A Historicist Interpretation of Revelations – Part 2

A Historicist Interpretation of Revelations – Part 2

Thomas Allen 

The Twentieth Century and the End of the Age
    Chapters 17, 18, and 19 of Revelations describe the downfall and judgement of the papacy. Alternatively, they describe the downfall and judgement of the world order. Chapter 17 deals with the ecclesiastical fall. Chapter 18 deals with the economic fall. Chapter 19 deals with the political fall.

Fall of Religious Babylon, the Papacy
    Revelation 17:1. The “great whore” is the false harlot woman who symbolizes Babylon. The waters on which the whore sits are peoples, multitudes, and nations (Rev. 17:15). They represent the various European nationalities that constitute the prophetical Roman earth.

    Revelation 17:2. Papal Rome has taken many of God’s sacred symbols and doctrines and has corrupted them with her false teachings. She has caused the European nations to “drink the wine of her fornication” (see also Jer. 51:5-10).

    Revelation 17:3. The false papal woman sits on a seven-headed ten-horned beast.

    Revelation 17:4. This verse describes the papal system with her priest in gorgeous robes. (This compares to the plain white robs of the saints.)

    Revelation 17:5. The papacy has taken the truth and has twisted and corrupted it and has made it a mystery to men and an abomination to God. (While the Reformers corrected many papal errors, their work was not complete. They failed to complete the job, and most Protestant churches today still contain errors.)

    Revelation 17:6. Having slain, directly or indirectly, 50 million saints, the papacy is drunk with blood.

    Revelation 17:7-8. Pagan Rome, which ended in 476 A.D., is the beast “that was.” The “seven heads” of the beast are the seven hills of Rome. The beast that “is not” foretells the temporary disappearance, or fall, of Rome. The beast that “yet is” foretells the reconstruction of Rome. Previously the beast had only one center of rule, the seven-hilled Rome. Now the new beast appears as 10 separate individual kings or kingdoms. (The crowns have moved from the seven heads onto ten horns. Out of the ten horns, one arises “another little horn” [Dan. 7:8], which is the papacy.)

    The papacy was not of God but from the bottomless pit.

    Israel’s, God’s covenant people, (not Jewry) name is written in God’s great Book from the beginning. “Whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the order [cosmos, age, order]”: They are the noncovenant nations.

    Revelation. 17:9. The seven mountains symbolize the seven-hilled city of Rome. (Some interpret this verse as depicting a complete sevenfold panorama of the leading pagan Empires of history, which were at the time of the prophecy being superseded by Roman papacy.)

    Revelation 17:10. Some interpret the “seven kings”as the pagan empires that opposed Israel. Others interpret the “seven kings” as the seven governments of Rome. Five — kings, consuls, dictators, decimviri, and military tribunes — had past when John wrote: the five that were. Rome was in its sixth stage — the caesars: the one that is. The next, the seventh, was the despotic emperors: the other “is not yet come.”

    Revelation 17:11. The “eighth,” which was “of the seven,” shows that this eighth ruling power would be practically the same as those preceding it. Pagan Rome reappears as papacy Rome. The papacy is the eighth.

    Revelation 17:12. (See also Dan. 7:8, 24-25.) After pagan Rome’s downfall in 476 A.D., Western Europe came under papal influence. It was composed of 10 kingdoms: Bavarians, Franks, Burgundians, Alemanni, Suevi, Visigoths, Alans, Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Lombards. The Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Lombards were the three of the first horns plucked up by the “little horn,” the papacy (Dan. 7: 8, 24).

    Revelation 17:13. All these kingdoms submitted to papal authority.

    Revelation 17:14. These kingdoms sided with papal Rome and martyred the Christians. Both the Church and the chosen nation (Israel, not Jewry) have gained the victory over the beast. Both the Church and the chosen nation are “called” and “chosen” in God’s covenants and promises. Those who make war on them “make war with the Lamb.”

    Revelation 17:15. The “waters” are the people, multitudes, nations, and tongues (see Luke 21:25).

    Revelation 17:16. The European nations will strip the papacy of its power and influence. (This is being fulfilled by the movement leftward to Nazism, now mostly defunct, and, more completely, to communism and atheism — a movement toward various types of socialism and human secularism.)

    Revelation 17:17. The 10 Kingdoms agree to submit to papal authority. However, in the last days they will rebel against papal authority — by that fulfilling God’s word.

    Revelation 17:18. The “great city” refers to the papal system. It reigns over the beast (nations). The doom of the papacy begins.

Fall of Economic Babylon
    Revelation 18:1-3. The angel proclaims the doom of Babylon. He proclaims that Babylon the great has fallen. Instead of bringing blessings and peace, it has brought chaos and turmoil.

    Revelation 18:4. Israel (not Jewry) is called to come out of Babylon. (See Jer. 50 and 51 for a picture of the fall of Babylon and the deliverance of Israel.)

    Revelation 18:5-10. (See also Jer. 50 and 51, Isa. 47) The destruction of the present economic system, i.e., fascism, socialism, crony capitalism, the welfare-warfare state, etc., is described.

    Revelation 18:11-14. These verses describe an economic or financial cataclysm accompanying the fall of Babylon. Economic cataclysms are seen in the Great Depression and the inflations and hyperinflations that have occurred throughout the world during much of the twentieth century. These events have been worst in Catholic countries than Protestant countries. Over the last 40 years, a decline in real income in the Western world has occurred. Fiat currency and using debt as the primary source of money have been the primary cause of  these catastrophes.

    Revelation 18:15-19. These verses reemphasize the previous four verses.

    Revelation 18:20-23. That which had made Babylon seem great disappears.

    Revelation 18:24. The “earth” refers to the papal European prophetical earth. God now judges Babylon and its false doctrines.

Fall of Political Babylon
    Revelation 19:1-3. “Heaven” symbolizes God’s chosen nation Israel (not Jewry), which the Great Whore had so bitterly opposed and sought to destroy. These verses may be describing the rejoicing of Israel when the military might and spiritual power of the papal European beast is finally broken. (They could also be describing the rejoicing of the angels, or perhaps the rejoicing of angels and Israel.)

    Revelation 19:4-6. Heaven and earth are joined together.

    Revelation 19:7. “Wife” refers to the elect “Body of Christ” or the true Church (see Eph. 5:22-32).

    Revelation 19:8. The resurrection garments are clean and bright. They are given only to the Church — not the nation, Israel — when Jesus returns. This perfection is not granted to Israel until the end of the millennium.

    Revelation 19:11-12. Jesus, who is coming to destroy the beast or dragon and to overthrow the harlot woman who rides the beast, is the rider of the white horse.

    Revelation 19:13-15. The “winepress of the wrath of God” depicts God’s judgement on earth. The “vesture dipped in blood” depicts bloodstains from the treading of the age-closing “winepress” of God’s judgment (see Isa. 63:1, 3). The iron rod or scepter of justice and truth is the scepter of righteousness, the scepter of the Kingdom.

    Revelation 19:16. Although the title of “Lord of lords and King of kings” intrinsically belongs to Jehovah alone, He has greatly exalted His Son, the slain Lamb, and permits him to take this title when the time comes to give him the throne of David.

    Revelation 19:17-19. These verses describe World War I and World War II, and possibly another great war not yet fought, in which the beast (papal Europe) and the kings of the (Roman prophetical) earth fight against his army (Israel).

    Revelation 19:20-21. “Mark of the beast” is the mark of the papal system. This is the end of God’s judgement on the papal system and the false prophet, the papacy itself. Casting the beast and false prophet into a lake of fire terminates God’s judgment of this age. The lake of fire is the European conflagration or conflict of the present generation.

    The last three chapters of Revelations describe the Millennium and Post-Millennium Age. Chapter 20 describes the Millennium. Chapter 21 describes the new heaven and new earth. Chapter 22 describes the Post-Millennium Age.

Appendix
    The following table compares the time lines of three historicists: Fox, Neser, and Rand.

Part 1

Copyright © 2011 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on religion.

A Historicist Interpretation of Revelation – Part 1

A Historicist Interpretation of Revelation – Part 1 

Thomas Allen

    This article presents an overview of a historicist school interpretation of Revelation. The historicist school interprets Revelation as revealing history in symbolic form from the time of Jesus until the Second Advent and beyond. Thus, according to the historicist school, Revelation reveals future history from the first century to the end of the age. This article deals primarily with the historic time line. The historicist interpretation was the primary interpretation used by the Reformers.

    Readers are referred to A Flood of Light Upon the Book of Revelation by John S. Fox, The Book of Revelation by F. W. C. Neser, and Study in Revelation by Howard B. Rand for a more detailed description of historical events being described in Revelation and the symbolism and time scales used in Revelation.

    Besides the historicist school of interpretation, three other basic schools of interpretation are used to interpret Revelation: praetorist, futurist, and apocalyptic. The praetorist school interprets Revelation as describing in symbolic form the events taking place during the lifetime of John and in his environment. Thus, the events described in Revelation have already occurred or have mostly occurred. The futurist school interprets Revelation as describing in symbolic form the future, primarily the time immediately preceding the Second Advent and the millennium. It is the most popular form of interpretation today. The apocalyptic school takes all figures as symbolic and interprets Revelation as a religious philosophy of life.

    The following historicist explanation is primarily from Fox’s and Neser’s descriptions with some additions from Rand. Just as there are several futurist and praetorist interpretations, so there are several historicist interpretations. There is as much disagreement among the members of the historicist school over what events are being described as there is among members of the futurist school.

