Supremacy
One major and important difference exists between today’s Black supremacy and yesterday’s White supremacy. Under Black supremacy, Whites are forced to work without compensation to support Blacks. Under White supremacy, Blacks were never forced to support Whites without compensation. Even under slavery, Blacks were well paid with housing, food, medical care, and even some retirement benefits. Moreover, slaves typically consumed about 90 percent of their production.

Whites Prostrating Before Blacks
Under slavery and Jim Crow, White supremacists never required or expected Blacks to prostrate themselves before the superior White race. However, today under Black supremacy, Whites prostrate themselves before Blacks in abject submission to Black supremacists. Not only do Blacks expect Whites to prostrate pathetically before Blacks, but they also expect Whites to give Blacks everything that Blacks demand. Black supremacy has achieved a level beyond anything White supremacy ever sought. Thus, systemic White privilege is the privilege of Whites to prostrate themselves before their Black masters.  Furthermore, systemic White privilege is the privilege of Whites to eradicate their history, culture, and race.

Self-respect
During the height of White supremacy, Blacks may have acted humbly, but they never lost their self-respect. (Now, arrogance has replaced that humility.) However, under Black supremacy, White albusphobes, progressives, liberals, wokespersons, and social justice warriors have no self-respect. On the contrary, under Black supremacy, White albusphobes, progressives, liberals, wokespersons, and social justice warriors loath and debase themselves. Moreover, they wimpishly grovel before their Black masters. They have no self-respect. How can any Black, Asian, Latino, or even a self-respecting White have any respect for such people? Blacks may manipulate and use them to advance the Black agenda, but Blacks find them deplorable. Self-respecting Whites, Asians, and Latinos pity them and find them despicable, and some even abhor them. All consider them no better than traitors of the White race.

(According to Urban Dictionary, a wokesperson is “a person who considers himself/herself woke and readily spouts wokeish statements, especially on social media, on behalf of the entire ‘woke community’.” “Woke” means “A self-congratulatory, close-minded, emotionally-driven, politically-biased ideology and movement based on oversimplified, ill-conceived, uncritical, hypocritical, exaggerated, self-righteous, or irrational arguments justified by self-deceptive rationalization and self-serving, over-glorified, hollow gestures and politically-motivated lip service referred to as virtue-signaling, which often attract angry, sheltered, impressionable youths, self-important, crowd-pleasing, over-privileged, political-posturing, public figures, and narcissistic, willingly-ignorant, emotionally-regressive, left-wing ‘advocates’ and also often deal with multifaceted, questionable or misrepresented topics superficially, excessively, irresponsibly, and inappropriately.” “Social justice warrior” means “In the broadest sense, a person that uses complex serious social, economic and political issues as a way to further their own agenda by claiming they are fighting to ‘correct a wrong.’ Specifically, it is used to refer to people claim to be fighting for social justice but are actually validating their own ego, looking for special treatment, or attention.”)

Death of the White Race
The White race is dying from the decay within. It may not survive another 50 years. Unfortunately, most Whites do not care, and many Whites joyfully look forward to the day when the White race is no more. About a third of Whites are albusphobes; they loath the White race so much that they wish that the White race never existed. (Regrettably, these albusphobes do not hasten that glorious day of the death of the White race by removing themselves from it now. They prefer to remain a blight on it.) About half of the Whites are racial nihilists, who do not care about any race, especially the White race; the apathetic Whites, who are indifferent about the White race; and cowards, who fear to defend their race from genocide. Only about one-sixth of Whites are fighting to preserve their race. Most of those who are defending the White race are older Southerners who have not been thoroughly reconstructed. Soon after they die, most likely, so will the White race. So far, the genocide of the White race has been highly successful and will most likely succeed.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues.

A Letter: The War Has Not Finished

A Letter: The War Has Not Finished

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1989 responding to an article by Mr. Murray about an article that he wrote for Civil War Times Illustrated.]

