The 1860 Presidential Election Caused the South to Seceded

The 1860 Presidential Election Caused the South to Secede

Thomas Allen, editor

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

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

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

More Southern articles.

Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws

Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix. The Tenth Amendment Center

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

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

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

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More political articles.

When Did Samuel Last See Saul?

When Did Samuel Last See Saul?

Thomas Allen

According to 1 Samuel 15:35, Samuel never saw Saul again: 

And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

However, according to 1 Samuel 19:24, Saul prophesied before Samuel, which occurred after Samuel never saw Saul again:

And he [Saul] stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?

When did Samuel last see Saul?

Stenning notes that verse 15:35 is inconsistent with verse 19:24. However, according to Stenning, verses 19:18 through 19:24 are late and unhistorical. Verse 15:35 excludes the meeting between Saul and Samuel in verse 19:24. Further, Samuel being the head of the prophets is inconsistent with earlier traditions (1 Samuel 10:5). Moreover, David would have most likely headed to the South where his kinsmen were in Judea and not to the north toward Ramah. Additionally, verse 19:24 may be connected to 1 Samuel 10:10-11, which describes an event that occurred before verse 15:35.

Young disagrees with Stenning and maintains that Samuel was the superintendent of a company of prophets at Ramah. However, he does not discuss the inconsistencies between verse 15:35 and verse 19:24.

Weaver does not comment on the inconsistencies between verse 15:35 and verse 19:24. Nevertheless, he notes that Samuel being the head of the ecstatic prophets is inconsistent with the stories of Samuel in chapters seven through ten of 1 Samuel. Also, David would have fled south to Judea instead of north. Weaver believes that a collector of stories about David eventually incorporated the story that appears in verses 19:18–24.

Clarke maintains that chronologically, the events of verse 15:35 occurred before the events of verse 19:24. Yet, from Samuel’s perspective, he did not see Saul after verse 15:35 because he no longer had any connections with Saul and no longer acknowledged Saul as king. Also, Clarke states that Samuel superintended the school of prophets at Ramah.

Bennett claims that the conflict between verse 15:35 and verse 19:24 occurs because two different sources were used.

        Although the conflict between 1 Samuel 15:35 and 1 Samuel 19:24 presents little difficulty to those who claim that the Bible is infallible (trustworthiness, incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals), it does, however, present great difficulty to people who claim that the Bible is inerrant (without error or misstatement.) Obviously, inconsistencies between passages do call into question inerrancy. Often a great deal of unconvincing mental gymnastics is required to explain away inconsistencies. Two of the favorite excuses used by adherents of inerrancy are that (1) the original autographs but not copies are without error and (2) errors are not real but are things that humans do not understand, i.e., mysteries. Although proponents of inerrancy are inclined toward being absolute literalists, they also use the argument of figures of speech and using round numbers to explain away apparent errors or misstatements. (For example, the Bible states that the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference is three [1 Kings 7:23]; this is explained away by claiming that the writer is using a round number, which is true. However, if the Bible is supposed to be correct in all matters as inerrancy folks declare, should not the writer have used a much more precise number such as 3.1415926535 — especially since most inerrancy proponents argue that the Bible is 100 percent accurate about scientific matters? Moreover, nearly all young-earth, universal-flood adherents reject the flat-earth model although the Bible clearly describes the earth as flat — see “A Response to “What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?” by Thomas Allen. Thus, inerrancy adherents are highly selective about the Bible’s correctness on scientific matters.) The only time that an inconsistency presents a problem to an infallibility proponent is when the Bible conflicts with a manmade doctrine, e.g., Paul writing that “there is one God, the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6) To maintain their doctrine, inerrancy adherents must explain away inconsistencies; infallibility adherents do not.

References

Bennett, W.H. A Commentary on the Bible. Editor Arthur S. Peake. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.

Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible. Abridged by Ralph Earle. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967.

Stenning, J. F. A New Commentary on Holy Scripture. Editors, Charles Gore, Henry L. Goudge, and Alfred Guillaume. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1928.

Weaver, J.W. The Interpreter’s One-volume Commentary on the Bible. Editor Charles M.Laymon. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971.

Young, F.E. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Editor Charles F. Pfeiffer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Israel-Iran War

Israel-Iran War

Thomas Allen

The following are some observations about Israel’s sneak attack on Iran and President Trump’s response.