History Revealed from the First to the Twentieth Century
    This Section contains a brief overview of the history as revealed from the first century through the nineteenth century.

The Seven Churches
    The letter to Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7) describes the early or primitive Church from 30 A.D. to about 96 or 100 A.D. Some authorities place the end of this period in 64 A.D. when state persecutions began under Nero.

    The letter to Smyrna (Rev. 2:8-11) describes the Church during the era of pagan persecution. This era lasted from about 64 or 100 to 313. It began with the persecutions of Nero (64) and ended with the end of the persecutions of Diocletian.

    The letter to Pergamos (Rev. 2:12-17) describes the Church during the papal beginnings. This period began in 313 when Constantine succeeded Diocletian and declared Christianity the state religion. Some authorities place its end in 529 when Benedict founded the Benedict Order. Some place its end in 606 when Boniface III claimed the title of Universal Bishop. Others extend it to the Second Advent.

    The letter to Thyatira (Rev. 2:18-29) describes the Church during the era of papal supremacy. It lasted from 606 (or 529) to about 1866. Others place the end of this era in 1529.

    The letter to Sardis (Rev. 3:1-6) describes the Church during the era of the Reformation. Some authorities place the beginning of this era in 1365, the era of John Wycliffe. Others place the beginning in 1517 when Luther published his 95 Theses at Wurttemberg. Yet others place the beginning in 1529. It lasted, according to some, to 1600, or, according to others, 1789 when the French Revolution began.

    The letter to Philadelphia (Rev. 3:7-13) describes the Church during the era of liberation or the faithful church. Some authorities place the beginning of this era in 1789 with the beginning of the French Revolution. Others place the beginning in 1558 with the destruction of the Spanish Armada. This era ended, according to some, in 1800 when Philadelphia ceased being the capital of the United States. Others place the end in 1914 with the commencement of World War I. Yet some extend this era to the Second Advent.

    The letter to Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22) describes the Church during the era of the final state apostasy or the lukewarm church. Some place the beginning of this era in 1800 while others place in 1850 or 1914. This era lasts until the Second Advent or the end of the age.

The First Six Seals
    Chapter 6 of Revelation describes the first six seals.

    The first seal, the white horse, (Rev 6:1-2) depicts a triumphant Rome. According to some authorities, this era begins in 31 B.C. when Augustus established the Roman Empire with his victory at the Battle of Actium. Others place the beginning of this period in 96 A.D. This period lasted until 180 A.D. according to some. Others place the end in 64 A.D. when Rome was burned and Nero began persecuting the Christians.

    The second seal, the red horse, (Rev. 6:3-4) depicts civil war. According to some authorities, this period began in 185 and ended in 284. During this era there were 32 emperors, 27 pretenders, and numerous civil wars. Other authorities place this period between 64, the beginning of the Roman persecutions of Christians and 313, the end of the Roman persecutions.

    The third seal, the black horse (Rev. 6:5-6) depicts heavy taxation and a time of depression and gloom, and of despair and calamity. According to some authorities, this era began in 200 and lasted until 250. During this time Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to all freemen and imposed heavy taxation on them. Other authorities place this period from 313, the beginning of Constantine's reign to the beginning of the great barbarian invasion of the Roman Empire in 396. It was during this era that the creeds were established and substituted for the Word of God.

    The fourth seal, the pale horse (Rev. 6:7-8) depicts famine, disease, and death. According to some authorities, this era lasted from 250 to 300. Many people died during this time from wars, famine, and pestilence. A great plague occurred throughout the Roman Empire in 265. Other authorities place this era between 396 when Alaric the Goth invaded the Roman Empire and 536 when the Church Council at Constantinople compelled the state to execute its edicts.

    The fifth seal (Rev. 6:9-11) depicts Rome martyring the Christians. According to some authorities, this period lasted from 303 to 313; during this time Diocletian attempted to exterminate the Christians. Others place this period between 536, when church and state were united, and 1755-1796, when this union was effectively broken in most countries.

    The sixth seal (Rev. 6:12-17) depicts Rome divided. According to some authorities, this era falls between 313, when Constantine became emperor and recognized Christianity as the state religion, and 395, when the Roman Empire split in halve. During this era, paganism fell. Others place this era between 1755-1796 and probably the late 1940’s. According to these authorities this era opens with the godless French Revolution destroying the supremacy of the papacy over civil government and Napoleon’s invasion of Italy. The great earthquake that occurred on November 1, 1755, in Lisbon shook the entire territory of the old Roman Empire. The star shower was the meteoric shower of November 12 and 13, 1833.

    Chapter 7 of Revelation describes God’s love and care of Israel, the Ten Lost Tribes. This Chapter refers to physical Israel and not to the Church. Most of the Ten Lost Tribes are found in Europe, primarily Western Europe, and the countries in America settled by Europeans, as well as Australia. Most of today’s Jews are not descendants of Israel.

The Seventh Seal: the Seven Trumpets
    Chapter 8 of Revelation describes the beginning of the seventh seal, and the first four trumpets.

    The seventh seal contains the seven trumpets. The trumpets overlap the fourth through sixth seals. The first four trumpets are the Gothic trumpets and represent the conquest of the European third of the Roman Empire.

    The first trumpet (Rev. 8:7) depicts the Gothic invasion led by Alaric — “the third part of the trees was burnt.” It begins with Alaric and his Goths invading the Western Roman Empire in 396 (or according to some, in 400 just before the Visigoths overran Europe). It ends in 410 when Alaric sacked Rome. Others place the end of this period in 429.

    The second trumpet (Rev. 8:8-9) depicts the Vandals under Genseric invading the Roman Empire from the sea — “the third part of the ships destroyed.” This era began in 425 (or 429) and ended in 470 (or 476 when Odoacer, king of the Heruli took Rome).

    The third trumpet (Rev. 8:10-11) depicts Attila and his Huns invading the Roman Empire — “the third part of the rivers, and . . . fountains.” This era began in 451 with the Battle of Chalons, which resulted in Attila being driven back across the Rhine. Others place this era between 434 and 453.

    The fourth trumpet (Rev. 8:12) depicts the final blow to Rome and the resulting break up of the Roman Empire — “the third part of the sun . . . darkened.” This occurred in 476 when Odoacer, king of the Heruli, took Rome and brought to an end the Roman Empire. Others place this period between 476 and 622, the founding of Mohammedanism.

     Chapter 9 describes the fifth trumpet, the first woe, and sixth trumpet, the second woe.

    The fifth trumpet, the first woe, (Rev. 9:1-12) is the Saracen trumpet and depicts the conquest of the Southern third of the Roman Empire — the war against idolatry. According to some, this era began in 612 when Mohammed proclaimed his mission. Others place the beginning in 622, the opening of the Mohammedan calendar, the Hegira, Mohammed’s flight from Mecca to Medina. During this time the Saracens or Arabs overran the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain. Some authorities place the end of this era in 762 when Caliph Al-Mansur built Baghdad and made it his capital. Other place the end in 1299 when Osman established the Ottoman Empire.

    The sixth trumpet, the second woe, (Rev. 9:13-21) is the Turkish trumpet and depicts the conquest of the eastern third of the Roman Empire — horsemen slay the third part. Some authorities place the beginning of this period in 1062 when the Turks crossed the Euphrates River in their march westward. Others place the beginning in 1299 when the Ottoman Empire was established. The end of this period, according to some, occurred in 1453 with the Turkish conquest of Constantinople. Others place it in 1699 when the Ottoman power was broken with the Peace of Karlowitz. Others extend this era to the end of the twentieth century.

The Reformation and the Two Witnesses
    Chapter 10 of Revelation describes the early days of the Reformation from John Wycliffe in the middle of the fourteenth century to the end of the sixteenth century.

    Chapter 11 presents the two witnesses. The two witnesses are the Church (the candlestick) and Israel (the olive tree). The beast is papal Rome and its false doctrine. This chapter describes events from the sixteenth century until the end of the twentieth century.

The Seventh Trumpet and the Seven Vials
    Chapters 12 and 16 describe the seventh trumpet, the third woe, and the seven vials of the seventh trumpet. Chapter 12 through 14 reviews some previous events.

    The seventh trumpet (Rev. 11:15-19) is the third woe and depicts the rise of atheism, which began with the French Revolution and reaches its climax in communism.

    Chapter 12 of Revelation describes the woman and the dragon. The woman symbolizes Israel. The dragon, the serpent, and the beast are Satan usually revealing himself through pagan Rome or papal Rome. This chapter describes the general movement of the lost tribes of Israel.

    Chapter 13 describes papal power replacing pagan Rome. It describes the rise of the papacy. The papacy is the beast out of the sea and the man of sin.

    Chapter 14 describes the decline of the papacy and the establishment of the kingdom.

    Chapter 15 describes the victory over the beast.

    The first vial (Rev. 16:2) describes the beginning of the French Revolution — the earth. This is the period that France rejects papal sovereignty. It began in 1789 with the beginning of the French Revolution and ended in 1793 or 1794 with the Reign of Terror. Other authorities place this period between 1781 and 1799 when France came under Napoleon’s domination.

