Introduction and Scripture Reading

Weaver reads 1 Samuel 12:14-15, 24-25, emphasizing that both the people and the king can rebel against God's commandments, and that God holds both accountable.

1 Samuel chapter 12, and we're going to be reading verses 14 and 15, and then 24 and 25, and you will see the importance of those verses just momentarily. Notice if you would, 1 Samuel chapter 12, beginning there with verse 14.

Now skip down to verse 24. Once again, Samuel says,

The message I'm going to bring today is entitled, "Who Were the Rebels?" The official history of the War of Northern Aggression is known as the War of Rebellion. In fact, there have been many books written concerning that war with the title, "The War of Rebellion," somewhere involved in the title. One such book I have in my own personal library, and the title of the book is "The Great American Rebellion." The first picture in that book is a picture of General Ulysses S. Grant. The opening sentences of that book are these, listen carefully: "We now approach the most momentous period in the history of the United States, the culmination of the great conspiracy on the part of the Southern politicians to bring about dissolution of the Union. This was not a calm, deliberate determination of the people of the South, but a conspiracy originating with a few ambitious politicians." Now, not only is the South openly accused of acting the part of the rebel and seeking to destroy the Union, but it's not even the South as a whole that is accused in this volume, but a few disgruntled politicians who led the poor, ignorant, uneducated, and uninformed populace astray.

In other words, we just were duped by these ambitious politicians. This view was popular with a number of northern historians. Now in order to embrace this view one must forget the fact that each state seceded and when they seceded it was their legislature that passed the ordinance of secession and that document was legally recorded and publicly issued. One must also forget the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people agreed with secession and did everything they could to effect it. One must also forget the fact that there were serious religious, economic, political, and constitutional issues involved, and everyone in the states knew it. One must also forget the fact that Southerners knew why they were fighting, and they did not need a northern historian to give them the politically correct view of history. Now, all down through history, the Southerners have been referred to as rebels, fire eaters, fire breathers, and Johnny Rebs.

The Labeling of the South as Rebels

Weaver introduces the topic by noting that the official history of the Civil War labels the South as rebels, but questions whether this label is accurate if the South was in the right.

For consider how great things he hath done for you. But if you shall still do wickedly, you shall be consumed, both you and your king." The message I'm going to bring today is entitled, "Who Were the Rebels?" The official history of the War of Northern Aggression is known as the War of Rebellion. In fact, there have been many books written concerning that war with the title, "The War of Rebellion," somewhere involved in the title. One such book I have in my own personal library, and the title of the book is "The Great American Rebellion." The first picture in that book is a picture of General Ulysses S. Grant. The opening sentences of that book are these, listen carefully: "We now approach the most momentous period in the history of the United States, the culmination of the great conspiracy on the part of the Southern politicians to bring about dissolution of the Union. This was not a calm, deliberate determination of the people of the South, but a conspiracy originating with a few ambitious politicians." Now, not only is the South openly accused of acting the part of the rebel and seeking to destroy the Union, but it's not even the South as a whole that is accused in this volume, but a few disgruntled politicians who led the poor, ignorant, uneducated, and uninformed populace astray.

In other words, we just were duped by these ambitious politicians. This view was popular with a number of northern historians. Now in order to embrace this view one must forget the fact that each state seceded and when they seceded it was their legislature that passed the ordinance of secession and that document was legally recorded and publicly issued. One must also forget the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people agreed with secession and did everything they could to effect it. One must also forget the fact that there were serious religious, economic, political, and constitutional issues involved, and everyone in the states knew it. One must also forget the fact that Southerners knew why they were fighting, and they did not need a northern historian to give them the politically correct view of history. Now, all down through history, the Southerners have been referred to as rebels, fire eaters, fire breathers, and Johnny Rebs.

And these are all names, by the way, which indicate that it was the South that was in rebellion, and the people of the South as a whole were classified then as a rebellious people. And I've often asked myself this simple question. If the South was in the right, and I genuinely, honestly believe the South was in the right, and I believe I could demonstrate that if I had time today, but if the South was in the right, the question is, why were we labeled as rebels?

Historical Pattern of Labeling Patriots as Rebels

Weaver points out that during the American Revolution, true patriots like George Washington were called rebels and traitors, and that the term is often used by those in power to stigmatize their adversaries.

