Unitarianism Around 1860

Unitarianism Around 1860 

Thomas Allen 

In Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine Father, Son and Holy Ghost; A Course of Lectures (Boston: Walker, Wise & Company, 1860), Frederick A. Farley, describes Unitarianism in the mid-nineteenth century. (Today, like most Trinitarian denominations, most Unitarian denominations believe in woke agnosticism that stresses social justice much more than the message of the Bible. Since man can save himself, the state has replaced Jehovah as the God and savior of mankind. Along with worshiping the state, they also worship Moloch and Gaia.) The following is quoted from his book, pages 255 to 259.

  Christian Unitarianism affirms in the first place — That there is One only God; that He is one Person, One Being; that He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God and Father of all mankind. It lays stress not only on the strict personal Unity of God, but especially on His Divine Fatherhood. “To us, there is but One God, the Father.” (1 Cor. 8:6. )

In the second place it affirms — That Jesus is the promised Christ; the Divinely-appointed Messiah or Anointed of God; pre-eminently the Son of God, preeminently the Son of Man: the most distinguished Messenger and Representative, the brightest visible Manifestation of the Invisible God; second only to God in the glory of that office and rank with which He has invested him; one with God by a moral union and harmony of wisdom, will, holiness, and love; acting with the delegated power and authority of the Supreme; by His indwelling Spirit given him without measure, the infallible Teacher of God’s holy Truth; and exalted with the right hand of God to be a Prince and All-sufficient Saviour, to give repentance and forgiveness of sins. “To us there is . . . One Lord, Jesus the Christ.” (1 Cor. 8:6.) 

In the third place it affirms — That the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God; not a distinct person, or person at all; but by and through which, God is always present with us and ready to help, inspire, succor, comfort, enlighten, and sanctify the spirits of His children, will they but seek the precious Gift. (Luke 11:13.)

In the fourth place it affirms — That all men are born innocent; free at birth from all taint of sin and guilt, as they are destitute of holiness; gifted with a nature of glorious capacities, but exposed to temptation, liable to sin, actually sinners; needing the provision which God in His abounding mercy has seen fit to make in the Gospel of His Son for their regeneration and salvation; but free to choose, and therefore, free to accept or reject the offered grace.

In the fifth place it affirms — That the Atonement — At-one-ment — is the Reconciliation of man to God; not of God to man, for that could not be necessary. As the All-gracious Father, He never needed to be reconciled to his human family; but on the contrary, as the crowning expression of his exhaustless compassion and boundless Love, He sent His only-begotten Son into the world, to teach and bear witness to the truth, to labor, suffer, and die for us, that we might live through him. (1 John 4:9.) The divine instructions, the miraculous works, the sinless and perfect life and example, the sufferings and death, the Resurrection, Ascension, and present Intercession of Christ, being all part and parcel of the means appointed in the counsels of the Infinite Mind, for accomplishing this great Reconciliation and Salvation of the world. (Rom. 5:10; 8:30; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19.)

In the sixth place, it affirms — That the Bible is the History and Record of God’s Revelations to our race; furnishing, especially in the New Testament, the Divine, and therefore sufficient Rule of Faith and Practice to all Christian Believers; the Holy and inestimable Volume, which the Inspiration and Providence of God have caused to be written, preserved, and transmitted, for the Religious Instruction of mankind in every succeeding age.

Finally, it affirms — That the present is a life of moral discipline and probation, introductory and preparatory to a higher and an eternal life, in which a righteous judgment and retribution await all, and God will render to every man according to his deeds.

Thus much for the positive or affirmative side. But while thus on the one hand, in contradistinction to all systems of mere Naturalism or Rationalism, Christian Unitarianism affirms the reality of God’s last and fullest revelation in and by Christ and his Gospel, and these as the chief and leading doctrines of that Gospel; on the other, in contradistinction to the popular or received Orthodoxy of the Church, it denies and rejects the following dogmas, viz.:

1st. A Tri-personal God, or Three co-equal, co-eternal Persons in the Godhead.