    The second vial (Rev. 16:3) describes the naval warfare of the Napoleonic Wars — the sea. This is the period of the British naval victories over France and Spain. It began in 1793 with Hood’s victory over the French at Toulon. It ended, according to some, in 1805 with the British victory at Trafalgar. Others place the end in 1813 while some extend this period to 1815, Napoleon’s final defeat.

    The third vial (Rev. 16:4-7) describes France’s invasion of Germany (or the Italian revolts) — “the rivers and fountains of water.” This is the period of divine judgement on the Rhine, Danube, and Po valleys. According to some authorities, it began in 1793 with France’s first war against the major powers of Europe and lasted until 1806 when Napoleon forbade European trade with Great Britain. Others place this period between 1820 when the Italian revolts first began and 1849 with the Austrian victory at Novara, which gave Austria control of much of Italy.

    The fourth vial (Rev. 16:8-9) describes the Napoleonic Wars (or the forming of the Kingdom of Italy) — the Sun. This is the period of tottering the Roman Catholic throne. According to some, it began in 1806 and lasted until 1815 when Napoleon was finally defeated. Others place this period between 1860 with the Sicilian revolt and 1870 when Rome became part of the Kingdom of Italy.

    The fifth vial (Rev. 16:10-11) describes the seat of the beast. This is the period of the French capture of the Papal States and the Pope being exiled. According to some, it began in 1798 when the French captured the Papal States and ended in 1870 when Rome became part of the Kingdom of Italy. Others place this period between 1872 and 1886.

    The sixth vial (Rev. 16:12-16) describes the way being prepared for Russian communism — the Great River Euphrates. This is the period of the collapse of the Turks. It is the period of the three unclean spirits or ideologies: the dragon (fascism), the beast (Nazism), and the false prophet (the papacy or Islam and communism). There is much disagreement over the beginning and ending of this period. Various authorities place the beginning in 1917-1918 with the fall of the Turkish Empire, 1878 with the end of the Russo-Turkish War that freed most of the Balkans from Turkish rule, or 1844 when Great Britain compelled Turkey to grant religious freedom to minorities. Various authorities place the end in 1945 with the end of World War II, in 1918 with the end of World War I, or 1928 when Turkey ceased having a state religion. (Some place the battle of Armageddon outside this vial, believing that it occurs, at least in part, later.)

    The seventh vial (Rev. 16:17-21) closes this age and is discussed next.

Part 2

Copyright © 2011 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on religion.

Nationalism and Imperialism

Nationalism and Imperialism

 Thomas Allen

    Nationalism is often accused of being the cause of many wars. It has been accused of aggressive war-making. It has been accused of causing one nationality to impose its will on another nationality. Nationalism has been falsely maligned. Much of what is blamed on nationalism should be placed on imperialism.

    Before proceeding, a distinction needs to be made between a “nation” and a “country.” A “nation” is a community of people of the same race having a common origin and language and with common traditions, culture, economy, etc. that is capable of forming a nation-state, i.e., a politically organized relatively homogenous people inhabiting a sovereign state. A country is the territory that a political state governs. A nation is the people, and a country is the land.

    Much confusion exists between nationalism and imperialism. Nationalism seeks to preserve a nationality. It seeks to preserve a nation (not to be confused with a country, most of which today are empires) and its culture, language, race, laws, economy, etc. On the other hand, imperialism seeks to impose the culture, laws, economy, etc. of one nationality on another nationality. Nationalism is essentially the opposite of imperialism.

    Nationalism acquired its belligerent reputation in the nineteenth century when various nations attempted to secede from various European and American Empires. The Irish attempted to secede from the British Empire. Several nations of the Austrian Empire attempted to secede. They were unsuccessful. However, Hungry did manage to obtain parity with Austria; hence, Austria-Hungry was born. Secession from the Turkish Empire was more successful as Greeks, Serbians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and Albanians won their independence. In North America, the Southern States failed in their attempt to secede from the American Empire.

    Many historians agree that the fundamental cause of World War I was imperialistic in nature. Few blame nationalism for the war. As destructive as that war was, it did advance the cause of nationalism — at least in Europe.

    The Irish gained independence although the status of Ulster has yet to be satisfactorily resolved.

    The Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed into several nations. Although they lost part of their nation (part of Tirol) to Italy and were not united with the Bavarian provinces of Bavaria, the Bayuvar (or Austro-Bavarians) formed a new Austria. Although they lost part of their nation (Vojvodina) to Serbia, the Hungarians formed a new Hungary. The Czechs gained their independence although they held the Slovaks in subjection until 1992 when the Slovaks gained their independence and the Ruthenians until the end of World War II when they were transferred to the Soviet Union. In the south, the Croats, Dalmatians, Slovenes, Bosnians, and Herzegovinians were not so fortunate. They were merged into the Serbian Empire (commonly called Yugoslavia) along with the Montenegrins and Macedonians until the collapse of the Soviet Empire precipitated the collapse of the Serbian Empire. (However, the Montenegrins remained under Serbian rule, and the Dalmatians remained under Croat rule.)

    Out of the fall of the Russian Empire came homelands for nations of the Finns, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Kashubians in Gdansk, and Poles. The Byelorussians were divided between Poland and Russia.

    Germany’s African and Asian colonies were transferred to England, France, and Japan. The Alemanni of Alsace and the French of Lorraine were placed under French rule. Much of the German Empire that was Polish became part of Poland.

    The French replaced the Turks as the rulers of the Syrians, Druzes, and Christian Lebanese. The English replaced the Turks as the rulers of the Palestinians, the Arabs of Amman, and the Shiite Arabs of Baghdad and Basra.

    World War II is what really caused the undeserving reputation of nationalism as the cause of aggressive belligerence. The fascist movements in Italy and Germany claimed to be nationalistic, and the gullible, who included just about everyone in academia in the West, believed the fascists and still do. Hitler went so far in this deception that he named his movement National Socialism. Both Germany and Italy were imperialistic, not nationalistic. They sought to conquer other nations and to impose their values, ideology, economy, laws, etc. on these conquered nations.

    Germany and Italy could not have been acting in a nationalistic spirit because both were, and still are, an empire of nations. Germany consisted of at least eight nations: the Bayuvars, Alemanni (who were, and still are, divided among Germany, Switzerland, and France), Franconians (or Upper Germans), Germans (or Middle Germans), Brandenburgians, Plattdeutsch, Wends (a Slavonic people), and Prussians (who lost their homeland to the Poles as a result of World War II). Italy consisted of at least thirteen nations: the Piedmontese, Gallo-Italians, Venetians, Tuscans, Latins, Neapolitans, Sicilians, Sardinians, Friulians, Ladins, Bayuvars in Tirol, Savoyards in the northwest (the remainder of whom live under French rule) and Slovenes in Istria (who were reunited with their kindred after World War II in the Serbian Empire).

    Following World War II the map of Europe again changed. The Soviet Union absorbed the Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians. The eastern boundary of Poland was redrawn, and all of the Byelorussians and Volhynians (whom the Ukrainians now rule) were placed under Russian rule. The Ruthenians (whom the Ukrainians now rule) traded their Czech rulers for Russian rulers, and the Lemks and Boyks (whom the Ukrainians now rule) traded their Polish rulers for Russian rulers. The Rumanians of Bessarabia were also absorbed into the Soviet Union.

    The Prussian states (Prussian, Pomerelia, and Pomerania) were absorbed into Poland, and the Prussians for the most part were driven from their homeland. The eastern portion of Brandenburg also became part of Poland as did Gdansk (Danzig) with the resulting loss of autonomy for the Kashubians.

    At least in Europe, World War II was not nationalistic in nature but was imperialistic. Because of the war, several nations lost their countries, and no nation gained independence. However, in Asia and Africa, things were different. The European colonial empires collapsed. Many new countries were born. Unfortunately, for the most part, these new countries were not nations in the true sense but were a conglomeration of nations.

    One new country that was a nation born following World War II was the Jewish nation of Israel. However, this nation soon shifted from nationalism to imperialism as it conquered and imposed its rule on the Palestinians.

    Between the end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Empire, several nations have cried out for independence — some even to the point of armed insurrection. Some of these nations are the Punjabi in India, the Kurds in Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, the Palestinians in Israel, the Boers in South Africa, the Corsicans and Bretons in France, the Basque in France and Spain, the Welsh and Scotts in Great Britain, the Quebeckers in Canada, and the Southern Americans in the United States.

    The collapse of the Soviet Empire brought nationalism to the forefront and has caused imperialism to retreat. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the puppet governments in Eastern Europe, many new countries, most of which are true nations, came into being. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are again independent. Byelorussians now have an independent homeland for the first time in history. Ukraine is an independent country although it continues to contain several nations along with the Ukrainians. The Rumanians of Moldavia (Bessarabia) have gained independence. In the Caucasian region, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaidzhan are independent. Georgia still consists of four different nations. Armenia’s union with the Armenians of Erzenrum in Turkey remains. Also, remaining is the union of the Azeris of Azerbaidzhan with the Azeris of Iran. In Central Asia, the Tajik now have an independent homeland in Tajikistan. The Turanian countries of Kazakh, Turkmen, Uzbek, and Kirghiz have also gained independence.

    In Eastern Europe outside the old Soviet Union, several new countries, which for the most part consist predominately of one nation, have been born. Czechoslovakia has divided. The Czechs (Bohemians) have their homeland, and the Slovaks have theirs. Yugoslavia has divided. The Slovenes, Croats, and Macedonians have their independent homelands.