Now, I realize the very first one to stigmatize someone else, usually that stigmatization sticks. In other words, if I looked at Dr. Root and said, "You're a racist," now, whether he is or not is immaterial. He is now put on the defensive and he has to defend the fact that he's not a racist. And usually what people do is this. They label their adversaries, they label their enemies in reality what they are themselves. So very obviously, the term "rebel" is significant in several ways. Do you realize during the first war for American independence, I'm talking about the war of 1776, but during that first war for American independence, the true patriots were castigated, despised, and given the name "rebel." Do you realize that George Washington was classified as the arch rebel?

There was a poem written by an inmate in the old capital prison in Washington, D.C. in 1864. It's actually a couplet, and here it is very simplistically stated. He said, "Washington a rebel was, Jefferson a traitor, but their treason won success and made their glory greater." Well, I mean, you know, very obviously they were called names. And when you look at John and Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, and a multitude of others, they also were stigmatized and branded as rebels and traitors. The pastors during the American Revolution were so hated and so despised they were called the Black Robe Regiment and the British would do any and everything to kill or to capture a pastor. Why? Because those pastors were leading the people and they also were classified as arch rebels. Now basically all of the colonies were classified as rebels. Have you ever stopped and asked yourself this question? Why in the world would our forefathers fight over a puny little tea tax or a puny little stamp tax that only amounted to a penny or so?

The Real Rebels in the American Revolution

Weaver argues that the colonists were not rebels; rather, King George III and the British Parliament were the rebels because they violated their covenantal agreements with the colonies.

Why would they expend lives and fortunes over a few cents worth? Well, let me ask another question. Were there rebels during the American Revolution? And the answer is yes. But you must ask this question, then, who were the rebels? It certainly was not the colonists. It certainly was not the legislatures in the colonial states. It was not the militias in those states. It was not the citizens in those states. Well, who were the rebels? Are you listening? The rebels were King George III and the British Parliament.

You say, now, how in the world could such a statement be true? Let me tell you something. You and I have been so propagandized and so brainwashed and so ignorant of Scripture and so ignorant of history, it does not ever enter into our minds that civil rulers and civil governments can be rebellious as well as individuals. Now, I want to show you this is not only a fact of history, but it's also a fact of Scripture.

So hold 1 Samuel, but turn in your Bibles very quickly to 2 Kings 11 and verse 17. I'm going to show you several passages very quickly because I'm going to establish a biblical principle. I want you to understand that all government, doesn't matter what kind, but all government is covenantal in nature. Look in 2 Kings chapter 11 and verse 17.

Now here are two covenants mentioned in relationship to government. First of all, the king and the people entered into a covenant with the Lord where the king agrees to be God's king and the people agree to be God's people. Secondly, there is a covenant entered into between the people and the king whereby the king agrees to rule faithfully and the people agree to obey as long as he does rule faithfully. Now look in your Bibles to 2 Samuel chapter 5 and verse 3. 2 Samuel 5 and verse 3. Everyone knows that David was king of Judah and then of course he was made king of Israel. And in verse 3 you have the elders of Israel coming to David to make him king. Look what he said.

Now King David then made a league with the elders of the people. What in the world is a league? Well, look in your Bibles to 1 Chronicles chapter 11 and verse 3. You'll see the same exact verse, but the word "league" is translated just a little differently. 1 Chronicles chapter 11 and verse 3, look what it said there. 1 Chronicles 11 and verse 3, the word of God says, "Therefore came all the elders of Israel to the king to Hebron and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord."

And they anointed David king over Israel according to the word of the Lord by Samuel. Then if you look in 2 Chronicles chapter 23. 2 Chronicles 23. Look if you would please at verse 2 and 3 and then at verse 16. Just showing you that government is covenantal in nature. 2 Chronicles 23 and verse 2. "And they went about in Judah, and gathered the Levites out of all the cities of Judah, and the chief of the fathers of Israel."

And they came to Jerusalem. "And all the congregation made a covenant with the king in the house of God. And he said unto them, Behold, the king's son shall reign, as the Lord has said of the sons of David." Note, all the congregation made a covenant with the king in the house of God. Then if you'll skip down in verse 16, Jehoiada the high priest, watch carefully, "And Jehoiada made a covenant between him, that is, between God, and between all the people, and between the king, that they should be the Lord's people."