2d. The Supreme Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It holds, asserts, maintains as earnestly as any form of faith in the Christian Church, his Divinity — his Divine Mission, Office, and Authority; but denies that he is God over all, the Supreme and Eternal God.

3d. The Personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit; denying that it is literally a Person; or God in any sense, except as the spirit of a man is the man himself.

4th. The expiatory, vicarious, and infinite Atonement of Christ; with the entire doctrinal scheme of Calvin.

Upon other points, Unitarians, recognizing in others and claiming for themselves the right of private judgment, do not entirely agree, viz. :

I. As to the metaphysical nature of Christ.

1st. Some believe him to have pre-existed, the first in order of time of all created intelligences [sic]; — 

2d. Some believe him to have been born of Mary, but miraculously conceived;—

3d. And some rest on his own declaration for the present, and await God’s pleasure for further light; — “No man (no one) knoweth who the Son is, but the Father.” (Luke 10:22.)

II. As to the Future Punishment of Sin. While they agree in rejecting the popular belief in the eternal damnation of the impenitent, and all believe in a righteous judgment and retribution hereafter; —

1st. Some believe, that the sufferings or punishment of the impenitent will terminate in their annihilation; — 

2d. Others, that all punishment under the righteous and benevolent government of God, must be disciplinary and remedial; and must finally result in the universal recovery of the lost to holiness and happiness;

Finally, others believe, that while progress is the law of the soul, the eternal consequences of unfaithfulness here will be realized hereafter, in the consciously lower plane on which the unfaithful and impenitent must enter, and forever relatively continue, in “the world to come.”

One important item that Farley does not discuss is salvation. Is salvation by faith and only by faith in Jesus and nothing else? Or, is it by faith plus something else, viz.:

– faith in Jesus plus baptism,

– faith in Jesus plus baptism and repentance,

– faith in Jesus plus good works,

– faith in Jesus plus reliance on and commitment to Jesus,

– faith in Jesus plus obedience;

– faith in Jesus plus perseverance until death,

– faith in Jesus plus membership in the correct church or denomination,

– faith in Jesus plus belief in the Trinity Doctrine,

– faith in Jesus plus believing that Jesus is the one true God, i.e., he is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

– faith in Jesus plus speaking in tongues;

– faith in Jesus plus whatever.

Likely, most Unitarians of this era were like most Trinitarians: Salvation was by faith in Jesus plus something else.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

King on The Answer to a Perplexing Question

King on The Answer to a Perplexing Question

Thomas Allen

In "The Answer to a Perplexing Question," Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 133–143, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses evil and faith. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King writes, “Human life through the centuries has been characterized by man’s persistent efforts to remove evil from the earth.” (P. 133.) Throughout this essay, he discusses evil. Most people seldom adjust to evil. No matter how much they may relish evil, their conscience lets them know that they are wrong. (This statement is not true for people who have been indoctrinated in wokeism. Much of what they perceive as evil is not evil, and much of what they perceive as not evil is evil. Also, psychopaths, who often occupy high-ranking positions in governments, businesses, and other institutions, have no conscience and, therefore, do not consider their evil actions as evil.)

However, man cannot “conquer evil by his own power.” (P. 134.) He needs the Divine to conquer evil — which is true.

Then, King proceeds to discuss how evil can be cast out. The first way “calls upon man to remove evil through his own power and ingenuity in the strange conviction that by thinking, inventing, and governing, he will at last conquer the nagging forces of evil.” (P. 134.) If people are given “a fair chance and a decent education,” (p. 134) they can save themselves. In the modern world, this approach is the most common. (Contrary to what King would claim, this approach is what he used to overcome segregation. He used the earthly approach of raw, naked force of governments.) Continuing, he discusses how man has used this approach to solve his problems. “Armed with this growing faith in the capability of reason and science, modern man set out to change the world.” (P. 135.)