    Although the growth of modern-day nationalism began long before World War I, it really began to bear fruit with the collapse of Turkey’s European empire that began several decades before that war with the creation of several new countries that were true nations. Then nationalism was driven back as imperialism reared its ugly head as the Italian, German, Russian, and Japanese empires began expansion. Imperialism peaked with World War II. Since the conquests of the Soviet Union at the conclusion of World War II, imperialism has been retreating, and nationalism has been advancing. Empires have collapsed, and none have risen to take their place although the United States have been striving to establish an empire of puppet states throughout the world.


Copyright © 1994, 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on politics.

Review of Daniel Carr’s “FDR’s 1933 Gold Confiscation was a Bailout of the Federal Reserve Bank”

Review of Daniel Carr’s “FDR’s 1933 Gold Confiscation was a Bailout of the Federal Reserve Bank”

Thomas Allen

    In his article, “FDR’s 1933 Gold Confiscation was a Bailout of the Federal Reserve Bank,” Mr. Daniel Carr argues that President Roosevelt stole the people’s gold primarily to bailout the Federal Reserve Banks. His article can be found at http://www.moonlightmint.com/bailout.htm. In presenting his argument, Mr. Carr makes some questionable assumptions. This article discusses errors in Mr. Carr’s article. Otherwise, Mr. Carr presents a good terse description of events leading up to the Great Depression and the cause of the Great Depression.

    Before discussing Mr. Carr’s article, three tables of monetary statistics are given. Data in these tables are used in analyzing Mr. Carr’s arguments and drawing different conclusions. These statistics are from Federal Reserve documents that can be found at http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/bms.

    The monetary statistics presented below are from Banking and Monetary Statistics, 1914-1941. In Table 1, the monetary statistics are from Section 11, “Currency,” Table No. 110, “Currency in Circulation — By Kind, Monthly, 1860-1941,” page 412. The numbers in Table 1 are for currency outside the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve Banks.

    Table 2 summaries the monetary gold. On page 506 of Section 13, “United States Government — Treasury Finance and Government Corporations and Credit Agencies,” the gold reserves for backing United States Notes are $156 million. Section 14, “Gold,” Table No. 156, “Analysis of Changes in Gold Stock of the United States, Monthly, 1914-1941,” page 537, gives a monthly average gold stock of $4,226 million for December 1932 and $4,093 for February 1933.  

    Part of the gold that the Federal Reserve Banks held was used to back federal reserve notes, and part was held for member banks as reserves. Section 10, “Member Bank Reserves, Reserve Bank Credit, and Related Items,” Table No. 102, “Member Bank Reserves, Reserve Bank Credit, and Related Items, End of Month Figures, 1914-1941,” page 376, shows that the Federal Reserve Banks held $2,509 million as member bank reserves on December 31, 1932 and $2,141 million on February 28, 1933.

    Table 3 gives the quantity of gold-clause paper currency.

     Although they were not gold-clause notes, the Gold Standard Act of 1900, which firmly placed it United States on the monometallic gold standard, made Treasury notes of 1890, silver dollars, silver certificates, and subsidiary silver redeemable in gold.

    For purposes of comparisons with Mr. Carr, the data for February 1933 are used except where February 1933 data are not available. Then December 1932 is used. February was the last full month before Roosevelt took office. He executed his great gold theft in March 1933.

    Mr. Carr estimates the quantity of gold-clause federal reserve notes in circulation in 1933 to be between $13,292 million (20,000 metric tons) and $26,916 million (40,500 metric tons). (He uses metric tons to weigh gold instead of dollars. At this time, a dollar was the weight of 23.22 grains of fine gold.) He uses The Standard Handbook of United States Paper Money by Chuck O’Donnell and The Comprehensive Catalog of U.S. Paper Money by Gene Hessler along with some assumptions that he explains to derive these numbers. As shown in the tables above, his estimate far exceeds the estimates of the Federal Reserve. Mr. Carr’s estimate for federal reserve notes in circulation is 3.9 to 7.9 times greater than the Federal Reserve’s estimate of $3,405 million. His estimate is 2.5 to 5.2 times greater than all gold-clause currency in circulation.

    Mr. Carr estimates the country’s monetary gold reserves in 1933 to be about $4,000 million, which he assumes that the U.S. government held to back gold certificates. As shown in Table 2, the Federal Reserve estimates $649 million were held to back gold certificates (assuming that the U.S. government fully backed its gold certificates). Its data show a total gold stock of $4,093 million, which is about the same as Mr. Carr’s estimate. However, unlike Mr. Carr’s assumption, the U.S. government did not hold all this gold. It was spread among the U.S. government ($805 million), the Federal Reserve Banks ($3,004 million), and the public ($284 million)

    By law, the Federal Reserve had to maintain a minimum of 40 percent in gold for outstanding federal reserve notes. Thus, it needed $1,362 million in gold to satisfy the statutory backing. It had $3,004 million in gold to back $3,405 in federal reserve notes.

    Mr. Carr estimates that between $13,292 million and $26,916 million in federal reserve notes were unbacked. He is correct in that the Federal Reserve lack enough gold to redeem all its notes. However, the shortage was not nearly as great as he estimates. Nevertheless, the situation was as dire as he declares.

    The $3,004 million in gold that the Federal Reserve held was not only for backing its notes. It was also for backing checkbook money issued by member banks. Moreover, member banks were liable for redeeming their bank notes in gold. Consequently, the problem was not a lack of gold held by the Federal Reserve to redeem federal reserve notes. The problem was that the Federal Reserve and commercial banks held insufficient gold to redeem the demand deposit accounts, checkbook money, held by the public.

    Most loans were in the form of demand deposits instead of paper money or coin. Funds in demand deposit accounts were available to the holder on demand and had to be redeemed in gold if so demanded. As the typical bank was using $1 in gold to back several dollars in demand deposits (it was allowing multiple parties to use the same gold simultaneously), it could not redeem all its deposits if a bank run occurred as happened in the early 1930s.

    Section 2, “Assets and Liabilities of all Member Banks,” Table No. 18, “All Member Banks — Principal Assets and Liabilities on Call Dates, 1914‒1941," gives $15,193 million in demand deposits (checking accounts or checkbook money) subject to reserves and vault cash of $423 million on December 31, 1932. Section 9, “Federal Reserve Banks,” Table No. 85, “Assets and Liabilities of Federal Reserve Banks, December 31, 1914-1915,” page 332, gives $2,509 million in reserves held by the Federal Reserve Banks for member banks on December 31, 1932.

    These statistics show that commercial banks that were members of the Federal Reserve System had $2,509 million in reserves plus $423 million in vault cash or $2,932 million that could be used to redeem $15,193 in checkbook money. Thus, on December 31, 1932, the Federal Reserve System held $3,288 million in gold to back $15,193 in demand deposits and $2,716 million in federal reserve notes. It was short $14,621 million in gold. Moreover, commercial banks were liable for $820 million in gold for redemption of national bank notes, which an equivalent amount of U.S. government bonds held by the U.S. Treasury secured. The problem was not too many unbacked federal reserve notes. It was too much unbacked checkbook money. This shortage of $14,621 million, plus an additional $820 million for national bank notes, falls within Mr. Carr’s estimate of $13,292 million to $26, 916 million.

    The above shows that the U.S. government held $805 million in gold to back gold certificates and U.S. notes. The Federal Reserve held $3,004 million in gold. Of the $4,093 million of the monetary gold, the U.S. government and Federal Reserve held 93 percent. The people held $284 million in gold coins or about 7 percent of the monetary gold. If the coins were roughly evenly distributed among the population, each person would have had between $2 and $3 in gold coins (c. 123 million population).

    As Roosevelt confiscation order allowed each person to keep $100 in gold coins, he did not have to steal any coins held by the public. Between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, he already had nearly all the gold. All he needed to do, and what he did do, was to violate the U.S. government’s, the Federal Reserve’s, and national banks’ contracts with the people by voiding the redemption clauses in the law and on the paper money.

    Bailing out the Federal Reserve was not the primary reason that Roosevelt stole the people’s gold as Mr. Carr asserts. The primary reason was control. Roosevelt wanted to establish a fascist government. Gold prevented him from doing that. Gold protects the people from despotic governments and their central bank co-conspirators. Once he had stolen the people’s gold and outlawed their using it as money, he proceeded to convert the United States into a fascist state.

    However, Roosevelt did greatly aid the bankers to do what bankers like to do most — inflate. He did this in three ways. First, he stole the gold that the people had entrusted to the U.S. government and let the Federal Reserve use it as part of its official reserves. Second, he redefined the dollar from 23.22 grains of gold to 13.71 grains, i.e., he devalued the dollar about 41 percent. Third, and most important, he removed the restraint of gold redemption.

    Mr. Carr is correct about Roosevelt stealing the people’s gold to benefit the Federal Reserve by relieving it of its obligation to redeem its notes in gold. Roosevelt also relieved the U.S. government of its obligation to redeem its paper money. However, the biggest beneficiaries were the commercial banks, which were also relieved of their obligation to redeem their checkbook money in gold. They also received a slight benefit of not having to redeem their bank notes in gold.