So when you talk about the covenantal nature of government, it is a scriptural as well as a historical fact. Government is covenantal in nature. I don't care what government you're talking about. You can refer to a family government, you could refer to an ecclesiastical government, you may refer to a civil government. But it doesn't matter. All government is covenantal in nature. Do you realize that George III was not only king of England, he was also king of Georgia, and king of Virginia, and king of North Carolina, and king of South Carolina. He was king over all the thirteen original colonies.

Each colony had its own legislature. Each colony had its charter, its constitution, its covenant with an agreement with George III. There was never a colony under Parliament. Every colony had its own state legislature. Therefore, when the Parliament began to issue laws, when the Parliament of England began to issue laws and demand taxes from the colonists, they said, "Oh, wait a minute. No, this is not right. We are not under Parliament. We have our own legislatures. We're only under George III. Parliament has absolutely nothing to do with us." Now listen, Parliament had no authority to tax the colonists. They had no authority to issue laws for the benefit of the colonists. Neither did George III have the right or the authority to violate his covenant and give Parliament that authority. Now, there were rebels, but may I tell you, the ones who were the rebels, the ones who were usurping and seceding authority, happened to be George III, the King of England, and also the British Parliament. These were the rebels in the American Revolution in 1774.

In order to head off a war, George Washington, George Mason, Charles Broadwater along with some other men met at Fairfax County Courthouse in Fairfax, Virginia and they entered into on July the 18th, 1774 and wrote what was known as the Fairfax Resolves. Now there were, I believe, 24 of these resolves. And I'm going to read a couple of them to you. But basically speaking, these resolves were beseeching and imploring George III, the king of England, to keep his end of the covenant. Because originally, the American colonists did not want to be independent. They did not want to be separate from England. They wanted to be under the authority of George III, but they were going to expect George III to keep his covenant with them. Now, let me read to you just four or five of these.

It seems as if these things were written yesterday. Here's Resolution No. 5. Remember, this was written in 1774. Resolution number five: "Resolved that the claim lately assumed and exercised by the British Parliament of making all such laws as they think fit to govern the people of these colonies"—that almost sounds like Congress, doesn't it?—"and to extort from us our money without our consent"—that is Congress.

The Fairfax Resolves and Colonial Grievances

Weaver reads from the Fairfax Resolves of 1774, showing that the colonists only wanted the king to keep his covenant and were willing to remain British subjects, but would resist becoming slaves.

Now there were, I believe, 24 of these resolves. And I'm going to read a couple of them to you. But basically speaking, these resolves were beseeching and imploring George III, the king of England, to keep his end of the covenant. Because originally, the American colonists did not want to be independent. They did not want to be separate from England. They wanted to be under the authority of George III, but they were going to expect George III to keep his covenant with them. Now, let me read to you just four or five of these.

It seems as if these things were written yesterday. Here's Resolution No. 5. Remember, this was written in 1774. Resolution number five: "Resolved that the claim lately assumed and exercised by the British Parliament of making all such laws as they think fit to govern the people of these colonies"—that almost sounds like Congress, doesn't it?—"and to extort from us our money without our consent"—that is Congress. "is not only diametrically contrary to the first principles of the Constitution, and the original compacts by which we are dependent upon the British Crown and government, but is totally incompatible with the privileges of a free people and the natural rights of mankind, will render our own legislatures merely nominal and nugatory, and is calculated to reduce us from a state of freedom and happiness to slavery and misery." Did you hear that? What did they say?

Parliament has no authority to take our money without our consent. It has no authority to make laws that affect us without us even knowing about it. And we refuse that. We will not submit to that. Listen to number six. This ought to shock you. Here's resolution number six. "Resolved that taxation and representation are in their nature inseparable. Here it is. The right of withholding or of giving and granting their own money is the only effectual security of a free people against the encroachments of despotism and tyranny, and that whenever they yield to the one, they must quickly fall prey to the other." Do you have the right to withhold your own money from your government? Oh, no. Well, you say, "Yes, I do have that right, sure." And when you exercise that right, you're going to have to fight.