After describing how science has greatly improved people’s lives, King notes that “in spite of these astounding new scientific developments, the old evils continue and the age of reason has been transformed into an age of terror.” (P. 138.) Despite expanding educational opportunities and enacting more legislative social policies, selfishness and hatred still exist. (First, being sinners, people will never rid themselves of hatred and selfishness. King did not. Second, the public schools and universities indoctrinate their students to hate Whites. Further, selfishness is the primary force behind most legislation – forcibly taking from some and giving to others.) Then, King answers why man has failed: “Man by his own power can never cast evil from the world.” (P. 136.) Correctly, he states the reason that the secular humanist’s approach has failed: It places “too great an optimism concerning the inherent goodness of human nature.” (P. 136.) It has failed because it has forgotten “about man’s capacity for sin.” (P. 136.)

Next, King discusses the second approach to removing evil from the world. “The second idea for removing evil from the world stipulates that if man waits submissively upon the Lord, in his own good time God alone will redeem the world.” (P. 137.) (When it came to replacing segregation with integration, King could not wait on the Lord. He took the humanist approach of violent protest, which he called nonviolent [just as the violent protests of Black Lives Matter were called peaceful protests], and the violent force of governments.) The second approach is based on “a pessimistic doctrine of human nature, this idea, which eliminates completely the capability of sinful man to do anything.” (P. 137.) This approach “was prominent in the Reformation, that great spiritual movement that gave birth to the Protestant concern for moral and spiritual freedom and served as a necessary corrective for a corrupt and stagnant medieval church.” (P. 137.) While the Reformation overstressed the corruption of man, the Renaissance was too optimistic. The Renaissance “so concentrated on the goodness of man that it overlooked his capacity for evil . . . [whereas the Reformation] so concentrated on the wickedness of man that it overlooked his capacity for goodness.”

King condemns a theology that emphasizes “a purely otherworldly religion, which stresses the utter hopelessness of this world and calls upon the individual to concentrate on preparing his soul for the world to come.” (P. 137.) Such theology ignores the need for social reform and divorces religion from the mainstream of human life. (It seems that the more a Christian denomination focuses on social reform, the more that denomination fades into irrelevance.)

According to King, religion should deal with both body and soul. That is, “the church must seek to transform both individual lives and the social situation that brings to many people anguish of spirit and cruel bondage.” (P. 138.)

Then, King writes, “The idea that man expects God to do everything leads inevitably to a callous misuse of prayer.” (P. 138.) (Thus, King justifies his violent nonviolent tactics.) He does not believe that Negroes should wait for God to answer their prayers for integration; they should protest. (That God would answer their prayers for integration is doubtful since God is a segregationist. Consequently, King is correct when he asserts that Negroes need to protest for integration instead of waiting for God.)

For King, prayer is supplemental to his struggle for social justice for his people. (In other words, God is to play a minor role in the civil rights movement so that King could get most, if not all, the credit and glory.) Negroes must not depend on God to bring them social justice. (Social justice means special benefits and privileges for Negroes and discrimination against Whites.) 

Although they should pray, Negroes must organize themselves into violent nonviolent action and employ all their resources to obtain social justice. Likewise, Negroes need to take the same action for economic justice, i.e., a better distribution of wealth, both nationally and globally.

King is convinced that God will not remove evil from the earth even if people do nothing. (His thinking is contrary to the Bible. Evil, sin, remains until Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom. These actions of Jesus depend on God’s will regardless and independent of man’s actions. One of King’s theological problems is that he believes that people are inherently good, especially nonwhites, instead of being inherently sinners — except Southerners and segregationists, who are inherently evil.)

However, King is correct when he writes that “man is neither totally depraved, nor is God an almighty dictator.” (P. 139.) Then, he writes, “How can evil be cast out of our individual and collective lives?” (P. 140.) The answer is that “both man and God, made one in a marvelous unity of purpose through an overflowing love as the free gift of himself on the part of God and by perfect obedience and receptivity on the part of man, can transform the old into the new and drive out the deadly cancer of sin.” (P. 140.) Thus, God works through people in faith. (To accomplish this goal, man would have to become like Jesus, which he cannot do as long as he possesses a sinful nature. Further, it will not work for King’s idea of social justice because his idea is contrary to God’s.)