    However, Mr. Carr’s claim that Roosevelt stole the people’s gold to bailout the Federal Reserve is questionable. At least, he fails to prove his point. The monetary data that he uses is highly questionable. He needs to reevaluate his claim or prove it using more reliable and acceptable data presented by the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury. These data may be rigged as governments, and by extension their central banks, are notorious liars. (The post Federal Reserve statistics appear to be in line with pre Federal Reserve statistics.) Moreover, once banks were relieved of the obligation to redeem their money in gold, most, and certainly the Federal Reserve, did not need bailing out.

    Mr. Carr is correct in identifying bank money as a major problem that led, at least in part, to Roosevelt’s theft of the people’s gold. However, he focuses on bank notes, federal reserve notes, instead of checkbook money. The latter was much more significant as it was 5.6 times greater than federal reserve notes in circulation.

    Perhaps Mr. Carr or someone else may be able to sift through the voluminous data in Banking and Monetary Statistics, 1914-1941 and derive more accurate conclusions than I have.

Copyright © 2011 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money.    

Ethnic Harmony

Ethnic Harmony

Thomas Allen

    In The Natural Law of Race Relations (1993), Laszlo Thomay presents his natural law of race relations. Based on ethnical relations in various multinational countries, he derives this law. (He uses race in the biological and national sense. Except when quoting from his book, “race” in this article refers to a biological race, such as the Negro race or Turanian race. “Nationality” means race in the national sense, such as Slovene, Basque, Sioux, or Zulu; all people of the same nationality are of the same biological race. “Ethnic” is used in a broad sense to include both race and nationality.) He states the law as follows:

People of different races, nationalities, languages or cultures can not live peacefully and harmoniously within the confines of the same state if the minority exceeds a certain proportion of the total population. Exceptions may occur by virtue of reducing the effective size of the minority when the minority lives in a geographically separate area with full autonomy, and/or the minority is willing to be, and capable of being absorbed into the majority, and/or the minority is very small and avoids any action deemed to be provocative to the majority.

A shorter, but less exact, stating of this law is, “The larger and more noticeably different a minority is, the more relations between majority and minority deteriorate.”

    Maintaining good racial and ethnic relationships requires maintaining the minority below a certain percentage of the country’s population. The percentage varies, but it usually is below one to five percent. The more noticeable the minority, the more it threatens the majority; the lower the percentage is, the less it threatens the majority.

    The noticeability can be visual or audible. People of different races are visually different. They cannot overcome this difference. People who speak different languages are audibly different. If they are of the same race, they can overcome this difference, at least by the following generation, by the minority learning to speak fluently the language of the majority.

    The United States offer an example of where audible differences are overcome, but not visual differences. People from the many national groups of Europe have come to the United States. They are of the same primary race, so any visual differences are cultural, which they can change, and not biological, which they cannot change. Most of them learn to speak English. English becomes the primary language of most of their children. By the second or third generation, they are part of the majority.

    However, Blacks have been unable to fit in. Although most of the majority will deny it, the majority perceives Blacks as a threat. Audibly they are indistinguishable from the majority. Except for some recent immigrants, Blacks have spoken English for generations. However, their visual differences are highly noticeable. Being biological, these differences cannot be overcome.

    The recent onslaught of Mexican Indian and mestizo immigrants shows even more striking differences from the majority. They display not only visual differences that are biological; they also display audible differences. Spanish is their primary, and for many only, language. Most have no desire to replace Spanish with English as their primary language.

    A few multiracial (or perhaps more correctly multiethnical or multinational) countries with good relationships do exist. The primary example is Switzerland. The four different nationalities are of the same race. They segregate themselves geographically. Whenever a person of one nationality moves to an area dominated by a different nationality, he is expected to adopt, and he usually does, the language of the area into which he moves.

    However, strife exists in most multiethnical countries even when the people are of the same race and segregate themselves geographically, essentially, according to their nationality. Examples of these countries are Canada, Belgium, the former Yugoslavia, the former Czechoslovakia, Nigeria, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and India.

    The way to reduce ethnic strife is to reduce the effective size of the minority. This reduction can be achieved by territorial separation, assimilation, or a cooperative attitude by the minority.

    Territorial separation within a country would require segregating minorities into definite geographical areas with definable political boundaries. Such areas should have full autonomy over domestic matters. Territorial separation explains in part the success of Switzerland. However, that the unusual conditions that account for Switzerland’s success exist elsewhere is doubtful.

    The United States have tried internal territorial separation. The result, however, has been a failure. Indians were segregated into reservations. Instead of giving them independence on their reservations, the United States government reduced them to wards. Blacks have, in the North at least, been largely segregated to the inner parts of the large cities. They have been denied domestic autonomy. As it did the Indians, the United States government has made them wards. Furthermore, they are forced on the majority via various integrationist programs, thereby defeating the purpose of geographical separation.

    Assimilation can only work if the minority is biologically the same as the majority, i.e., of the same race unless the majority wants to destroy itself. Assimilation has worked in the United States as far as European immigrants are concerned. Europeans are of the same race as the majority. Moreover, they are of the same basic Christian culture of Western Civilization. These immigrants desired to adopt the language and the way of life of the majority. However, the Negro differs biologically from the majority and has not been assimilated. Unless the majority, as well as the minority, are willing to destroy themselves, assimilation of different races cannot occur.

    A cooperative attitude by the minority can go a long way toward creating ethnical harmony. The minority must make no special demands. It must not complain or seek a dominating role. So, the less noticeable the minority, the better the relationship. A cooperative attitude by the minority seldom occurs unless the minority is extremely small. Nearly all minorities in the United States abhor a cooperative attitude.

    Several actions can be taken to improve ethnical harmony not only in the United States but also globally. These actions are territorial separation and independence (the break up of empires) with border adjustment where appropriate, repatriation, and restrictions on immigration. The objective is to reduce the size of the minority until it no longer matters and the majority no longer considers the minority a threat to its existence.

    Where practical each nationality should have its own independent nation-state. (About 170 countries would be required to provide each nationality of the Aryan race of any significance to its own country.) The division of empires into nation-states has recently occurred with Czechoslovakia, which divided into a state for Czechs and one for Slovaks. It has occurred to a limited degree with the break up of the old Soviet Union. (To finish this process, many more nationalities in Russia will have to receive independence, and many Russians will have to be repatriated to Russia from the new nation-states of the old Soviet Union.) This solution would eliminate strife in Canada between French Quebec and English Canada, South Africa among the Afrikaans, Zulus, Xhosas, etc., Belgium between the Flemish and Walloons, the multinational countries of Europe, and just about every country in Africa where political borders were drawn for the benefit of the imperial powers with little regard for the various African nationalities. Independence is the best solution and the solution that should be used whenever possible. (The major difficulty with creating independent nation-states will be overcoming the lust for power and empire of the governing bodies of the empires of the world. An empire is a country containing more than one significant nationality.)

    In the United States, Indian reservations should be granted complete independence — at least on domestic and economic issues, if not in foreign relations. Furthermore, the United States empire should be divided into several independent federations.

    A possible solution to the Negro problem would be to create independent states similar to Indian reservations for Blacks. Political boundaries could be drawn around areas inhabited predominately by Blacks. These areas would include a large fraction of the major cities and parts of the rural South.

    Once nation-states have been created for each nationality, some border adjustments may be necessary. Such adjustments are likely to be needed in Europe and Asia where historical provincial and regional boundaries often encompass minorities who are the majority in the adjacent state. The map of Africa would have to be completely redrawn. The objective is to create a separate, homogenous state for each nationality without any minority.

    Once each nationality has its own independent nation-state, it would have to take steps to prevent future minority problems. Severe restrictions would have to be placed on immigration. Immigration should be limited to nationalities that the receiving country can assimilate. The number of immigrants should be restricted so that they can be assimilated.

    Recent arrivals (any post-World War II immigrants and their descendants) who have not been assimilated should be repatriated. Repatriation could be used on older unassimilated minorities who have identifiable homelands to which to return. Since World War II, several countries have resorted to repatriation to protect their majority. These include Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania expelling Asian Indians. In North America, some Indian tribes have expelled from their reservations non-Indians who have been living there for years.

    Liberals, neo-conservatives, libertarians, shallow thinkers, and far too many theologians would object to restricting immigration. They would argue that people have a right to move to any country to which they desire, to retain their religion, language, and special culture, and to transmit these values to their offspring. Their objection to immigration restriction rests on a false premise that people have a right to go wherever they please. People have no such right. No one has the right to enter and occupy someone else’s territory unless he is invited and accepted. This principle is as true of a collective national domicile as it is of an individual private domicile. The people of the receiving country have the right to decide whom they will invite
.
    When immigration is not controlled, the majority risks losing its territory to a minority, who supplant them as the new majority. A classic example is the United States and Canada where Europeans supplanted the Indians. Albanians have replaced the Serbs as the majority in the former Serbian region of Kosova. Fijians are on the verge of losing their country to Asian Indians, who are now the majority. (Fiji presents an interesting situation where the minority would have to repatriate the majority to regain its country.) Uncontrolled immigration can destroy a people.

    When a minority race or nationality exceeds a certain fraction of the population of a country, ethnic strife erupts. Ethnic strife can be lessened by internal geographical separation, assimilation, and a cooperative attitude by the minority. Assimilation is not practical or possible when the majority and minority are of different races. Geographically separation does not work in countries that promote integration. Minorities abandon their cooperative attitudes once they exceed a certain fraction of the population. The only long-term solution to ethnical strife is for each nationality to have its own independent nation-state. To prevent future ethnic strife, these nation-states need to restrict immigration to those nationalities that they can assimilate and to such numbers as can be assimilated. Keeping minorities to a very small number will eliminate ethnic strife.