And you'll probably end up in jail. And you'll probably end up having your property confiscated. What did our forefathers say? Our forefathers said, when you did not have the right to grant or withhold your money from your government, you were a slave. You're under despotic and tyrannical rule. Let me read to you Resolution No. 7. Here it is: "Resolved that the powers over the people of America now claimed by the British House of Commons, and whose elections we have no share and in on whose determinations we can have no influence." Now, wait a minute. You say, "Well, we were."

That certainly does not apply to me because, man, I get to vote. Oh, wonderful. Has anybody ever read the book "Vote Scam"? A couple of you have. If you haven't read it, you should read it. And let me tell you something. Once everything is done by computer, you don't know who you're voting for. You don't know. You say, "Well, I saw it. Check it." That's immaterial. Do you realize those machines can be controlled from anywhere in the country? Read the book, "Vote Scam." Oh, there was a humongous scandal down in Miami, Florida.

And when these newspapers were giving the exit polls, they were right on the money to the exact percentage. Why? Because the whole election was rigged. And when you get the opportunity to vote for Socialist A or Socialist B, it really doesn't matter which one you vote for.

Now, listen to what they say. "Resolved that the powers of the people of America now claimed by the British House of Commons, and whose election we have no share, on whose determination we can have no influence, whose information must always be defective and often false"—that is Congress—"who in many instances may have a separate and in some an opposite interest to ours." Oh, let me ask you, just think about this, does your congressman represent your interests? You know, what burns me up is when you do write your congressman and you tell him how you want him to vote. If he ever deigns to answer you, you'll get a little letter something like this, "Sir or dear Alan, thank you for contacting me. I appreciate your views on this subject. But may I remind you that I must vote my conscience." We didn't send him up there to vote his conscience. We sent him up there to represent us, our conscience. And so these founding fathers said, "Look, you're violating everything that we agreed to."

The Boston Port Bill, when the king was going to close the Boston Port because of the Boston Tea Party. And as soon as Fairfax Resolves, I don't have it right in front of me. But you know what the colony said when the king closes the Boston Port? "We will not hold such binding upon us. But we will do everything we can to support our brethren and maintain our liberty." And you know why the Boston Port bill did not close and did not make the Bostonians yield? Because all the people in the other colonies sent food and merchandise to them, everything they needed. What King George III was going to do was starve them into submission. But it didn't work. Listen to number eight.

"Resolved that it is our greatest wish and inclination, as well as interest, to continue our connection with and dependence upon the British government." They wanted to stay British subjects. "Resolved that it is our greatest wish and inclination, as well as the interest, to continue our connection with and dependence upon the British government. But, though we are its subjects, we will use every means which heaven hath given us to prevent our becoming its slaves." George, we're willing to be your subjects. But not your slaves. And here's the 23rd resolve. Listen to what our forefathers said: "Resolved that it be recommended to the deputies of the General Congress to draw up and transmit a humble and dutiful petition and remonstrance to His Majesty, asserting with decent firmness our just and constitutional rights and privileges, lamenting the fatal necessity of being compelled to enter into measures disgusting to His Majesty and Parliament, or injurious to our fellow subjects in Great Britain, declaring in the strongest terms our duty and affection to His Majesty's person, family, and government, and our desire to continue our dependence upon Great Britain, and most humbly conjuring and beseeching His Majesty not to reduce his faithful subjects of America to a state of desperation and to reflect that from our sovereign, there can be but one appeal."

George, if you force us, we'll fight. Now, who were the rebels? The colonists were doing everything they could to avert a war. And they said to George III and the Parliament, "Look, all we want you to do is keep your end of the covenant. That's all." Were there rebels? Yes, but clearly the rebels in the American Revolution were the civil authorities in England and not the colonies. The colonists only wanted George III to keep his word and to not violate his covenantal agreement.

Biblical Principle: Rebellion Is Only Against Lawful Authority

Weaver establishes that rebellion can only be against lawful authority; where there is no lawful authority, resistance is not rebellion. He uses 1 Samuel 12 to show that God is the ultimate authority and that both rulers and ruled can rebel.

Now, we have arrived at a very vital, pivotal, important historical and scriptural principle. Listen carefully. If you don't get anything else today, please get this. Rebellion is only to lawful authority. Where there is no lawful authority, there is no rebellion, just merely resistance. For instance, if I looked at Mrs. Rood and I said to her, "Sure. Get up and go get me a glass of tea." And she looked at me and said, "Now, Brother Weaver, wait a minute. If you ask me, I'll be more than happy and gracious to get you a glass of tea, but don't go ordering me around and don't go telling me what to do."