Then, King describes two types of faith. “One may be called the mind’s faith, wherein the intellect assents to a belief that God exists. The other may be referred to as the heart’s faith, whereby the whole man is involved in a trusting act of self-surrender.” (P. 141.) For King, heart faith is much more important than head faith. (Heart faith is emotional; it is how one feels. Emotions come and go; therefore, heart faith is fickle. Head faith, intellect, is much more stable and changes slowly if at all.)

Continuing, King states, “Racial justice, a genuine possibility in our nation and in the world, will come neither by our frail and often misguided efforts nor by God imposing his will on wayward men but when enough people open their lives to God and allow him to pour his triumphant, divine energy into their souls.” (P. 141.) (From King’s perspective, social justice arrived not long after he died. Except for a guaranteed income, Negroes have received more benefits and privileges than King advocated. Further, God must hate Whites because Albusphobia now fills the planet. Thus, according to King, when God fills a person and that person opens his life by faith in God, the result is overflowing Negrophilia and Albusphobia — at least, that is the result of what he preached.)

Then, King applies his discussion of faith to personal lives. (Based on his womanizing and marriage infidelity, King failed to follow his advice. Did he fail because he tried to eliminate his evil habits on his own without God’s help? Or, did he fail because he expected God to eliminate his evil habits? Perhaps, he did not consider womanizing and marriage infidelity sins, and, therefore, he had no evil habits to eliminate.)

Concluding, King remarks, “Evil can be cast out, not by man alone nor by a dictatorial God who invades our lives but when we open the door and invite God through Christ to enter.” (P. 143.)

In this essay, King discusses evil and faith. However, he gives sinful man too much credit for his ability to eradicate evil from the world. Evil will remain until Christ’s return and the final judgments take place. Furthermore, what King considers good, racial integration, is what God considers sin.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Antisouthernism

Antisouthernism

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

King on Antidotes for Fear

King on Antidotes for Fear

Thomas Allen

In "Antidotes for Fear," Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 119–132, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses fear, courage, love, faith, and social justice. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins with a discussion of fear crippling people, which for the most part is accurate. Overcoming fear is the theme of this essay. “Everywhere men and women are confronted by fears that often appear in strange disguises and a variety of wardrobes.” (P. 119.) Such fears include bad health, aging, insecurity, inferiority complex, and failure. Then, he comments, “A fear of what life may bring encourages some persons to wander aimlessly along the frittering road of excessive drink and sexual promiscuity.” (P. 120.) (King must have been a frightened man because he wondered the road of sexual promiscuity.) He remarks that “many people have permitted fear to transform the sunrise of love and peace into a sunset of inner depression.” (P. 120.) 

Continuing, King notes that economic fears are common. Business owners fear failure, and employees fear unemployment. 

  Other fears are the fear of death and the fear of racial annihilation. (Since King promoted miscegenation, which leads to racial annihilation, that he would mention it as a fear is strange. Today, the only race facing annihilation is the White race. Yet, most do not fear their annihilation — probably because they are living in denial. Further, many Whites are so Albusphobic that they look forward to their annihilation.)

Then, King comments on the fear of nuclear war. It has terrorized people to build fallout shelters while urging the government to increase the stockpile of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the quest to maintain “a balance of terror” only increases fear.

Although “fear drains a man’s energy and depletes his resources,” (p. 120) man should not seek to eliminate fear completely. King notes that fear warns of approaching danger and is, therefore, necessary for survival. Moreover, it is a powerful force. “If man were to lose his capacity to fear, he would be deprived of his capacity to grow, invent, and create.” (P. 121.) However, “abnormal fears are emotionally ruinous and psychologically destructive.” (P. 121.) Continuing, he remarks, “Normal fear protects us; abnormal fear paralyzes us.” (P. 121.)

To overcome abnormal fear, a person must seek its cause. Once the cause is discovered, then he may overcome his fear with courage. Then, King discusses courage, which “is the power of the mind to overcome fear.” (P. 123.)

Next, King contrasts courage and cowardice. “Courage breeds creative self-affirmation; cowardice produces destructive self-abnegation. Courage faces fear and thereby masters it; cowardice represses fear and is thereby mastered by it.” (P. 124.)