Self-defense

Israel and nearly every Zionist use the self-defense argument to justify Israel’s sneak attack on Iran. According to Israel, for the last 45 years, Iran has been weeks away from developing a nuclear weapon. (If true, Iran must have some highly incompetent scientists and engineers to have failed to acquire a nuclear weapon a long time ago, when a country as poor and backward as North Korea managed to develop nuclear weapons years ago.) Once Iran has a nuclear weapon, Israel contends that Iran will immediately use it on Israel. Although Israel has at least 200 nuclear weapons, Iran must not have even one. (According to Iran, if one believes Iran, which Zionists and Jews do not, it has no nuclear weapons and does not plan to build any. Unfortunately, Israel’s surreptitious attack may have changed Iran’s mind.) The primary thing that Israel seems to be defending itself against is peace.

If a supposed theoretical attack by Iran on Israel justifies Israel’s sneak attack on Iran, then it justifies Japan’s surprise attack on the United States. Indeed, Japan was more justified than Israel. 

Roosevelt was trying to provoke a war with Japan. Iran’s threat to Israel has been primarily rhetorical. However, Roosevelt’s threat was more than rhetoric. He had placed an embargo on exporting vital resources to Japan. Iran’s economic sanctions on Israel are of little consequence. On the contrary, Israel and its vassal states, primarily the United States, have placed many important sanctions on Iran.

Moreover, for decades, Israel has been threatening Iran with far more vigor than Iran has been threatening Israel. If either of them is justified in launching a surprise attack, it is Iran.

Precision of the Attack

Many Zionists boast about the precision of Israel’s sneak attack. It killed mainly Iran’s nuclear scientists and military leaders. Except for family members and others who were nearby when the attack occurred, civilian casualties were minimized.

If Israel could carry out such precise attacks against Iran, why could it not have done the same in killing Hamas in Gaza? While Iran is a large country with aircraft and an air defense system, Gaza is a tiny territory with no air defense. A precision attack against Hamas in Gaza would have been much easier and cheaper than the approach that Israel took of leveling the country and genociding the Palestinians.  Instead of killing Hamas with a precise attack, Israel chose to utterly destroy Gaza with bombs and bulldozers and to genocide the Palestinians who lived there. Obviously, Israel wants to kill as many Palestinians as possible and drive the survivors from Greater Israel. The question remaining is whether Trump or the Jews will turn Gaza into a resort area.  Perhaps Israel will let Trump develop Gaza as a reward for being such a servile slave.

Trump

President Trump has become another sleazy politician. He lied to the American people when he promised not only to keep the United States out of war but also to end quickly the Russia-Ukraine War and the Israeli-Gaza War. Although he could have ended both wars within a few weeks without any threats or expenditures by the United States, he managed not only to stretch them out but also to bring the world even closer to nuclear annihilation. (Most Christian Zionists greatly desire a global nuclear war — especially the premillennialist rapture cultists — and so does a segment of Islam. Both believe that the world must be destroyed before the Messiah comes.)

As President Wilson lied America into World War I, and President Roosevelt lied the country into World War II, Trump seems to be lying the country into World War III. Wilson and Roosevelt ran on a platform to keep America out of war. Likewise, Trump ran on a platform to keep the country out of war.

However, the US Air Force defending Israel from Iranian weapons and bombing Iranian targets for Israel is Trump’s idea of keeping the United States out of war. To anyone with a functioning brain cell, these actions involve the United States in the war. (Is Trump brain dead, or has he sold his soul to Israel and Zionism?)

Further, Trump seems to have aided Israel in its sneak attack by distracting Iran with his nuclear deal negotiations. However, his negotiations were not serious. He offered Iran a deal that he knew Iran would not and could not accept. Now, he can use the excuse that he offered Iran a way to avoid war, but it rejected the offer. Consequently, the blame lies with Iran as Trump goes to war against Iran.

Furthermore, Trump has demanded Iran’s unconditional surrender, which he knows or should know is unacceptable. He followed this demand by ordering the air force to bomb Iran. Consequently, as an obedient slave of Israel, Trump has attacked Iran for Israel.