        Mr. Murray’s article “The War We Never Finished” is interesting. However, I do disagree with some of his statements and his advocacy of genocide. There are also many omissions and errors in his article.
        He asserts that “the fundamental reason behind secession and the establishment of the Confederacy was the desire to keep the South a white man’s country through the perpetuation of Negro slavery.” If true, slavery was much better protected within the Union than without in spite of the Republican platform.
        With the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and, more important, the Dread 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 enforced 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.
        Ulrich Phillips describes the fire-eaters, the advocates of Southern independence, as guided by “the conviction, false or true, that an overpowering North was going to use federal authority sooner or later to impose Northern will for the promotion of Northern advantage and the indulgence of Northern impulse, mulcting the South financially and destroying the Southern industrial and social order quite regardless of local consequences.” Hence, the avant-garde of secession were guided as much, if not more, by economic and political reasons as social reasons. This assertion is from a person who averred that the force keeping slavery alive in the South was a desire to protect white civilization and culture.
        The main threat of the Republican Party to slavery was its opposition to slavery in the territories, which was contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling. Anyway, Southerners gave up this right when they seceded. That platform (the platform of the Republican Party) acknowledged the right of each State to control its own domestic institutions.
        The Republican Party’s position had little to do with an abhorrence of slavery and nothing to do with egalitarianism. It had everything to do with the North’s version of white supremacy. Northerners, as well as many Southerners, who moved to the territories, were opposed to slavery in the territories because slavery meant blacks, and they did not want blacks around.
        I have some disagreement with Mr. Murray’s assertion that slavery was the South’s solution to the race problem and the protection of white civilization. He fails even to mention the North’s solution. The North’s solution was to segregate and ostracize blacks to the very lowest rung of society. Although blacks were ostensibly free, they were not much better off than the slaves of the South. Many were materially worse off. Mr. Sidney Fisher, a Philadelphia lawyer and Maryland planter, described the plight of the black man in the North as follows:

But though the negro in the North is not a slave, he is made an outcast and a pariah. . . . He may not lay a finger on one of those three wonderful boxes, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box, . . . by which freemen defend their rights. . . . The spirit of caste drives the negro out of the churches, theatres, hotels, rail-cars, steamboats, or assigns to him, in them, a place apart. It drives him into the cellars, dens and alleys of towns, into hovels in the country; and it does all this without laws. . . .

        The solution to the race problem and the preservation of white civilization often endorsed by many Northerners and by even more Southerners before the advent of the abolitionist was repatriation. Lincoln also supported this solution. If the Confederate’s principal motivation “was the desire to keep the South a white man’s country,” then repatriation would have certainly achieved that goal much more permanently and effectively than slavery.
        General Lee probably summed up the primary reason for secession when he stated, “All the South ever desired was that the Union would continue to be administered as it was originally constituted, in purity and truth.”
        President Davis offered to the Confederate Congress this explanation:

By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as majority to govern the minority. Without control, they learn to listen with impatience to the suggestion of any constitutional impediment to the exercise of their will, and so utterly have the principles of the Constitution been corrupted in the Northern mind that, in the inaugral address delivered by President Lincoln in March last, he asserts a maxim which he plainly deems to be undeniable, that the theory of the Constitution requires, in all cases, that the majority shall govern. And in another memorable instance the same Chief Magistrate did not hesitate to liken the relations between States and the United States to those which exist between the county and the State in which it is situated, and by which it was created. This is the lamentable and fundamental error in which rests the policy that has culminated in his declaration of war against these Confederate States.