Continuing, King states that “fear is mastered through love.” (P. 124.) Then, he claims, “Hate is rooted in fear, and the only cure for fear-hate is love.” (P. 124.)

Next, King notes that fear is a major cause of war. This fear leads to hate, which in turn leads to war, which leads to greater hate. (The hostility between the Jews and Palestinians is an excellent example of King’s observation. Moreover, what he writes here can also be applied to personal relationships.) To King, the solution to war is love. “Only disarmament, based on good faith, will make mutual trust a living reality.” (P. 125.)

Furthermore, fear-hate leads to hostility between the races. King asserts that love is the solution to ending racial hostility. (Although King preached a great deal about love and its virtues and seemed to have a good understanding of love, he was a failure at practicing it. If he truly loved, he would not have destroyed the South and later the United States to achieve his vain ambition.)

Continuing, King discusses what he calls social justice. Love is the solution to social justice. Then, he declares, “Racial segregation is buttressed by such irrational fears as loss of preferred economic privilege, altered social status, intermarriage, and adjustment to new situations.” (P. 125.) (These fears have all come to pass. Whatever preferred economic privileges that Whites had have long vanished. Now, with quotas and affirmative action, Negroes have more preferred economic privileges than Whites ever had. Today, unqualified Negroes are hired instead of qualified Whites. Now, Negroes have a higher social status than Whites. Proof: Negroes used to try to pass as Whites. Today, Whites try to pass as Negroes. Since the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967), which nullified miscegenation laws, interracial marriages have increased significantly. [See "Interracial Marriages" by Thomas Allen.] Consequently, Negroes and Whites are genociding each other via miscegenation.) 

Then, King discusses some of the techniques that Whites used to avoid his program of forced integration. “[S]ome seek to ignore the question of race relations and to close their mind to the issues involved.” (P. 125.) Others, using “such legal maneuvers as interposition and nullification, counsel massive resistance.” (P. 125.) (King counseled illegal massive resistance against segregation. Thus, the segregationists were merely following King, except they were using legal tactics. He should have been proud of them. Instead, he despised them.) Still, others resorted to violence against Negroes. (These segregationists were merely following the tactics of civil rights leaders who resorted to violence against Whites. King seldom objected to violence against segregationists.)

King blames the country’s racial problems on the fear of Whites. If Whites “are to master fear, they must depend not only on their commitment to Christian love but also on the Christlike love that the Negro generates toward them.” (Pp. 125-126.) (I do not know whether King is deceiving himself or is lying to deceive Whites. Most likely, it is the latter. One thing that the Negroes who follow King have not done is to show Christlike love toward Whites. Christlike love does not lead to riots, the destruction of property, and the deaths of innocent people — acts that Negroes have been notorious for committing against Whites since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Christlike love does not promote the genocide of Whites. That King would have actively opposed these acts of violence against Whites is highly unlikely since he supported violent acts — contrary to his assertions of being a man of peace. Most likely, he would have endorsed and promoted them. Other than King-idolizing conservatives, who lack any functioning brain cells when it comes to race, does anyone with a functioning brain cell believe that King would have opposed Black Lives Matter protestors? No, he would have supported them and their violence as did all liberals and many conservatives.)

Then, King writes, “A guilt-ridden white minority fears that if the Negro attains power, he will without restraint or pity act to revenge the accumulated injustices and brutality of the years.” (P. 126.) (When the Negro attained power, revenge is what he sought. Negroes have used their power against Whites since the beginning of the Civil Rights Era. Much of this revenge is concealed in crime. [See “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen.] Some of it is open like the Black Lives Matter riots and the destruction of statues. Moreover, many Whites have joined the Negro in his revenge against their White brothers. These acts of violence prove that Whites who fear that Negroes would use their power for revenge were correct.)