Copyright © 1996, 2011 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

Slavery Not the Reason

Slavery Not the Reason

Thomas Allen

    The protection of slavery was not and could not have been the primary reason for the Southern States seceding. Slavery was protected in the United States and would have continued to be protected had they not seceded. Even if their secession were successful, slavery would have been less protected in a free South than if the Southern States had remained part of the United States. The preservation of slavery must have been a minor reason for secession.

    If the Southern States remained in the Union, Southerners could emigrate to the territories of the United States and settle there with their slaves. The Compromise of 1850 allowed slaveholders to settle with their slaves in the territories of Utah and New Mexico. (These territories along with California were taken from Mexico in 1848 as a result of the Mexican War.) The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowed slaveholders to settle with their slaves in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. Congress would not decree whether these territories would enter the Union as slave States or nonslave States. The people of each territory would decide that when they applied for statehood. This act also repealed the restrictions of the Missouri Compromise; thus it opened the northern territories (Colorado, Dakota, Montana, and Idaho) up to slavery. In 1857 the Supreme Court ruled in the Dread Scott case that slaveholders had the constitutional right to carry their slaves into the territories and that Congress could not deprive them of this right. Thus, by 1860 Southerners had won their right to emigrate to the territories and settle with their slaves.

    Outside the Union, however, Southerners would not have this right. If the Southern States were an independent country, a Southerner carrying his slaves into a State (even a slave State) or territory of the United States would have been in violation of the law. The importation of slaves into the United States was illegal. If, as often claimed, slavery needed to expand into the territories in order to survive, then secession would have surely destroyed slavery without war. With the Southern States outside the Union, slavery would have been practically nonexistent in the territories. If slavery needed to expand to survive, then slavery would have died with an independent South. For there would have been no place for slavery to expand.

    If the Southern States remained in the Union, the federal government would apprehend runaway slaves and return them to their owners. The federal government had enacted fugitive slave laws with efficient provisions for their enforcement by federal officials. If the Southern States were an independent country, slaveholders would lack this guarantee. That the United States would have entered into a treaty with the Confederacy to return runaway slaves was doubtful.

    The remarks made by the Republican Party leaders between the election and the outbreak of the War indicated that the Republicans were not going to abolish slavery.

    The platform of the Republican Party stated that the Republican Party did not intend to abolish slavery. The platform declared:

The maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially of each State, to order and control its own domestic institutions, according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to the balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend.

    Emancipation was a decision that each State should be free to make for itself.

The platform did state a desire to prohibit slavery in the territories, which was contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling. However, Southerners gave up their right to emigrate to the territories with their slaves when they seceded. With secession, this plank became a nonissue.

(On December 20, South Carolina seceded.)

    In correspondence to Alexander Stephens dated December 22, 1860, Lincoln wrote:

Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with the slaves, or with them about the slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and I still hope not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.

(On January 9, Mississippi seceded. On January 10, Florida seceded. On January 11, Alabama seceded.)

    In January of 1861, Congress adopted a resolution declaring that it recognized:

Slavery as now existing in fifteen of the United States, by the usage and laws of those states, and we recognize no authority, legal or otherwise, outside of a state where it exists, to interfere with slaves or slavery in such states.

(On January 19, Georgia seceded. On January 26, Louisiana seceded. On February 1, Texas seceded.)

    In February the House of Representatives adopted a resolution declaring:

that neither the Federal Government, nor the people, have a purpose or a constitutional right to legislate upon or interfere with slavery in any of the states of the Union.

and

that those persons in the North who do not subscribe to the foregoing propositions are too insignificant in numbers and influence to excite the serious attention or alarm of any portion of the people of the Republic.

This resolution was passed by a Republican-controlled House.

    Congress, with both Houses controlled by the Republican Party, adopted and sent to the States for ratification the following as an amendment to the United States Constitution:

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

    The House of Representatives passed this amendment on February 28, 1861. The Senate passed it on March 2, 1861. Lincoln expressed his approval of the amendment.

    On March 4, 1861, in his inaugural address Lincoln declared:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

    On April 12, 1861, South Carolina fired on Fort Sumpter in response to Lincoln’s provocation to re-enforce the fort. On April 15, 1861, Lincoln called for troops from the States. Following Lincoln’s call for troops was when the Upper South seceded.

(On April 17, Virginia seceded. On May 6, Arkansas seceded. On May 20, North Carolina seceded. On June 24, Tennessee seceded.)

    For the Upper South, the immediate cause of the War was Lincoln’s calling for troops to carry out his illegal act of suppressing the right of the Southern States to secede and form a new government.

    The protection of slavery could not have been much of a reason for the Upper South — or the Lower South, for that matter — seceding. Slavery was a protected institution in the United States. Base on the remarks and actions of the Republican leadership in the months preceding the War, it would have continued to be protected.

    In a resolution adopted on July 22, 1861, the United States Congress expressed its purpose for waging the War. The resolution read:

This war is not waged, on our part, in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states; but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the constitution, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; that, as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease.

    Not only was the abolition of slavery not even considered at issue, but Congress stressed that it would be preserved.

(On October 31, Missouri seceded. On November 20, Kentucky seceded.)

    So much for slavery as the reason for secession and the cause of the War.

Appendix 1
    In an address to the Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861, President Davis summarized the reason for secession and the ensuing war as follows:

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 inaugural 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.

Appendix 2
    The following is an excerpt from an editorial appearing in the January 15, 1861, issue of The Daily Picayune commenting on the absurdity and hypocrisy of a war to save the Federal Union:

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 true 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.

Appendix 3
    Commenting on the Gettysburg Address and the Battle of Gettysburg, H. L. Mencken wrote the following:

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 imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually 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.

Copyright © 1988 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on the South. 

A Tribute to My Deb

A Tribute to My Deb

Thomas Allen

    It has been a year since my Deb past away. When she died, the best part of me died with her. Deb, I miss you, need you, and love you more than ever.
    The following are some random thoughts about Deb. There is some repetition. You will notice I often contrast Deb with me: She is an angel who walks on water, and I am less than nothing.

‒ These are the words that began the only years of real happiness and joy I have ever known: "Country lady, 27, wildlife artist, seeks loving lifemate to share adventures. Marigold." Deb, why you picked me out of the 100+ who wrote you, I may never know. But I am glad that you did.

‒ Deb, I don’t know how you put up with me for 30 years. But I am glad that you did. You gave me 30 years of happiness and joy — the only years of happiness and joy that I ever had. You must have had an enormous amount of love for me to put up with me for all those years with hardly a complaint. More than once did you tell me that it was a good thing you you loved me after I did something to upset you. You are the only woman who not only could tolerate my existence for more than a few hours or weeks, you actually wanted to be with me. You wanted to be with me year after year. No other woman ever made it beyond a few weeks; most could not tolerate being around me for more than a few hours.

‒ Deb, these are some of the things that I liked about you; they are in no particular order of importance. You tolerated my existence. Moreover, most of the time you wanted to be with me or at least have me around. You came to love me so much that you could put up with me for 30 years. You accepted me mostly as I am and never really tried to change me. (Because of you, I did change some and polished my rough edges.) You were a great motivator but never nagged. For me your presence was enough to motivate me. You gave me purpose and direction. You surrendered yourself to me about as completely as a woman could. You were great in bed, in the yard, and everywhere else. You were not much of a complainer. You were easygoing, cheerful, optimistic, compassionate, understanding, loyal, and faithful. Also, you were an attractive, frugal, low-maintenance woman who had discernment and intelligence and a good deal of common sense. Not only were you a great wife, you were a great mother. You cared about me and for me. Even when I was wrong, you stood by me. Even when I embarrassed you, you stood by me although you would let me know that I had embarrassed you. (You did a better job of standing by me than I did you.) You trusted me to support you and the children.
    Although I feel as though I failed you at the end, I always tried to take care of you. I tried to free you up so that you could concentrate on the two things that you valued most: your family and art. I devoted myself to you and was loyal and faithful to you. Although I fantasied about other women, I never seriously sought out anyone else or even wanted to. I never looked for temptation (I don’t know if temptation ever really looked for me. If it did, I was not paying attention.) I only wanted you; I desiderated you. When I retired, and even before, I tried to set up our finances so that you would be taken care of financially as I expected you to out live me by many years. (As you were 7 years younger than I, you should have out lived me by at least 15 years.) I considered supporting you and taking care of you a privilege and an honor. I love you dearly. Somewhere along the way, I came to love you so much that your flaws and shortcomings not only became irrelevant, they became an essential part of you to be loved and cherished along with the rest of you. (You must have reached that point with me to live with me for 30 years.)

‒ Deb, when I had you as my copilot, I never had to concern myself with hyper drivers getting to me. As my copilot, you took care of that for me. You would be the one to get irritated at their stupidity and do the yelling, not very loud, and making the sarcastic remarks.

‒ I missed not having you as my navigator. You were not a good navigator, but you were better than no navigator.

‒ In Dune there is a place that terrorizes women, a place that they fear even to look. I am that place. Only you, Deb, ever drank the water of life and went there. I doubt anyone else will ever follow you. Deb, you are unique among womankind.

‒ I don’t recall what we were talking about, but I do remember telling you that I liked taking you places. I wanted people to see me with you. I wanted to show you off.

‒ After we came back from our trip to the mountains last April (2011), you said that you wanted to clean up the trailer so that you could work on your large paintings. So, I repacked and rearranged the things that our youngest son left behind when he went to Philadelphia to make more room and cleaned the trailer for you. Unfortunately, you never got to work on another large painting. (Except for her ACEOs and the few paintings that she did when she was part of the gallery in Wake Forest, she did nearly all her paintings in the trailer.)

‒ Once I get our youngest son’s things and inheritance out of the trailer, I want to clean it up and do some rearranging. Then I can display your gourds. My heart breaks then and now as I think about your effort and hard work to do those gourds — and almost no one wanted to buy your beautiful and often humorous gourds. I know you were also disappointed.

‒ Deb, one of the multitude of things that I liked about you was that you were quick to forgive me. Whenever I disappointed or displeased you, you quickly forgave me if you ever condemned me. Unlike nearly every other woman whom I disappointed and displeased, you never carried a grudge against me. Most others have been unforgiving and would carry the grudge to the grave with them.

‒ Deb, you are the only woman who never let me down. You were always there and always stood by me even when I was wrong. You are the only woman to value me enough to give herself up to me. I doubt that another will ever come into my life.

‒ Deb, you were a great motivator. I am amazed at how much I was able to accomplish when you were with me — especially compared to how little I accomplish without you. All you had to do to motivate me was to be there. (Another one of your many virtues was that you did not nag.)

‒ I used to tell Deb that I was glad that I met her later in life instead of earlier. By meeting her later, I appreciated her much more. After enduring the misery of the 1970s, I realized what a precious, priceless treasure I had in Deb.

‒ In my relationship with you, Deb, I certainly came out ahead. I got a high quality woman with an enormous amount of virtue and very few flaws and shortcomings. You got a highly flawed low quality man with a huge amount of shortcomings. What you saw in me, I do not know and may never know. But you saw something in me that no one ever did, ever has, or ever will. You are the only woman who ever really wanted to be with and probably will be the only one whoever does. When I consider all my flaws and shortcomings, which far, far outweigh anything positive about me, I am amazed that you gave me a second look much less stayed with me for 30 years.

‒ Several months before Deb became ill, she made a comment about dying. I told her that she would break my heart. I did not realize how severely she would break it. Her death totally shattered my heart.

‒ Deb, the love that I had for you on January 1, 1982, when I married you was nothing compared to the love that I had for you on November 3, 2011, or even today. Forgive me Deb for not treating you as good as I should have and for not doing the things for you that I should have done.

‒ I have been going through Deb's files and putting her drawings, sketches, writings, etc. in notebooks and posting some on the internet. I have rediscovered some of her dreams that she never fulfilled. She wanted to draw and published a child’s book, but never did. She did draw and print several Tempus puzzle booklets for children, but I do not recall her ever selling any. She did send it to some publishers, but was rejected. She wanted to illustrate and published her mother’s book. I found a number of drawings of seagulls, which I assume that she wanted to use some of them to illustrate her mother’s book. Also, she wanted to be a cartoonist. So far as I know, none of her cartoons were ever published although some were great. She also drew and wrote several small cartoon books, but I don't think that she ever sold any.

‒ In one folder, I found work that Deb had done for the church and school where our children went. She was a volunteer art teacher at that school for a few years until the school discontinued its art program. (I found a protest cartoon that she did about that decision.) A  year later, the school reestablished an art program and hired a teacher. It never even considered Deb for the job, which sadden her and angered me.

‒ I found sketches and pictures of the scenery that she painted for Neuse Baptist Church Christmas show. For the art work that she did for the church and school excluding the teaching, they would have to have spent thousands of dollars. Also, I found letters that I wrote to the school leaders protesting them calling my wife a liar and my daughter a homicidal slut. Then they cast my wife aside and basically drove us from the school unless we kowtowed to their dictates. They seemed to be glad that we left. There were many good people there, and the pastor was kind and compassionate (although he appears to have done nothing to resolve the conflict between the school leaders and my wife and later me and my daughter), but the leadership that established itself around the pastor, church, and school was autocratic and unyielding. In their minds, they knew everything. (At least some justice was done. The girl who was causing problems for my daughter and getting her in trouble at the school ended up in prison. Proof that a “Dr.” in front of a name or “PhD” after a name is no evidence of discernment, wisdom, or common sense as all three of the school leaders who attacked Deb and my daughter had doctoral degrees.)

‒ As I have told several people that I am one of the few people for whom the greatest artist of the last 50 years drew or painted a portage. Deb did an ink drawing of me in a Confederate uniform on a horse. She did one of the pastor of our church standing with lions. This same wonderful artist also did several self-portraits. Seeing Deb’s drawings in her files only reenforce my conclusion: She was a genius. Not only was she a highly skilled drawer and artist, she drew and painted with humor. Many of her drawings and paintings revival her humor, especially in the later years. Unfortunately, few people recognized her talents and abilities. I hope that in the years to come she will be recognized as the talented genius that she really was. The few who bought her work may have a valuable treasure in the years to come. (I have absolutely no bias for Deb's work.)

‒ I found that she made great use of the scrape paper that I brought home. Many of her drawings and writings were done on the back of that scrape paper. Needless to say, I have shed many tears as I have gone through Deb’s files.

‒ This year (2012) was the first time in two decades that I did not go to pick strawberries. Deb, you made excellent strawberry jam and strawberry shortcake. Some people may have made better jam and shortcake, but you made yours with love.

‒ Those of you who have not read Deb's blogs ought to. Here is one of her most philosophical blogs:
    If you don’t like God talk don’t read this.
    I know you can’t buy your stairway to heaven. Some people try by doing all sorts of things for their church and giving huge amounts of money. No God doesn’t want what he already owns to begin with. As an artist I was guilty of thinking that giving my artwork and art teaching away to a church would bring me closer to God and he would bless me with lots of art buyers. Big mistake because the more I gave the more the people in the church took without buying my art. God does love a cheerful giver but you need to be sure it is God you are giving too. Charity has to come from love to be cheerful. God really wants us follow his commandments, give him our love and have faith in him to take care of us. So I let go of the greedy church, I moved on to a place I could worship a loving God and give without threats from a church. Only then did I really see all the blessing God had already given me.

‒ In a few of her blogs, Deb wrote about things that she wanted to do or planned to do in the future. Now that future is forever gone. Before she died, she was thinking  of many things to paint. When in the hospital, she told me that when she got out, we could do a book together about her ordeal. I would write it, and she would illustrate it. Her failing to live to do these things is a great lost to the world.

‒ Deb, I will miss you at apple harvest time. You made life easier. When I had a big harvest, I could stack baskets of apples 3 and 4 high on the cart, and you would steady the load as I hauled it to the trailer. Now I will have to double my trips. When I ran short of jugs, you would wash some more while I continued to press. Also, I will miss your apple strudel. When we had a big harvest like that of 2010, you would make apple butter and applesauce. You processed the apples from trees that produced too few to juice.

‒ Deb, I will miss you when the grapes come in. You helped me pick and juice them. Without you helping me, it takes twice as long. When the freezers were full, you would make grape jam. Usually, I did the sticky  work of separating the pulp from the hulls. (She made several batches in 2010.)

‒ Deb, I miss you when I go Christmas shopping. I miss not having you at my side questioning just about everything that I suggest for a present and often saying no. It was somewhat irritating then as you seldom offered any suggestions, but now I miss it.

‒ In 2009, Deb made and gave me a video for Valentine's Day. It was the greatest Valentine's gift that I have ever received and one of my greatest presents. As Deb's song, “Our House” by Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, says in her video, “life used to be so hard, but everything is easy because of you.” Well, Deb, you made everything easy for me. Even in the worst of times, things were easy because of you. Now they are again hard. “Our house is a very, very, very fine house.” It was an extremely fine home when you were in it. Now it has an immense void that is swallowing me up. Deb, you did “play those love songs all night long for me, just for me.” I hope that I did the same for you. “Only for you,” for you Deb. You were my “unchained melody.” Only you are the ghost instead of me. I hunger for your touch; I need your love. The only thing that remains is “two cats in the yard.” Deb, you are my soul and my inspiration. I never had much, but at least I had you. You were all that I needed to get me by. You were my reason for being. Without you, what good am I? I can’t make it without you. When I play this video, it tears me to pieces.

‒ Deb, you wanted so much for everyone to be happy and to get along with each other. I am glad that I was able to free you of financial worries so that you could concentrate on the two things you valued most: raising your family and doing your art. I enjoyed supporting you and trying to relieve you of as much worry and concern as possible. I always tried to support you in whatever you did although I often did an inadequate job.

‒ In one of her messages on Facebook, Deb commented that I was taking her to a cookout that she did not want to go to, but she was going to it because she thought I wanted to go. The main reason that I wanted to go was because I thought she wanted to go. I was taking her so that she could get out of the house and be with some of her friends for an afternoon. If I had known that she did not want to go, we would not have gone.

‒ In the early years of our marriage, Deb would help in the garden. Mostly, her help was as a sidewalk supervisor. But she did plant some seeds and help me with things that required more than one person or were much easier with two. As the kids got old enough to help, she began doing less and less. However, her presence always provided purpose and motivation. We always had an area for her to plant her flowers. In latter years, planting flowers and cutting asparagus were about all that she did in the garden other than helping me cut plastic and fold nets as these jobs require two people. Several years ago, I planted a new asparagus bed for her. The other asparagus bed had gone to weed years earlier. She also knew where the wild asparagus were growing and would keep an eye on them and harvest them. Since she liked French, I planted a French variety of garlic for her. Unfortunately, she never got to use any.

‒While cleaning out some old files, I came across a letter that I wrote a few years before I met Deb. It reminded me of what Deb saved me from and what she shielded me from for 30 years. For 30 years I actually mattered to someone. In essence, I am not a desirable person to be around. Deb saw something in me desirable and stayed with me for 30 yeas. Whatever it was, I don't know, but I am glad that she found it.

‒ Although I angered you at times, Deb, you always cared about me. Although I disappointed you at times, you never disappointed me and, more importantly you never rejected me. You were always there for me. You seemed to always find me desirable; I always found you desirable. You always made me feel loved, needed, and wanted.

‒ I was once asked what was on my bucket list. I did not answer because I cannot achieve what is on my bucket list. My bucket list was to celebrate my 50th wedding anniversary with Deb in the house that we built.

‒ When going through Deb’s things, I found her bucket list. She wanted to do some things that she never did. I did not get around to doing them for her — mostly because I did not know about them. If she had lived longer, we would have done many of them, especially if she had told me.

‒ Once the blueberry bushes started really producing, we got more blueberries than we knew what to do with. One way Deb found to use blueberries was to make blueberry pancakes. For about 20 years before she became too ill to cook, we had blueberry pancakes nearly every Sunday morning. She also made many very delicious blueberry muffins. A few times she made blueberry jam.

‒ Deb and I seemed to have spoiled each other without even trying. By the time I retired, Deb’s work load had been reduced to processing the harvest (except juicing apples and grapes and shelling the beans and peas), cooking meals, washing dishes, doing laundry, taking out the cat box when she couldn’t get the kids to do it, and planting her flowers (I prepared the bed and did the weeding for her). I tried to free her up so that she had a good deal of time for painting, reading, surfing the web, etc.

‒ When Deb’s gardenia bloomed this year (2012), it was so loaded with flowers that the flowers weighted the branches to the ground. It was as though the bush was weeping for Deb. Deb’s mother gave her that bush. Deb loved that bush and its flowers.

‒ Moving from sweat to stench, I doubt that Deb is missing the chestnuts in bloom with their unforgettable foul stench. The best use that was ever made of the chestnuts was Deb and the kids roasting them in a fire to hear them pop. If I had it to do over again. I would not plant chestnuts.

‒ Deb liked garden peas, especially fresh from the garden. She froze the excess and used them in various dishes, especially her chicken and rice, chicken and noodles, and beef and rice dishes.

‒ Deb was not an easy person to anger. That is one of the multitude of things that I liked about her. The angriest that I recall seeing her occurred at a street show in Wake Forest. She was displaying and selling her art from her art car. A woman stopped with her daughter and admired one of Deb’s paintings. As they walked away, the woman commented to her daughter that Deb was using paint-by-the-numbers kits. Deb started after that woman to give her the lecture of her life. I thought I was going to have to grab her to restrain her. But Deb cooled off before she got to the woman and returned to the car while muttering her dislike of the woman’s comment.

‒ Deb had one virtue that far, far out weighted all her flaws. Not only did she tolerate my existence, she actually wanted me around. Although I know some people did not love her, it is beyond me why anyone could not love her.

‒ Deb, I was extremely happy with you as my wife and with my life with her. Your being filled my life with joy. I had more than I ever expected or could have hoped for and more than I deserved.

‒ Deb, a major part of my problem is that I love you too damn much. When I married you, I loved you dearly and more deeply than I have ever loved anyone. I devoted myself to you and made your happiness the top priority. Your welfare was of supreme importance. All that I had was yours. All these feelings were nothing compared to what was later to come.
    Somewhere around 1995-1996 after our last major argument, something changed in me toward you — more subconsciously than consciously. You became my focus, my reason for being. Over time, you became more of me than I was of myself. I started doing more for you and reducing your choirs. I left you a few things to do so you had something to do and could feel like you were contributing. I tried to set up our finances so that at least you would be financially taken care of after I was gone.

‒ I would rather go through what I am going through now than have you go through it. I wish that I could have borne your illness for you. Nevertheless, you bore it better than I would or could have. You could endure my lost better than I can endure yours.

‒ I usually went to bed before Deb did. After I was in bed, she would come up and take her shower. I surely miss seeing her walking across the room and getting into bed after her shower.

‒ Deb, I miss not having you at my side when I go to sleep and wake up. You probably won more of the blanket battles than I did. I don’t recall seeing the blanket on the floor on my side of the bed. It did occasionally end up on the floor on your side. I have the tendency to push the blanket down when I first get into bed after getting out of a hot shower. Then when I cool off, I pull it up. When I pushed the blanket down, your shoulders were exposed and cold. We solved that problem by your using a small blanket to cover your shoulders.

‒ Deb and I used to save fan blades. She painted patterns on the blades. Then she put the blade on a shaft and attach the shaft to a pole. The wind blew; the blade turned. No longer do I need to save fan blades for her. When the wind finally destroys the two in the yard, no longer will I have the pleasure of seeing Deb’s fan blades turn in the wind.

‒ Deb and I used to save old speakers. She took the magnet out of the speaker. Then she sprayed foam over the magnet. Sometimes with a little carving and sometimes without carving, she had a figure. Next she painted the figure. At a few of her street shows, she sold these figures. Children really liked them. No longer do I need to save old speakers for her.

‒ Several years ago, I made Deb a pair of moccasins from a kit. They did not fit her. She had feet that were uncommonly wide for a woman. They were blocky. She saw the disappointment in my face when they did not fit. To make me feel better, she wore them several days anyway.

‒ Deb, you always protected me and frequently kept me from getting into trouble. By nature, I am a trusting person — often too trusting. At times I would agree to things that I should not have. If you were around, you would halt the agreement. After I thought about what you did, I knew that you were right. No longer do I have you to protect me from my folly.

‒ We had a Jonathan apple tree that died some years ago. Deb like Jonathan apples. Several years ago, I planted another one. That tree has yet borne an apple. When it does bear, Deb will not be around to enjoy any of its apples.

‒ Deb, you did make me happy; I hope I made you at least as half as happy as you made me. You did more for me than anyone, including you and me, can ever realized or ever will realize.

‒ I regret not being a better husband and a better friend. Moreover, I regret not doing more for you, Deb. You loved me more than I thought was possible (you had to have an immense amount of love for me to put up with me for 30 years). You  made my life easy and joyful. I miss serving you.

‒ Deb, I surely miss you. It is not the things that you did for me that I really miss although I do miss them. What I really miss are the intangibles that you gave me: love, devotion, caring, cheerfulness, optimism, joy, happiness, friendship, companionship, and the like. Moreover, I miss devoting myself to you, giving to you, caring for you, taking care of you, providing for you, supporting you, sharing life with you, going places with you, etc. I miss you not being in the house when I come in from doing yard work.

‒ One good thing about Deb dying before me, if it can be called good, is that she is not having to go through what I am going through. I am convinced, though, that she could handle it better than I; she was always better at such things than I.

‒ I have been told that no one dies from a broken heart. That may be true. But one can certainly die with a broken heart.

‒ Deb, the longer that you are gone from me, the more I miss you and the more I realize how much I love you and need you. You were, are, always will be, and probably have been since the beginning of time, my desideratum. When I look at your chair and you are not there. . . .

‒ I will always love you, Deb, and shall never forget you and the joy, happiness, contentment, and purpose that you brought me. As I told one person, I cannot forget the 30 happiest years of my life. Deb, I am gradually returning to “normal” — or at least what can pass for normal without you. However, I still feel as though I am going through the motions without purpose, direction, or motivation.

‒ Thanks to you, Deb, I did achieve much of what I set out to accomplish that was really important. I got a good homestead where my family could be raised. I married a fantastic woman, who loved me, devoted herself to me, and took care of me and whom I loved, devoted myself to, and took care of. We had three children (we originally wanted four, but health issues of yours caused us to stop at three); all of whom have turned out good. As a bonus, I got two grandchildren. I was fortunate enough to have a job that could support my family without scrimping although our budget was tight for about the first 15 years. I wish that I could have figured out how to have given you the kitchen that you wanted. I wish that I was a great promoter and marketer so that I could have gotten your paintings sold. Also, I wished that I had started taking you on weekly trips in 2008 instead of 2010. I regret not being able to celebrate our 50th wedding anniversary together.

‒ Deb. I surely do miss you. I miss not taking showers with you. I miss you not fixing meals for me. I miss not eating with you. I miss you not being in the house when I come in from feeding the animals or doing yard work. I miss not seeing you going to the mailbox as I am also going. I miss you not being with me when I go to the post office, the hardware store, the building supply store, and the grocery store. I miss not having you at my side when I go to sleep and when I wake up. I miss you not being next to me when I watch a movie. I miss your help, your advice, your hugs and kisses, and your love. I never knew I could ever miss anyone as much as I miss you, Deb. The hardest thing that I have ever had to do is to go on without you.

‒ No one could ever have been as good of a wife for me as you were. You were the best — the very best. Deb, I had a great adventure with you. I hope you had one with me.

Copyright © 2012 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on Deb.