And I look at her husband and say, "You know, the problem with your wife is she's just rebellious." Can she be rebellious to me? The answer is no. I have no lawful authority over her. She might be rebellious to her husband, but she can't be rebellious to me. You can only be rebellious to lawful authority. If there is no lawful authority, it is not rebellion. It is resistance. Look back in your Bibles.

Look down in your Bibles to 1 Samuel 12 and notice verse 25. To show you that God holds the civil rulers equally responsible as the people, he says this: "But if you shall still do wickedly, you shall be consumed, both you and your king." You see, since government is covenantal in nature, that means there are two parties to a covenant, a minimum of two parties, and either party can violate the covenant. The ruler may violate the covenant, or the ruled may violate the covenant, but either one are capable of violating the covenant. Now, once you have understood this principle of God's absolute sovereignty and the fact that God is the absolute, ultimate and total authority, let me ask yourself this question, because Abraham Lincoln tried to get this joint resolution passed that the South had rebelled against the lawful authority of the government of the United States. May I ask you a question? What is the lawful authority of the United States?

The U.S. Constitution as the Lawful Authority

Weaver explains that the lawful authority of the United States is the Constitution, which is a covenant with the federal government. He argues that the South sought to abide by the Constitution while the North violated it repeatedly.

Now, I know—and I'm not thinking of God right now. I know that God's absolutely sovereign. And I know that he's our ultimate authority. But I'm talking about, humanly speaking, what is the lawful authority of the United States. It is certainly not the president. It's not the executive office. It's not the legislative branch. It's not Congress. It's not the judicial branch. It's not the Supreme Court. If I were to ask you what is exactly the lawful authority of the United States, the answer comes back, the lawful authority of the United States is the Constitution of the United States. You know why? That Constitution is our covenant with the federal government. It is our agreement with the federal government. You know what Article 6, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution says?

Let me quote it for you. It says this: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof"—that is, the laws that are made must agree with the Constitution—"this Constitution of the United States 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"—what's the authority of the United States? It's the Constitution—"shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Now what does the Constitution say? The Constitution says every officer is bound by the Constitution. No state can make any constitution that's going to conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

And if the Supreme Court rules against some law that is constitutional, the Supreme Court is wrong. Or if Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has already ruled that law is null and void, ab initio, that is, from the beginning. It has no binding influence on anyone. Why? Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Now, one of the main problems that existed between the North and the South in the 1860s was a differing view concerning the Constitution. There were many problems that brought on the war, that agitated the war. But the South, basically speaking, wished to abide by the Constitution when the North did not.

The Southern politicians were strict constructionists. They wanted a limited government, not an expansive, centralized bureaucracy. And I'm going to show you that it was the North that violated the Constitution over and over and over. Let me give you a quote. Ardent abolitionist Wendell Phillips said this—and please keep this in mind today—but here's what he said: "The Republican Party is in no sense a national party. It is a party pledged to work for the downfall of democracy, the downfall of the Union, and the destruction of the United States Constitution. The religious creed of the party was hate of democracy, hate of the Union, hate of the Constitution, and hate of the Southern people."

Northern Violations of the Constitution

Weaver provides quotes from Northern leaders showing their disdain for the Constitution and lists 13 specific ways in which Congress and Lincoln violated it, including suspension of habeas corpus and the Emancipation Proclamation.

He ought to know, excuse my English, he were one. Listen to what else he said: "The Republican Party is the first sectional party ever organized in this country. It does not know its own face and it calls itself national. It is sectional. It is the party of the North pledged against the South. It was organized with hatred of the Constitution. The Republican Party that elected Abraham Lincoln is pledged to the downfall of the Union and the destruction of the United States Constitution."