Next, King writes, “The Negro must show them that they have nothing to fear, for the Negro forgives and is willing to forget the past. The Negro must convince the white man that he seeks justice for both himself and the white man.” (P. 126.) (The Negro has failed. Most Negroes have shown no forgiveness or willingness to forget the past as the wanton destruction of statues and memorials and the renaming of buildings in the South proves. Moreover, Negroes have not sought justice for Whites as the conviction of Derek Chauvin and other innocent Whites prove.)

King declares that he knows the cure for the fear of integration: love. Moreover, he claims that God is on his side (although the Bible endorses segregation and denounces integration and amalgamation). 

Continuing, King states that “fear is mastered through faith.” (P. 127.) Deficiency of resources and inadequacy of life lead to fear. Then, he discusses the importance of positive religious faith and what it offers and does not offer. Also, he discusses the inadequacy of irreligion. He notes that a positive religious faith overcomes the fear of death.

In closing, King comments briefly on the Montgomery bus protest and Mother Pollard.

In this essay, King discusses four essential components in conquering fear: (1) discovering the cause of the fear, (2) having the courage to overcome the fear, (3) mastering the fear through love, and (4) mastering the fear through faith. However, he errs greatly when discussing the fear that segregationists had (their fears prove valid) and the loving, forgiving attitude of Negroes (most of whom lack a loving, forgiving attitude).

Although King could preach a good sermon, he drew the wrong conclusion concerning what he called social justice. Southerners and segregationists are not as evil as he presents them. His erroneous conclusion derives from his erroneous understanding of the Bible. Contrary to what he claims, the Bible does not support integration; it supports segregation.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Who Killed Jesus?

Who Killed Jesus?

Thomas Allen

Did the Romans kill Jesus, or did the Jews kill Jesus? Christian Zionists and Jews claim that the Romans killed Jesus.

In “Who killed Jesus: The Romans or the Jews?,” The Jerusalem Post (December 29, 2021; Updated: November 19, 2022) at https://www.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/article-690095, Lewis Regenstein presents an argument in favor of the Romans being guilty of Jesus’s death and the Jews being innocent. With his argument, most Christian Zionists would agree.

In Judea, the Romans controlled capital punishment; the Jews had no authority to crucify anyone. Only the Romans could execute someone by crucifixion. If the Jews had executed Jesus, they would have stoned him as they did Stephen. Therefore, the Romans are responsible for Jesus’s death.

Moreover, Pilate sentenced Jesus to death and authorized his execution. Further, Roman soldiers carried out the crucifixion of Jesus. The New Testament shows that the Romans, and not the Jews, killed Jesus.

Jesus and his family, disciples, followers, and supporters were Jews, and like other Jews, they were victims of Roman oppression. Since Jesus was an observant Jew and popular with the Jewish people, why would the Jews kill him?

Jesus’s popularity with the Jewish people was the primary reason that the Romans executed him. To carry out their scheme to kill Jesus, the Romans used Jewish agents and collaborators. 

Nevertheless, because of what Jesus said to and about the Jewish leaders, they wanted the Romans to kill Jesus since they had no power to execute him themselves. Further, they feared that the Romans would deal harshly with the Jews unless Jesus, whom they and the Romans saw as a troublemaker, was eliminated. Consequently, these leaders, who held office at the pleasure of the Romans, collaborated with the Romans to kill Jesus. 

In short, the Gospels describe Jesus as a popular Jewish reformer with a large Jewish following. They clearly describe the Romans as cruelly executing Jesus because the Romans perceived Jesus as a threat to the Romans and their Jewish collaborators in the priesthood.

As for the mob of Jews that cursed Jesus and demanded his execution, if such a mob existed, it consisted of Roman collaborators.

For fear of Roman persecution, early Christians could not blame the Romans for the death of Jesus. Therefore, to avoid persecution, writers of the New Testament shifted the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews. (When one considers the persecution that Paul, Peter, and other followers of Christ suffered from the Romans and Jews, shifting the blame from the Romans to the Jews for fear of Roman persecution seems absurd. Besides, if Paul, Peter, and the other writers of the New Testament blamed the Jews for killing Jesus when the Romans were responsible for his death, then they are guilty of bearing false witness.)