For decades, Israel had been trying to convince the United States to strike Iran. Finally, Israel got a subservient lapdog in the presidency, who is so Zionist that he will do whatever Israel orders, to fulfill its lustful dream of Greater Israel.

At least Israel does not have to attempt another USS Liberty incident to draw the United States into war against Iran. (During the  Six-Day War in 1967, Israel attacked and tried to sink the USS Liberty, which was an intelligence-gathering ship, off the coast of Egypt. Israel wanted to sink the ship and blame Egypt so that the United States would enter the war against Egypt.)

Apparently, in Trump’s mind and the minds of nearly all members of Congress, Christian Zionists, and most Zionist commentators, no sacrifice is too great to pay to and for “God’s Chosen People.”  Even the utter destruction of America and a global holocaust is an acceptable price to pay for the survival of Israel and the Jews.

Trump deserves the blame for all Americans killed and maimed by Iranian retaliation. Iran did not want war with the United States, but warmongering Zionist Trump attacked it, although it was no threat to the United States. Now, Trump has gotten the United States into another useless, no-win war.

Ever since the assassination of Kennedy, every US President, including Trump, has been a lackey of Israel. With the assassination of Kennedy, the United States became a vassal state of Israel. Since then, Israel has owned every US President and nearly all members of Congress. (Today, 100 Senators and about 430 Representatives represent Israel in Congress.) As Biden was  Zelensky’s president, so Trump is Netanyahu’s president — both of whom are Jews.

If Trump is not a slave of Israel, he needs to start acting like he is not. If he is a man of peace, he needs to stop threatening and bombing Iran and stop supporting Israel’s war machine. If he is a man for the little people, he needs to defend the Palestinians and stop Israel’s genocide of them.

Is Trump’s attack on Iran motivated in part by a desire to fulfill Bush the Younger’s police state dream? After all, Trump completed Bush’s program of the Real ID card, which is the foundation of an authoritarian police state. With his attack on Iran, Trump may have hoped to trigger Iranian sleeper cells in the United States to attack American infrastructure. Does he hope they do so that he can declare martial law and achieve Bush’s nightmare? A police state is also the vision of neoconservatives and Democrats.

If Trump were a statesman instead of a contemptible politician, he would tell Israel, “You started this war; you finish it on your own without any help from us.” Then, he would withdraw all US troops and naval vessels from the Middle East and close all the air force bases. (There is no need to give Israel American targets to attack and blame Iran and draw America into the war.)

Trump’s slogans of “America First” and “Make America Great Again” have become “Israel First” and “Make Israel Great.” As a spin-off of an old saying, “With a friend like Israel, who needs enemies?” Whereas Biden flooded the country with  queerdom and alien invaders, Trump is drowning the country in Zionism.

Jews

Most people who call themselves Jews are not true Jews. Properly speaking, only descendants of Judah are Jews. Most of today’s Jews are not descendants of Judah, and probably all of those who are are mixed with non-Jews. Some are descendants of the people of the Persian Empire who became Jews during the time of Esther for fear of the Jews (Esther 8:17). Others are descendants of the Edomites, who were prominent in Palestine during the life of Jesus. Most of today’s Jews are descendants of the people of Khazaria, who are called Ashkenazim. Yet, all these Jews are “God’s Chosen People.” Since Jews as such did not come into being until the time of the Babylonian captivity, the descendants of the northern tribes are not really Jews. Moreover, the northern tribes were not descendants of Judah.

Since both my father’s and mother’s ancestry can be traced back to Judah, does that make me a Jew? It seems to give me a stronger claim to being a Jew than most contemporary Jews have.

One final note about Jews: most people who hate Jews do not hate them because of their religion or ethnicity. They hate them because of the misbehavior of many Jews.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Nullification and Interposition – Part 2

Nullification and Interposition – Part 2

Thomas Allen

The federal government is obliged to cease enforcing a nullified act in a State that has nullified it. If the federal government attempts to enforce a nullified law, such action would be like humans trying to oust their Creator, God — the created agent trying to overthrow the creator sovereign “we the people” of the nullifying State. Although the former is impossible, Lincoln accomplished the latter.

There are only three constitutional ways to overturn the nullification of a federal act. One way is to persuade the nullifying States that it is wrong, which results in the State rescinding its nullification. Second, the federal government repeals or rescinds the nullified act. The third is that the Constitution is amended to clarify that the federal government has the power that has been nullified or that the nullified power is a reserved power that the federal government should exercise.