William Lloyd Garrison, whom Dr. Rood quoted yesterday, William Lloyd Garrison believed in the constitutional right to hold slaves, although he was an abolitionist. He believed in the right to hold slaves and said the Union must be dissolved to free them. He believed in the constitutional right of secession, so was willing to publicly burn the Constitution to destroy that right and called it a compact with death and a league with hell. Now, please understand, most northerners knew that the Constitution allowed slavery and also secession. Without me going into it, it was the North, I believe at least three or four times previously, that had threatened to secede from the Union before the South ever did. So they knew that the Constitution taught not only the right to hold slaves—you can't deny that it's very black and white—but also the right to secede by implication of because it was a compact, it was agreement between the states and the federal government.

It was radical Republican Senator Charles Sumner's Boston Commonwealth that printed the following, listen to what the paper said. And this is Charles Sumner's attitude. "How dare anyone pray for the preservation of that sin and shame, the Union? Unity of the states is a crime. May the tongue wither that prays for the preservation of that festering shame, the Union." Well, remember Charles Sumner, as a United States Senator, took an oath to uphold the Constitution. You see, the radical Republicans and the abolitionists were dead set on violating the Constitution. Even Secretary of State William Seward said that loyal men had to put the country ahead of the Constitution because a nation on fire made any debate on the sanctity of law out of order. Southern statesman John C.

Calhoun also had similarly predicted what would happen when the northern faction, such as the Republican Party, managed to gain control of the federal government. Listen to what Calhoun said, and I want to ask you, is he not right even today? Here's what Calhoun said: "The Constitution will be viewed by the majority as shackles on their power. To them, it will have no value as the means of protection. As a majority, they require none. Their numbered strength and not the Constitution is their protection. The powers that be, they view the Constitution as shackles on their power." Was it not Jefferson? Who was it? Jefferson or Washington said, "Chain them down with the chains of the Constitution." The Constitution was never meant to limit the people. It was never meant to limit the states. It was only meant to limit the federal government. Listen to this. While the Democratic leaders were calling for a return to the Union as it was, and the Constitution as it is, the leaders and spokesmen of the party, which had gained the majority—that is the Radical Republicans—that had successfully installed Abraham Lincoln as their political puppet in the executive office, condemned the Constitution,

listen to the terms they used, condemned the Constitution as a mistake, the superstition of a people, a sheepskin government deserving no respect, and the foundation of our troubles, and by members of Lincoln's cabinet as a paper kite, and the rotten rail of Virginia. It was Seward's opinion that the Constitution, that the written Constitution is dangerous to us in the North because the South is using it as a shield. Well, did not the North and the South enter into that compact with the federal government? And the answer is yes. It was radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens who was even more blunt, and here's what he said: "The talk of restoring the Union as it was, and under the Constitution as it is, is one of the absurdities which I have heard repeated until I have become sick of it. There are many things which make such an event impossible. The Union never shall, with my consent, be restored under the Constitution as it is. The Union as it was and the Constitution as it is, God forbid it!"

"We must conquer the southern states and hold them as conquered provinces." That was a United States Congressman. He said as long as he was alive, as long as he had something to do with it, it would never be the Union as it was and the Constitution as it is. Now, very quickly, you don't have to write these down but I want you to listen. I'm going to give you 13 ways very quickly in which the Congress and the President Abraham Lincoln violated the United States Constitution. There are many more. But listen to this. It was violated in the Missouri Compromise of 1820 because the slave territory—restricted the carrying slaves in the territories was restricted and there was no constitutional authority for that. And actually it was a denial of the South's right to carry their property into other territories. There was the Tariff Acts of 1828 and 1833, and the Constitution says that the tariff must be uniform. One section must not be discriminated against another section, or one section not favorited against another section. Thirdly, there's the violation of the Fugitive Slave Law, Article 4, Section 2, Clause 8.

Fourthly, there was coercion in 1861, a violation of Article 4, Section 4. Fifthly, there was the laws of neutrality in the Trent Affair. Article 6, Clause 2, violation of international law, the Trent Affair. You need to hear what the North did to a British ship, the Trent. Secretary Mallory and Slidell, Governor Slidell, were on—I think not for their memory but memory of Florida governor Mallory—were all on that ship bound to England and a northern ship stopped a British vessel, boarded the British vessel, took the Confederate representatives off and put them in prison. I hope you remember there was a war about Britain doing that for the war of 1812, you remember that. The captain of the northern ship got a medal and got promoted. Until England said, "You will release those men. And you will apologize. Or you're going to have war on two fronts." The Confederate representatives were released. And there was an apology. The Union officers kept his medal and his promotion.

But here's a violation of international law. The writ of habeas corpus was suspended by Lincoln. It's a violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2. War was declared without the consent of Congress. That's a violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 2 and 12. The Emancipation Proclamation itself, as I talked about yesterday, was also a violation of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. West Virginia was made a state in violation of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1. The seizure of property after surrender without compensation, violation of Articles 4 and 6. The liberty of the press taken away, violation of the First Amendment. Freedom of speech denied in the Vallandigham case in Ohio, violation of the First Amendment.

Blockading ports of states that were held by the federal government to still be in the Union. Here are 13 constitutional violations, and there are many, many more. Some Lincoln did, some Congress did, some they both did. When Abraham Lincoln was planning another unconstitutional scheme, Secretary of Treasury Salmon Portland Chase learned of the scheme, and he cautioned, here's what Chase said: "There is one little obstacle in the way which makes the plan impractical, and that is the United States Constitution." When Chase's concerns were relayed to the President, President Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln responded, "Go back to Chase and tell him not to bother himself about the United States Constitution. Say that I have that sacred instrument here at the White House and I'm guarding it with great care." Later, Abraham Lincoln called Chase and related to him the following story. "Chase," he said, "down in Illinois I was held to be a pretty good lawyer. Now this thing reminds me of a story. An Italian captain ran his vessel on a rock and knocked a hole in her body.

Lincoln's Attitude Toward the Constitution

Weaver recounts Lincoln's story about throwing the Virgin Mary overboard to plug a leak, illustrating Lincoln's willingness to violate the Constitution to preserve the Union.

Say that I have that sacred instrument here at the White House and I'm guarding it with great care." Later, Abraham Lincoln called Chase and related to him the following story. "Chase," he said, "down in Illinois I was held to be a pretty good lawyer. Now this thing reminds me of a story. An Italian captain ran his vessel on a rock and knocked a hole in her body. He sent his men to pumping and went to prayers before a figure of the Virgin Mary in the bow of the ship. The leak gained on them until it looked as if the vessel would go down with all on board. The captain, in a fit of rage and not having his prayers answered, seized the figure of the Virgin Mary and threw it overboard. Suddenly, the leak stopped, the water was pumped out, and the vessel got safely into port. When docked for repairs, the statue of the Virgin Mary was found stuck head foremost in the hole." "Chase, I didn't intend precisely to throw the Virgin Mary overboard, by that I mean the Constitution, but I will stick it into the hole if I can." Lincoln went on to say, "The South has violated the Constitution to break up the Union"—which is not true—"and I'm ready to violate it to preserve the Union, and between you and me, Chase, before we get through, this Constitution is going to have a tough time." Who were the rebels?

Southern Leaders' Commitment to the Constitution

Weaver quotes Robert E. Lee and Alexander Stephens, who stated that the South only wanted to preserve the Constitution and the principles of the Union as originally established.

Now I want to very quickly ask you to listen to the sentiments of some Southern men. General Robert E. Lee said this: "All that the South has ever desired was that the union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth." Again, Lee said, "The South has contended only for the supremacy of the Constitution and the just administration of the laws made in pursuance to it." That's what we want. Alexander Hamilton Stephens, who was the Vice President of the Confederacy, said this: "The real object of those who resorted to secession, as well as those who sustained it, was not the overthrow of the government of the United States, but to perpetuate the principles upon which it was founded. The object in quitting the Union was not to destroy, but to save the principles of the Constitution." R.G. Horton, in his youth history of the Civil War, said, "At the very time the abolitionists were preaching a mad crusade against the Union and educating a generation to hate the government of our fathers, Southern men, the great leaders of the South, were begging and imploring that the Union might be preserved. If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to secede. The North and the federal government left the Constitution, and the South left the Union because of that breach."

Economic Motivations and Conclusion

Weaver argues that the North's motivation was largely economic, as the South provided the majority of federal revenue. He concludes by calling believers to stand for truth and righteousness, even if labeled rebels, and reads the poem 'Rebels.'

Here is a little tidbit from the pro-Lincoln New York Evening Press, March 2, 1861. Remember this paper is for Lincoln. The paper wrote that "either the revenue from the duties must be collected in the ports of rebel states or the port must be closed to importations from abroad is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed. The sources which supply our treasury will be dried up. We shall have no money to carry on the government. The nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army, nothing to keep our navy afloat, nothing to pay the salaries of public officers. The present order of things must come to a dead stop. What then is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole union in this matter? Or will the government choose to consider all the foreign commerce destined for those ports which we have no custom houses and no collectors as contraband and stop it when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?" What are they saying? They're saying if we let the South go, we will be broke in the North. Remember, I said—and I can show you where all the monies that went in the federal treasuries, 75% was from the South, I think you said 95% the other day, Jack. Between 75 and 95% of all monies

in the 1860s that the federal government had came from the South. I have at my home the taxes that were paid that year by the South and those by the North. Those by the North was just something like one or two million, while the South was way up in the millions. And they're saying, if we don't stop the South, our milk cow is gone.

Now, this is not an isolated case. British newspapers favoring the North or the South said the same thing. They were saying that basically the north didn't care about the Constitution, they were going to invade the south to make sure they had their tax money. I want to give you a quote from someone who was alive then and listen carefully to his name. Karl Marx. Karl Marx, the communist. Here's what he said. He said the war between the north and the south is a tariff war.

The war's further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on the northern lust for sovereignty. Now, Karl Marx, as an observer, said what the North wants is power. And they want someone else to give them the money. Now, Marx was wrong in one area. When he said the war was not about principle in any level, it was about principle in the South. It may not have been about principle in the North, but it was about principle in the South, because the South believed it had the right of self-determination and the right of independence and the right not to be taxed to support a foreign and alien regime. Who were the rebels? Not the South. It was the North.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1835, "If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the unlimited authority of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation and oblige them to have a recourse to physical force. It will have been brought about by the despotism of the majority." Let me ask you, try to take these principles and make them applicable today. Do you think most of the people in America are tired, or at least are heading that way, of having abortion and sodomy pushed down their throat? How about socialism? How about fraud, lies, deception, treason? It's the same thing. If you and I really want to know who the rebels were, you've got to remember this principle. Rebellion can only be to lawful authority. If there is no lawful authority, there is no rebellion. It is only resistance. And if you resist, you are not a rebel. Rather, you are a patriot trying to establish, once again, that which is just and right and holy. If standing for truth and righteousness is rebellion, then I'm a rebel. If standing for liberty and freedom is rebellion, then I'm a rebel. If standing for a limited government as provided by our forefathers is rebellion, then I'm a rebel. If standing for the right of self-defense is rebellion, then I'm a rebel. If standing for the authority of God's Word in its fullest and widest application is rebellion, then I'm a rebel. But I'm not rebelling against authority.

I want to end with one of the most beautiful poems I've ever read. I don't know who wrote it. Just "Anonymous" is the only thing under it. And the name of the poem is "Rebels." Listen carefully. "Rebels, 'tis a holy name, the name our fathers bore when battling in the cause of right against the tyrant in his might in the dark days of yore. Rebels, 'tis our family name. Our father Washington was the arch rebel in the fight and gave the name to us a right of father unto son. Rebels, 'tis our given name. Our Mother Liberty received the title with her fame in the days of grief, of fear and shame, when at her breast we were. Rebels, 'tis our seal name, a baptism of blood, the war cry, and the din of strife, the fearful contest, life or life, the mingled prism flood. Rebels, 'tis a patriot's name. In struggles it was given.

We bore it when the tyrants raved, and through their curses was engraved on the doomsday book of heaven. Rebels! It is our fighting name for peace rules over the land until they speak of craven woe, until our ranks receive a blow from foe or brother's hands. Rebels! This is our dying name. For although life is dear, yet freedmen born and freemen bred, we would rather live as freemen dead than live in slavish fear. Then call us rebels, if you will. We glory in the name.

For bending under unjust laws and swearing faith to an unjust cause, we count a greater shame. Rebels. If you're going to call a rebel someone who stands for right, we'll gladly bear the name. But if you want to know who the real rebels were, they are the ones who refuse to submit to lawful authority. Let's pray. Father, speak to our hearts. Help us today to live for Thee. Encourage our hearts.

Give us some of the backbone that our forefathers had. Give us some character and courage. And may we stand for what's right. In Christ's name we pray. Amen.