What does the Bible say? According to the Gospels, Pilate did order Jesus’s execution, and Roman soldiers carried out that order. However, Paul and Peter place the blame and responsibility for Jesus’s crucifixion on the Jews.

In 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, Paul writes:

(14) For you, brothers, became imitators of the assemblies of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus; for you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews (15) who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and drove us out, and don’t please God, and are contrary to all men.

In this passage, Paul clearly blames the Jews for killing Jesus: “the Jews who both killed the Lord Jesus.”

Speaking to a group of Jews, Peter said, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know certainly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you [Jews] crucified.” (Acts 2:36). Clearly, Peter identifies the Jews as killing Jesus. Later, Peter spoke to the religious rulers and elders of the Jews and said, “[M]ay it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you [Jews] crucified, whom God raised from the dead, this man stands here before you whole in him.” (Acts 4:10) Again, Peter identifies the Jews as the killers of Jesus. At another time, when speaking to the religious leaders of the Jews, Peter said, “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you [Jews] killed, hanging him on a tree.” (Acts 5:30) Once more, Peter declares that the Jews kill Jesus. Afterward, Peter said, “We are witnesses of everything he did both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they [Jews] also killed, hanging him on a tree.” Several times and to various Jewish audiences, Peter accuses the Jews of killing Jesus. (Biblical citations are from the World English Bible.)

Both Paul and Peter identify the Jews as responsible for the death of Jesus. So, the question is, “Whom do you believe?” Do you believe Jews and Christian Zionists, who claim that the Romans killed Jesus? Or do you believe Paul and Peter, who claim that the Jews killed Jesus?

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen

More religious articles.

King on Our God Is Able

King on Our God Is Able

Thomas Allen

In “Our God Is Able,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 109–117, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses the importance of God, evil, colonialism, and segregation. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King declares that Christians are convinced that God exists and that He can “do exceedingly abundant things in nature and in history.” (P. 109.) Moreover, the God whom Christians worship is neither weak nor incompetent.

King rejects the notion “that only man is able” (P. 109) and the substitution of “a man-centered universe for a God-centered universe.” (P. 109.) “The laboratory began to replace the church, and the scientists became a substitute for the prophet.” (P. 110.) Correctly, King writes, “Man is not able to save himself or the world.” (P. 110.)

However, events cause people “to question the ableness of God.” (P. 110.) Evil, both manmade and natural disasters, leads people to question God’s abilities. Why “do these things occur if God is able to prevent them?” (P. 110.) King’s answer is “that there is and always will be a penumbra of mystery surrounding God.” (P. 110-111.) (Instead of admitting their ignorance, especially about questions about God, most preachers will assert that it is a mystery, which may be true, but why do they not simply say that they do not know? Moreover, much confusion about God results from manmade doctrines.)

Although man may believe that he is the master of the physical universe, God sustains it. To defeat man-centered arrogance, King describes some of the things that God has done, such as the God-created solar system.

Then, King discusses God’s ability “to subdue all the powers of evil.” (P. 112.) To Christians, evil is real. “History is the story of evil forces that advance with seemingly irresistible power only to be crushed by the battering rams of the forces of justice. There is a law in the moral world — a silent, invisible imperative, akin to the laws in the physical world — that reminds us that life will work only in a certain way.” (P. 112.) To support his claim, King cites some examples.

To King, colonialism is one of the world’s great examples of evil. (Whether or not colonialism was evil, it brought a great deal of benefits to Africa. Before the arrival of Europeans, the people of sub-Sahara Africa sat on vast unused agricultural and mineral resources. Europeans taught Africans how to develop and use these resources. Europeans greatly improved the health and safety of the Africans. Furthermore, they brought the Africans the gospel of Jesus. Because of the colonial exploitation of European powers, Africans enjoy a much higher standard of living today than they would have if the Europeans never arrived. Nevertheless, colonialism has led to the destruction of the colonial powers. Consequently, contrary to what King would argue, Africa has benefitted more from colonialism than has Europe. To King, Africans exploiting Europe is justice.)