        Thus, Confederates feared that Lincoln and the Republican Party were going to subvert the republican government of the United States into a democratic government and destroy the United States as a federation by corrupting them into a consolidated empire. These fears were not ill-founded because both of these evils came to pass when the South was conquered.
        While quoting an abolitionist’s vow to enforce the emancipation proclamation, Mr. Murray fails to comment on its illegality and hypocrisy. The President had no legal authority to issue such a proclamation. He proclaimed freedom to slaves in areas under the control of the Confederates while offering no freedom to slaves in the areas under the control of the Union.
        Mr. Murray also fails to inform the reader that these holy abolitionists were the founders of modern-day terrorism. Their paragon of sainthood, John Brown, is the father of modern-day terrorism.
        As for the Unionists, they exceeded all in duplicity and hypocrisy if they were fighting to preserve the Union. As soon as they fired the first shot — or historically more correct, made the firing of the first shot necessary — they destroyed the Union. As an editorial in The Daily Picayune so aptly put it:

The favorite form of expression in which these resolves are clothed is that, it is the first and highest duty “to maintain the Union.” But a Union upheld by a war, which is made necessary by the revolting of many large and powerful States from an unfriendly and oppressive Government[,] is condemned at once by the act. When armies and fleets are employed to keep a confederation of States together, it is a mockery to send them forth as messengers of union. It is for the subjugation of the minority section to the will of the majority, and every element which makes it a circle of consenting States in a harmonious Union disappears under the crushing process. To talk of war, therefore, as the means of perpetuating a Union is a mockery. It might perpetuate a Government, but that Government will cease to be a federative one, and will contain within itself essential traits of a military despotism — the retention, by superior force, of an unwilling people in political bondage, to a Government which they had unanimously risen to throw off. The Government so established, if such a monstrous thing could ever be established, would have no principles remaining in common with those which make the theory of the constitution of the present Government, a departure from which has brought on the present convulsion. A war to “maintain the Union” is simply, therefore, a war to extinguish the Union, and to maintain a Government such as was never contemplated by any of the States which compose it, and which would not be tolerated by any State now, if there were a question of creating or restoring a Government.

        H. L. Mencken, who may be accused of being an iconoclast, but who can hardly be accused of being a fire-eating unreconstructed rebel, put it more succinctly when commenting on the battle of Gettysburg and the Gettysburg Address:

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

        Mr. Mencken answers Mr. Murray’s question about what rights were Southerners denied. They were denied the right of political self-determination. They were denied the ultimate States’ right — the right to secede peacefully. The right of political self-determination and the right to secede were the primary rights and reasons for which the Upper South fought. The States of the Upper South did not secede until President Lincoln made the suppression and denial of these rights perfectly clear by calling for troops with which to invade the States of the Lower South.
        The peoples of the States of the Upper South agreed with Alexander Stephens’ statement:

Under our system of government, as I view it, there is no rightful power in the General Government to coerce a State, in case any one of them should throw herself upon her reserved rights, and resume the full exercise of her Sovereign Powers. Force may perpetuate a Union. That depends upon the contingencies of war. But such a Union would not be the Union of the Constitution. It would be nothing short of a Consolidated Despotism.

        In 1863, a French writer appropriately and descriptively wrote, “Russia and the United States proclaim the liberty of the serf and the emancipation of the slave, but in return both seek to reduce the slavery all who defend liberty and independence.”
        As a result of the War, the Constitution was nullified — or at least its underlying principles were if not its words although the Fourteenth Amendment went a long way toward nullifying its words. The Union was changed from a federation of States to a consolidated empire of provinces.
        The actions of the Unionists just prove Abbot C. Martin’s observation: “A Nazi is simply a Yankee carried to the logical conclusion.”
        Mr. Murray fails to point out that the Black Codes were modeled after New England labor codes. If blacks comprised as large a percentage of the population in the North as they did in the South, undoubtedly most Northern States would have had black codes. Except perhaps for Indiana and Illinois, which made it illegal for Negroes to enter them.
        Mr. Murray notes that the Confederates discovered that “slavery was not necessary to safeguard white supremacy.” He then proceeds to describe discrimination in the South.
        He fails to say, although he hints at it, that the Confederates learned to treat blacks as they were treated in the North — institutionalization of segregation. The difference between the North and the South is that in the North blacks were such a small minority that there was little need to legalize segregation whereas in the South because of the large numbers of blacks, it was — hence the “Jim Crow” laws.
        Perhaps the South’s imitation of the North is why it took the North eighty years to become greedy enough and hypocritical enough to condemn the South for doing exactly what the North was doing. Besides, with mass migration of blacks northward, something had to be done to protect white supremacy in the North by keeping the Negro in his place, i.e., keeping him in the South. So along came minimum wage laws and other labor laws restricting the employment of labor to price the black man out of the Northern labor market. Along came a host of “civil rights” laws, which were intended to be enforced primarily in the South and for the most part have been. Appease the black man in the South, and he will stay there, away for the white Yankee.
        These civil rights laws were written to apply only where there was segregation by statute, hence the South, and not where there was segregation by custom, hence the North. However, the South was not allowed to imitate the North this time. The South was not allowed to replace statute with custom. If the South continued to discriminate against blacks, there would be little incentive for them to remain in their place. Thus, blacks were to be forced on white Southerners as equals while segregated, except for a token here and there, from white Northerners. The only problem the North has had with this strategy is the occasional renegade judge who forgets or ignores the purpose of these laws.
        This time the egalitarians found their allies in the Northern white supremacists and greedy Southern politicians and businessmen.
        Mr. Murray seems to accept and endorse the position of the egalitarians without any critical analysis. The solution offered by the egalitarians during the War and the First Reconstruction is the same solution that they offer now during the Second Reconstruction. Their solution, the solution the Mr. Murray seems to endorse, is genocide through integration. Genocide is hardly a viable solution.
        I am aware of no place or time when two or more races were allowed, or in our case forced, to integrate that the races involved did not proceed to breed themselves out of existence. I hardly believe that breeding the black man out of existence, which is nothing less than genocide, is a solution to any “white supremacy” problem, real or perceived. Is the destruction of the black man through the genocide of integration in the name of equal rights as the egalitarians want to do any better than his destruction through the genocide of mass execution in the name of white supremacy as the egalitarians claim that the Klan wants to do? In the long run, the future that the black man faces under the egalitarians is worse than any offered by any white supremacist. The egalitarians offer him extinction through genocidal integration. At least under the white supremacist he survives, for without the black man the white supremacist would become extinct for want of anyone to be superior to.
        The only really viable solution is the one offered by Lincoln, which is geographical separation. It is the only solution that destroys racial supremacy without genocide.
        That great North Carolinian, Chub Seawell, summarized the whole egalitarian movement of the Second Reconstruction when he said, “The Ku Klux Klan comes marching down the street with a big banner saying ‘white power,’ and the media has a sort of running fit and yells ‘racism.’ Then the NAACP comes marching down the street with a big banner saying ‘black power,’ and the media calls it ‘human rights.’”
        Those who condemn the Confederate flag as being a symbol of slavery, racism, white supremacy, etc. should with more vigor and vehement condemn the Unites States flag. The United States flag flew over slavery, segregation, and white supremacy in the North before the Confederate flag did, while the Confederate flag did, and after the Confederate flag cease to in the South.
        Blacks have shown no hesitation, concern, or sensitivity about imposing, nay forcing, their company on people who do not want to associate with them. They should not be surprised at the lack of sensitivity about their feelings towards the Confederate flag. Some of those who love that flag see black hostility towards it as just another attempt to impose the black man’s will on them to deprive them of one of their few remaining liberties in the black man’s attempt to establish black supremacy. If blacks find the Confederate flag offensive, then they should avoid associating with those who display and revere the flag. But, I guess, after spending a lifetime trying to outlaw freedom of association by forcing their company on others, such an obvious solution cannot be accepted. The Confederate flag must bow to their prejudices.
        We unreconstructed Southerners keep the War alive for a number of reasons. Among the most important are as Alexander Stephens wrote, “Time changes and men often change with them, but principles never!” and as T. S. Eliot wrote, “We fought for lost causes because we knew that our defeat and dismay may be the preface to our successor's victory . . . we fight rather to keep something alive than in the expectation that it will triumph.”

Copyright © 1989, 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.