Although Congress can call forth the militia “to execute the laws and suppress insurrection,” this power does not apply to nullification because the law does not exist in the nullifying State. Since the act of nullification has declared the law null and void, it does not exist in the nullifying State.

One argument against nullification is that the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of the constitutionality of all federal and State acts. If the US Supreme Court is the final arbitrator, it means two things. First, the creature (the federal government) is superior to the creator (the States). Such usurpation is like man (the creature) usurping the power and authority of the creator (God). Misery and despotism are the results. Second, of the three branches of government, the Supreme Court is the superior branch. However, the Constitution makes Congress the superior branch and the federal courts the weakest. Before it emasculated itself, Congress could restrict the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to the few items named in Article III and could deny it jurisdiction over most acts of the States. Further, Congress can strip the Supreme Court of its appellate authority. Moreover, since Congress created all inferior courts, it can abolish them. Also, Congress can and has restricted the jurisdiction of inferior courts, which includes the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal and State acts. Further, the President can follow Lincoln’s precedent and ignore the rulings of any federal court, including the Supreme Court.

Another argument that opponents of nullification use is the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Thus, they assert that all federal laws are the supreme law and prevail over the States, and a State cannot judge the constitutionality of a federal law. Deciding the constitutionality of a federal law is the job of federal courts.

Conversely, most founding fathers who were involved with the development and ratification of the Constitution of 1787 (most notably, Madison and Jefferson) assert that only federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution are supreme. That is, only those federal laws necessary to execute specifically delegated powers are constitutional. Any federal law that goes beyond the specifically delegated power is unconstitutional; it is not a law and, therefore, is void and of no force or effect. A State’s nullification makes a finding that a particular federal law is not made pursuant to the Constitution and is, therefore, not a law.

Who ultimately decides if a federal law is constitutional? It cannot be the Supreme Court because that would make the federal government, the creature or agent, the judge of its limits. The only logical arbitrator of the constitutionality of a federal law is “we the people,” that is, “we the people” of each State acting independently either through their legislature or a special convention. Since “we the people” of each State independently ratified the Constitution of 1787 and, consequently, formed the union created under that Constitution and its government, they should be the ultimate and final judge of the constitutionality of all federal acts.

Therefore, federal laws are supreme only if they are constitutional. An unconstitutional federal law or other federal act is null and void. Being the principals of the contract, the US Constitution, that created the federal government and delegated to it certain powers, each State, acting individually, is the final judge about whether a federal action is constitutional.

Another major argument against nullification is that the majority has the right to govern, i.e., the will of the majority must prevail — the majority of the whole or an absolute majority. As a practical matter, the will of the whole community is the will of the stronger interest. (Most people who hold this view demur when the majority turns against their favorite project.) 

There are two ways to estimate the majority. The first is a majority of the whole community in the aggregate. The second is a majority of political interests (different classes, communities, etc.) formed into one general confederated community. In the second case, the majority is a majority of the various classes or communities, with the assent of each taken separately. The concurrence of all constitutes the majority — concurrent majority. People who object to nullification because it thwarts the majority are referring to the first type of majority.

Since the Constitution came into being through a concurrent majority, an absolute majority conflicts with the Constitution. (The concurring accent of all the States formed and ratified the Constitution and not a majority of the whole in the aggregate.)

People who object to nullification assert, in effect, that the federal government has the sole right to decide the extent of its own powers and, by that, place the reserved powers of the States at its whim and mercy — thus, destroying the equilibrium of the system.

Nullification is an important but rarely used means to keep the federal government within its constitutional bounds. Without nullification, the federal government, the agent of the States that created it, will assume powers never delegated to it and expand delegated powers beyond what was intended. History proves this point. Since nullification essentially died in 1865, the federal government has exploded far beyond its constitutional bounds, and the States have shrunk to near insignificance. 

Do the States have the right to interpose and nullify federal laws? Under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave to the union, the answer is “yes.” According to the Founding Fathers’ Constitution, the States are independent sovereign republics, i.e., independent sovereign nations. Just as nations that enter into a treaty or compact can each independently judge adherence to that treaty or compact, so can the States independently judge adherence to the Constitution. Moreover, the States not only have the right, but they also have the duty to decide independently if the Constitution (a treaty and compact between the States) is being violated.

Under the constitution that Lincoln gave to the union, the answer is “no.” According to Lincoln’s constitution, the States are merely administrative provinces. They can only do what the federal government allows them to do. The rights of the States are mere concessions that can be revoked any time. “Might makes right” is the underlying principle of the Lincoln constitution. (For the difference between the Constitutions of the Founding Fathers and Lincoln, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen) 

Even under the Constitution of the Founding Fathers, the people who controlled the federal government avariciously lusted after power and, therefore, preferred “might” to “right” and objected to a State nullifying even the most unconstitutional acts of the federal government.

Ending grants to State and local governments would be one of the best things to occur in this country. It would give the States the courage to nullify unconstitutional federal acts and to interpose to prevent their enforcement. If the cowardly States cared about protecting themselves and their citizens, they would nullify thousands of federal acts.

Afterthought. A great irony of today is that the woke politicians and other wokesters supporting nullifying federal acts of deporting illegal aliens are using, most likely unknowingly, the political philosophies of Jefferson and Calhoun. What makes their support of nullification so ironic is that they have declared Jefferson and especially Calhoun persona non grata, who should be erased from history.

For more on nullification, see the following works of John C. Calhoun:

The Disquisition on Government,

Fort Hill Address,

Important Correspondence on the Subject of State Introposition [sic], Between His Excellency Gov. Hamilton and Hon. John C. Calhoun, and 

“Against the Force Bill”

Also, see these articles:

The Kentucky Resolves of 1798

The Kentucky Resolves of 1799

Virginia General Assembly Report of 1800

Also, see these articles by Thomas Allen:

 “Calhoun and Concurrent Majority,”

“States’ Rights,”

“States’ Right and Society,”

“Jefferson and States’ Rights,”

“Calhoun and States’ Rights,” and

“More Thoughts Related to the US Constitution.”

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Part 1.

Nullification and Interposition – Part 1

Nullification and Interposition – Part 1

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Part 2.

The Effects of Tariffs on the South

The Effects of Tariffs on the South

Thomas Allen, editor

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 33–35, G. Manigault explains the effects of tariffs on the South.

Has the reader ever considered what is the origin and true nature of that offence which is called smuggling? Stealing, and robbery, and the destruction of your neighbour’s property, and a multitude of other acts, are crimes in their very nature, and were criminal before any human law undertook to punish them. But there is in nature no such offence as smuggling. An important ingredient in your natural liberty is the right to carry the proceeds of your industry, or any part of your portable property, to the best market you can find for it; and, when you have exchanged it for other commodities, you have naturally an equal right to carry your new acquisitions home with you. They are as much yours as that was, which you gave for them. These are the natural and justifiable acts out of which governments have manufactured the offence of smuggling. They create the crime by legislation; they provide for its punishment by further legislation. 

The United States affords a striking example of these abuses. The people of the Northern States, having a majority of the votes in Congress, they had, when united among themselves, the control of the government, and sought to use it to their exclusive profit. In raising a revenue for the government, they, by the ingenious arrangements of their tariff acts, threw the burden of taxation on the South. In expending that revenue they bestowed a benefit on the North. They lowered the value of Southern produce by impairing the foreigner’s means of paying for it; and they raised the price of Northern manufactures by shutting out the competition of foreign goods. They used the whole machinery of government as if it had been designed for impoverishing the South and enriching the North. 

This method of plundering the South met with earnest protest and strenuous opposition from that quarter; and the tariffs for revenue and protection underwent many fluctuations. The fact is, that there is an essential incompatibility between the two objects of revenue and protection. Just so far as a duty protects home manufacturers, it fails to yield any revenue; for it keeps out foreign goods: and just so far as a duty yields a revenue from foreign goods imported, it fails to afford protection to the home manufacturer. There were many people at the North, to whom the raising of a large revenue by the government was of vital interest, for they profited by its expenditures. They were opposed to duties so high as to cut off revenue from the government, while affording protection to the manufacturer, by shutting out the goods of his foreign competitor. The representatives of the Southern States, by combining with this class of plunderers, were more than once enabled to foil the measures of that worse class of plunderers, who advocated protective duties so high as to shut out foreign goods.

More Southern articles.