Also, to King, segregation is another great evil. (Since God is the Great Segregationist, how can segregation be evil? While the Bible endorses and teaches segregation and separation, it condemns integration and amalgamation.) Further, King claims that segregation “inflicted the Negro with a sense of inferiority, deprived him of his personhood, and denied him his birthright of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (P. 113.) (If true, integration should have liberated everyone, both White and Black, from the debilitating effects of segregation. Then, why are Negroes still complaining in this fully integrated America where Negroes have benefits and privileges that Whites never had? Why are Negroes segregating themselves from Whites? Why do so many Whites feel so deprived of personhood that they hate their own race and long for its genocide? Why are Whites being denied their birthright of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — what are affirmative action, quotas, and many other privileges and benefits that Negroes have that are denied Whites if not a denial of the birthright of Whites? In the 1960s, the righteousness of integration slew the evil of segregation. If integration is righteous and segregation is evil, why have the United States been disintegrating ever since? Now the United States are on the verge of shattering.)

King sees the end of colonialism and segregation as “the passing of systems that were born in injustice, nurtured in inequality, and reared in exploitation. They represent the inevitable decay of any system based on principles that are not in harmony with the moral laws of the universe.” (P. 113.) He views the end of colonialism and segregation as evidence of “God working through history for the salvation of man.” (P. 113.) (As noted above, Africans have benefitted more from European colonialism than have the Europeans. Moreover, segregation is in harmony with the moral laws of the universe. Integration is disharmony, which is why the integrated Western world is dying. Integration replacing segregation has nothing to do with the salvation of man. More correctly, the replacement is God working through history to chastise Whites.)

Next, King states, “God is able to conquer the evils of history.” (P. 114.) (Thus, hope exists that God will eventually conquer the evils of integration and amalgamation, which His holy book condemns.) He laments that integration is not progressing as quickly as he desires. Further, he asserts that God is walking with the Negro in his “sometimes difficult and often lonesome walk up freedom's road.” (P. 114.) (Now, Negroes have walked so far up freedom’s road that they can steal and wantonly destroy property with immunity. Moreover, Negroes have enslaved Whites to support them through welfare, job preferences [more qualified Whites have to give their jobs to less qualified Negroes], etc. If a person is unfamiliar with the demographics of the United States, watching American television would convince him that a majority of Americans are Negroes, and American television commercials would convince him that most marriages are interracial. Since the days of King, Negroes have come a long way.)

Continuing, King notes that if people disobey the absolute moral laws of the universe, these laws will break them. (Since racial segregation and separation is a moral law of the universe, the country grew stronger while practicing it. However, since America has abandoned racial segregation and separation in favor of integration and amalgamation, it has been deteriorating toward its death.)

Next, King states, “Christianity affirms that God is able to give us the power to meet them [problems and disappointments]. . . . He is able to provide inner peace amid outer storms.” (P. 115.) Then, he discusses the good times leading people away from God and the bad times drawing them back. Also, people relying on gods other than the one true God results in disasters. (America is witnessing the disastrous results of relying on King and his gospel instead of Jesus and his gospel.)

In closing, King gives a brief discussion of how the Montgomery protest affected him.

In this essay, King gives an excellent discussion on the necessity and importance of God. However, his discussion of evil begins well but ends with erroneous assertions about colonialism and segregation being evil. Colonialism has benefitted Africa far more than it benefitted the European colonial powers. Also, since the Bible teaches, endorses, and promotes segregation, it can hardly be evil.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Republicans Owned Blacks

Republicans Owned Blacks

Thomas Allen

I posted a comment on a comment on “Trump Surprises BLM Activist!” by Vince Quill (https://wltreport.com/2023/11/30/president-trump-surprises-blm-activist/). [Note: If you go to this site, you will not see my comments because it has banned me. Apparently, I objected too much about it censoring my comments telling the truth about God’s chosen people and their political movement.] My comment was “From 1865 to around 1960, the Republicans owned the slaves; then, the Democrats acquired ownership.” Not surprisingly, my comment received several negative responses. For the most part, these commenters seem to be victims of orthodox establishment propaganda that is called history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues.