Clean Transcript

Their Blood Cries From the Ground

Clean readable transcript. This view follows the Commentary.net cleaned segment text while preserving timestamps for audio follow-along.

• Let's open our Bibles to Genesis chapter 4. Genesis chapter 4. Genesis 4 and verse 10. The name of the message is simply stated, "Their Blood Cries From the Ground." Their blood cries from the ground. Look in Genesis 4 and verse 10: "And he said, What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground."

  #1 | 0:10 to 0:41 | cleaned

• Now, the story of Cain and Abel is one of the best-known stories in the Bible. However, that which is not well known about this particular story is its many and varied implications.

  #2 | 0:42 to 0:53 | cleaned

• Now, while the entire story is important and while there are many questions that should be answered and many applications that should be made, it is particularly verse 10 that's going to require our complete attention today. Note, if you would, what God says: "And he said, What hast thou done?" God is asking Cain. "What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground."

  #3 | 0:54 to 1:20 | cleaned

• Now, in analyzing this verse, several truths should be painfully obvious. The first one is this: that blood that cries from the ground is spilled blood. That is, that blood has been shed by someone. Someone is responsible for the death or the murder of another. And by the way, I hope you also understand from this verse that God is not indifferent. And God certainly sees and is cognizant of all of our acts, whether or not other men see or complain of those acts. No one may have seen Cain murder Abel, but God certainly knew it. So the very first thing that we understand is that blood that cries from the ground is spilled blood. That is, someone has been killed. Someone has been murdered. Secondly, in verse 10, the blood that is shed unrighteously and unjustly has a voice, because the Bible says that its blood cried from the ground. It cries for vindication. It cries for justice. Thirdly, when spilled blood cries, it cries unto God. Innocent blood has a voice that men may not be able to hear, but God certainly hears.

  #4 | 1:21 to 2:38 | cleaned

• The voices of the righteous crying for justice may not be discernible to our ears, but it is most certainly and most definitely discernible unto the ears of God Himself, because that blood cries for divine vengeance. Fourthly, in analyzing this verse, I want you to understand that it is God Himself who will undertake to vindicate that spilled blood. The judge of all the earth will not sit idly by and do nothing. He will bring justice. He will execute His vengeance. And He will vindicate His people.

  #5 | 2:39 to 3:16 | cleaned

• Now, there are two very pertinent illustrations of this truth that are found in the Bible. I want you to turn with me first, holding Genesis 4, but turn in your Bibles to 2 Kings chapter 21. 2 Kings chapter 21. And let's begin reading there with verse 16. I want you to remember that the most wicked king in the southern kingdom was Manasseh. And I want you to know what the Bible says concerning King Manasseh. In 2 Kings chapter 21 and verse 16, the Bible says, "Moreover, Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another, beside his sin wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of the Lord." Now, the statement made in verse 16 is exceedingly broad. "Moreover, Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another." Now, I want you to remember that Manasseh was a wicked king. As a wicked, ungodly civil ruler, he certainly would be capable of shedding innocent blood.

  #6 | 3:17 to 4:29 | cleaned

• That is, putting people to death who did not deserve to be put to death. However, there's another aspect of this, and I believe this is really what it refers to, is because Manasseh also worshipped Moloch. And Moloch demanded human sacrifice. And usually it was the children that were sacrificed. So if you look in 2 Kings 24, and verse 4, look what God says. 2 Kings 24, and notice verse 4, still talking about Manasseh: "And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the Lord would not pardon." Out of all those babies that had been sacrificed to Moloch, God said that Manasseh had filled Jerusalem with blood from one end to the other, and that God would not pardon that sin. Now, innocent blood was spilled. Their blood cried aloud for justice. And God not only judged Manasseh for what he did, but God also judged the people for allowing Manasseh to do that which he did, because they refused to stop him in executing his wicked and unlawful and ungodly deeds.

  #7 | 4:29 to 5:56 | cleaned

• Now, the second illustration that is found is found in the book of Revelation, chapter 6. And look, if you would please, beginning there with verse 9. Revelation 6 and verse 9.

  #8 | 5:56 to 6:08 | cleaned

• Now, remember, we're talking about the spilling of innocent blood. In Revelation 6 and verse 9, the Word of God says, "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?"

  #9 | 6:08 to 6:35 | cleaned

• And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

  #10 | 6:35 to 6:47 | cleaned

• Now look in verse 9: "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?"

  #11 | 6:47 to 7:10 | cleaned

• Now, here were men and women who were martyred simply for their faith in Jesus Christ. And notice, if you would please, they are crying aloud for justice and for divine vengeance. The only crime they committed, and it was no crime, was to believe in Jesus Christ and to hold His testimony. So Holy Scripture is telling us that these people then were put to death unjustly, unrighteously, and unlawfully.

  #12 | 7:11 to 7:40 | cleaned

• Therefore, their murders must be avenged. Now, I don't know if you've noticed anything particular about these two passages that I've just read. But let me point it out. In each of these passages, it was government that was responsible for the unlawful, unjust, and unrighteous deaths of those that were murdered. It was government, the government of King Manasseh, that authorized the slaughter and the sacrifice of children to the god Moloch. The civil ruler made the slaughter legal, although he could not make it lawful. I'll explain that in just a moment. It was government that murdered these saints in Revelation chapter 6. Now you say, "Brother Weaver, the Bible does not say it was the government that murdered these saints in Revelation chapter 6." I understand that. But may I remind you that it is government that is entrusted with the death penalty. And may I also remind you that one man may kill a few people, but only a government can kill a multitude of people. So the multitude that were killed in Revelation chapter 6 in all probability were not killed by individuals, but they were killed by government.

  #13 | 7:41 to 9:08 | cleaned

• That is, they were legally put to death. They were legally put to death through the orders of a reprobate government.

  #14 | 9:08 to 9:20 | cleaned

• Now, let me just try to emphasize the fact that you and I must comprehend that there is a difference between legal and lawful. To say that an act is lawful implies that it is authorized or sanctioned by law. Murder is never authorized nor sanctioned by the law of God nor common law. To say that an act is legal just simply implies that it is done in accordance with the forms and the usages of law. Legally speaking, an act may be performed that is in agreement with the prescribed forms and usages, but that legality does not make a deed lawful.

  #15 | 9:20 to 10:07 | cleaned

• Let me explain what I'm talking about. I want you to turn in your Bibles to 1 Kings, chapter 21. I want you to see the difference between legal and lawful. Something may be legal, but not necessarily lawful. In 1 Kings, chapter 21, let's read the first 13 verses. Here is a passage that everyone should be aware of. 1 Kings chapter 21. Let's begin reading there with verse 1.

  #16 | 10:09 to 10:38 | cleaned

• Now, may I remind you that Manasseh was the most wicked king in the southern kingdom, but Ahab was the most wicked king in the northern kingdom. 1 Kings 21 verse 1: "And it came to pass after these things, that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel, hard by the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. And Ahab spake unto Naboth, saying, Give me thy vineyard, that I may have it for a garden of herbs, because it is near unto my house: and I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it; or if it seem good to thee, I will give thee the worth of it in money. And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee." And he came into his house heavy and displeased because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him: for he had said, "I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers."

  #17 | 10:38 to 11:26 | cleaned

• And he laid him down upon his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread. You don't have a spoiled child. Verse 5: "But Jezebel his wife came to him, and said unto him, Why is thy spirit so sad, that thou eatest no bread? And he said unto her, Because I spake unto Naboth the Jezreelite, and said unto him, Give me thy vineyard for money; or else, if it please thee, I will give thee another vineyard for it. And he answered, I will not give thee my vineyard. And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? arise, and eat bread, and let thine heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite. So she wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth. And she wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people: And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die."

  #18 | 11:26 to 12:27 | cleaned

• And the men of his city, even the elders and the nobles who were the inhabitants in his city, did as Jezebel had sent unto them, and as it was written in the letters which she had sent unto them. They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people. And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died. Then they sent to Jezebel, saying, Naboth is stoned, and is dead. And it came to pass, when Jezebel heard that Naboth was stoned, and was dead, that Jezebel said to Ahab, Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give thee for money: for Naboth is not alive, but dead. Now, Naboth was put to death legally. You say, "What do you mean he was put to death legally?"

  #19 | 12:28 to 13:26 | cleaned

• Well, he was put to death in the prescribed manner of the form and usages of the day. Did you know that the law of God required a minimum of two witnesses before a man could be executed? And what did Jezebel do? Jezebel said, "You proclaim this fast and you set Naboth on high, then you get two witnesses to come in to testify against him that we have heard Naboth blaspheme God and blaspheme the king." Now, if he blasphemed God, he deserves to die. If he blasphemes the king, he deserves to have his property confiscated.

  #20 | 13:27 to 14:05 | cleaned

• And then she said, "You take him out and stone him." Well, that's exactly what happened.

  #21 | 14:07 to 14:12 | cleaned

• Now, the point I'm trying to make is this: The trial was legal. But the act was unlawful. Why? Because the act was murder. Ahab and Jezebel, the two witnesses, and all the people knew that Naboth was innocent. What did Ahab and Jezebel do? They simply used a legal maneuver to do that which was unlawful. Do you realize that wicked governments will use the law unlawfully? Do you realize when Naboth said in verse 3, "And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee." Now, Naboth was not being hard to get along with. He was not trying to hold out for more money or a better swap. God had indeed forbidden those people to get rid of their land. It could not leave the inheritance of his fathers. It was forbidden by God for him to give that land and sell that land. It was also forbidden by God for the king to take that land.

  #22 | 14:13 to 15:26 | cleaned

• You say, "Where do you find that?" Well, look in your Bibles to the book of Ezekiel chapter 46 and notice verse 16. Ezekiel 46 and let's begin reading there with verse 16. Look what the Bible says. Ezekiel 46 and verse 16: "Thus saith the Lord God; If the prince give a gift unto any of his sons, the inheritance thereof shall be his sons'; it shall be their possession by inheritance. But if he give a gift of his inheritance to one of his servants, then it shall be his to the year of liberty; after it shall return to the prince: but his inheritance shall be his sons' for them. Moreover the prince shall not take of the people's inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession; but he shall give his sons inheritance out of his own possession: that my people be not scattered every man from his possession."

  #23 | 15:26 to 16:30 | cleaned

• So, not only did God forbid Naboth to sell his land, He also forbade Ahab to confiscate that land. So what did Ahab and Jezebel do? They used the law unlawfully and they murdered Naboth.

  #24 | 16:30 to 16:45 | cleaned

• Now, please understand that they did it legally. They did it according to the prescribed forms and usages in that particular day. They murdered him legally.

  #25 | 16:45 to 16:57 | cleaned

• Now, the important question that we have to ask is this: To whom did God attribute this murder? And the answer is Ahab and Jezebel. Their position as civil rulers, their positions as king and queen, did not shelter them from the charge of murder. Listen to me carefully. Whenever the law is used unlawfully, even by governments, it does not relieve them from the violation of God's law. Those who are legally murdered are still murdered.

  #26 | 16:57 to 17:39 | cleaned

• Now please understand, I'm not talking about the government not having the right to execute the murderer or the kidnapper or the rapist. Certainly, God has given the power of the sword to the civil government. And there is a time when they may righteously execute the wicked. But I'm talking about when government unrighteously executes the righteous. God still holds them accountable for murder. This brings me to a very important question. I want you to listen to this question.

  #27 | 17:41 to 18:15 | cleaned

• What about all those people who were killed in a war of aggression or an unjust war? Who's responsible for those deaths? You must understand that God is concerned about innocent blood. In fact, God is so concerned about innocent blood being spilled, did you know that He required a special cleansing ceremony? If a man was found murdered in the land and no one knew who murdered that man, there was a special ceremony that had to be accomplished.

  #28 | 18:16 to 19:00 | cleaned

• Where do you find that? Well, look in your Bibles to the book of Deuteronomy 21 and let's read it very quickly. Deuteronomy 21. And let's begin reading there with verse 1. Deuteronomy 21 and verse 1. Look what God says: "If one be found slain in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him:" So here's a man found murdered. Verse 2: "Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley: And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near."

  #29 | 19:01 to 19:58 | cleaned

• "For them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried: And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley: And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them. So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord."

  #30 | 19:58 to 20:36 | cleaned

• Now, I want you to watch this very carefully. Here's a man that's murdered. But the murderer is not found. And so they measure to the nearest city, and the priests then come out. They take this heifer that's never been wrought with, take this heifer to a valley that's neither been eared nor sown, and then they cut off the heifer's neck. They chop her head off. Then they wash their hands over that heifer, saying, "We have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it." In other words, "God, if we knew who did it, it wouldn't be the heifer laying there headless. It'd be the murderer."

  #31 | 20:37 to 21:17 | cleaned

• But, "Lord, we didn't do it and we don't know who did it. And so, Lord, lay not this sin to our charge. Because, Lord, if we knew who did it, we'd take care of it." And God says when you do that, then I'll not lay innocent blood to your charge.

  #32 | 21:19 to 21:37 | cleaned

• Now let me ask you a question. If God is so fastidious over the death of one man who has been murdered, and the murderer is not known, do you think God is less fastidious over thousands who are murdered and slain needlessly, unlawfully, unrighteously, and unjustly? John Locke, in his Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 19, Paragraph 22, says this: "Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves in a state of war with the people."

  #33 | 21:37 to 22:32 | cleaned

• "Who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience." Now, of course, John Locke wrote during the time of our founding fathers. His treatise on government has been reprinted many, many times. And here's what he says: When our legislators or when our rulers endeavor to confiscate our property or reduce us to slavery or to arbitrary power, then our government then is putting itself at war with the people, and the people are therefore absolved from any further obedience. In other words, you don't owe obedience to a tyrant. Now, understandably, we are absolved from obedience to those who are endeavoring to enslave and tyrannize us. But the question is, what about the culpability or the guilt of those who initiate such a war? What about the unjust war?

  #34 | 22:33 to 23:38 | cleaned

• Now, St. Augustine made a distinction between just wars and unjust wars. And very quickly, his concept of a just war can be summarized under five simple points. Augustine, of course, lived in the 4th century or 5th century, lived in the 400s. And here's what he said. Number one, for a war to be just, war must have a just cause, that is, including the failure of another state to act justly toward its inhabitants, thus allowing a war of aggression. Now, when I say a war of aggression, I've had people tell me, "Well, any war of aggression is wrong." Well, that's not necessarily so, because there are times in the Bible when God started the war. And God told the people to go over there and wipe them out. That would be a war of aggression. But when you understand the war must have a just cause, that would include then you attacking someone who is acting unjustly, even though you are initiating the attack yourself. So the very first point is war must have a just cause.

  #35 | 23:40 to 24:52 | cleaned

• Secondly, war must be motivated—listen carefully—war must be motivated by the cause of justice rather than a desire to harm or to wreak vengeance, to gain power, obtain oil, or establish an empire. Thirdly, war must be waged by legitimate authority. Fourthly, war must be a last resort. It's not something you jump into at the last resort. And fifthly, war must be conducted justly.

  #36 | 24:52 to 25:31 | cleaned

• Now, the question has got to be asked, if a war is neither demanded by justice nor self-defense, but is based upon a desire to expand an empire or simply to acquire materials that another country has, who's responsible and accountable for all the deaths involved in that war? Well, the answer is simple. Those in positions of power in government who began the war and those in positions of power and commerce who sustain and continue the war. Blood that is spilled unrighteously cries for God's justice. Now listen carefully. The principle is the same for an individual and for a government. Cain spilled Abel's blood unjustly and unrighteously, and Abel's blood cried out to God for vengeance. Ahab and Jezebel spilled the blood of Naboth and his sons unrighteously and unjustly and unlawfully. And that blood cried out for justice.

  #37 | 25:32 to 26:57 | cleaned

• Now, let me show you something. I want you to turn back in your Bibles to 1 Kings 21. Because when Ahab and Jezebel murdered Naboth, they did not just simply murder Naboth. They murdered his sons as well. Because had they not murdered his sons, then the inheritance would have just simply passed on to his sons. So for Ahab to confiscate the property, he not only had to murder Naboth, but his sons as well. So in 1 Kings chapter 21, look at verse 18, and to show you that God is holding Ahab and Jezebel accountable, remember that's the king and queen. Remember that is civil government. They are the civil rulers. God is holding government accountable. Notice 1 Kings 21 verse 18. God says, "Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, which is in Samaria: behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, whither he is gone down to possess it."

  #38 | 26:58 to 27:59 | cleaned

• "And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Hast thou killed, and also taken possession? And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the Lord, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine." What's God saying? God said, "Ahab, you murdered. I'm going to judge you. I'm going to take care of you." Look at verses 23 through 25. What about Jezebel? "And of Jezebel also spake the Lord, saying, The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel. Him that dieth of Ahab in the city the dogs shall eat; and him that dieth in the field shall the fowls of the air eat. But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up." Now, look in your Bibles to 2 Kings 9, verse 26. When God's righteous vengeance does come to pass on Ahab and his house. Look in 2 Kings 9, verse 26. In fact, let's read verse 25.

  #39 | 28:00 to 29:11 | cleaned

• Then said Jehu to Bidkar his captain, "Take up, and cast him in the portion of the field of Naboth the Jezreelite: for remember how that, when I and thou rode together after Ahab his father, the Lord laid this burden upon him; Surely I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth, and the blood of his sons, saith the Lord; and I will requite thee in this plat, saith the Lord. Now therefore take and cast him into the plat of ground, according to the word of the Lord." So God required the blood of Ahab and the blood of Jezebel and the blood of their descendants for that which they did to Naboth and his descendants. Now, are you listening?

  #40 | 29:11 to 29:53 | cleaned

• God's law applies to all. Individuals and governments as well. When an individual steals, it is theft. When a government steals, it is still theft. When an individual murders, it is murder. When a government murders, it is still murder. Just because one is in a position of authority does not give him the right to violate the law of God.

  #41 | 29:55 to 30:40 | cleaned

• Now, occasionally, there will arise a man who will cry out against such injustice and expose the injustice and wickedness of the ruling elite. One such man was Major General Smedley Butler. I'm certainly not going to give you his entire speech, but here's an excerpt from a speech he delivered in 1933. The United States Marine Corps, listen to what General Butler said: "War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people."

  #42 | 30:42 to 31:29 | cleaned

• "Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6% over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100%. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldier follows the flag."

  #43 | 31:30 to 32:08 | cleaned

• "I wouldn't go to war again as I've done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes, and the other is our Bill of Rights. War, for any other reason, is simply a racket."

  #44 | 32:09 to 32:26 | cleaned

• Now, in light of these truths that I've just enunciated from Scripture, how in the world do we understand the war of northern aggression that happened from 1861 to 1865? Was it indeed a war of aggression? Who was responsible for the blood that was needlessly spilled? Or allow me to ask it another way. Why did the blood of Abel cry from the ground? Why did the blood of Naboth and his sons cry from the ground? Why did the blood of those unrighteously slain in Revelation 6 cry from the ground? Why does the blood of our ancestors cry from the ground? And the answer is, the blood cries for vindication. It cries for justice. I want you to listen very carefully because I'm going to be talking for the next little bit primarily about the War of Northern Aggression from 1861 to 1865. And I'm going to assume certain things that I cannot develop this morning because of time. But Lord willing, in our Southern History Conference in July, I'm going to cover these things in detail.

  #45 | 32:31 to 34:01 | cleaned

• But let me point out that it should be understood from the outset that the war was never over slavery. Slavery was not the issue. Lincoln was not interested in the slaves and he said so on many different occasions. I can give you quote after quote. He was not interested in the slaves. Likewise, to demonstrate the fact that slavery was not the issue, if it had been, answer this question. Why did he wait until January the 1st, 1863 to issue the Emancipation Proclamation? If slavery was the issue, why not issue that proclamation in 1861 of April when the war began? The Emancipation Proclamation did not free one slave. It did not free one slave in the North, and there were slaves in the North. It did not free any of the slaves in the South, where the Union had already conquered and was holding the territory. The only slaves the Emancipation Proclamation referred to were those slaves that were still in Southern-held territory, and all the Emancipation Proclamation was was a military measure trying to incite an insurrection in the South.

  #46 | 34:02 to 35:31 | cleaned

• So where Lincoln had authority to free the slaves, he did not do so. Where he had no authority to free the slaves, then he tried to do so. It was nothing less than a military measure, first and foremost.

  #47 | 35:31 to 35:44 | cleaned

• Now, I hope you know this, but some of you do not. For those who tried to say the war was over slavery, did you realize on March the 2nd, 1861, the United States Senate passed a proposed 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution? The House of Representatives had already passed this on February the 28th of 1861, and you can find this proposed 13th Amendment in the 106th Congress Second Session, the Constitution of the United States of America and Unratified Amendments. Here is the proposed Article 13. I'm pointing out this is on March 2, 1861. Listen to the proposed 13th Amendment: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

  #48 | 35:45 to 36:58 | cleaned

• Now let me spell that out for you. The proposed 13th Amendment said, "Hey, Congress will never, ever interfere with slavery. That's a state's rights issue. It's up to the state. Congress will never, ever abolish or interfere with slavery."

  #49 | 36:59 to 37:22 | cleaned

• Now let me ask you a question. If the war was over slavery, why in the world would you fight over an issue that was being handed to you on a silver platter? Moreover, let me go further. Two days later, on March the 4th, 1861, at his inaugural address, Lincoln promised to support the amendment even though he believed the Constitution already prohibited the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery. Here's what he said. I'm quoting Abraham Lincoln: "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held to service."

  #50 | 37:24 to 38:14 | cleaned

• "To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that holding such a provision to now be implied by constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." What did he just say? He said, "I believe the Constitution already prohibits Congress from messing with the state's rights." But he said, "If you want to pass a 13th Amendment that says we can't, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

  #51 | 38:15 to 38:49 | cleaned

• That is, we can never, ever touch it. Now, please understand, the date of the proposed 13th Amendment ratified by the Senate was March 2, 1861. Lincoln verified it March 4, 1861. Fort Sumter was not fired on until April 12, 1861.

  #52 | 38:50 to 39:09 | cleaned

• Now, once again, for someone who tries to say the war was over slavery, why would you fight? When if that was the issue and the government saying, "Here it is, we'll give it to you. You can have it." Slavery was never the issue. It did become a smokescreen, but it was never the issue. Do you understand that the South has always been accused of starting the war?

  #53 | 39:22 to 39:54 | cleaned

• We fired the first shot, therefore we were the ones who were condemned for trying to destroy the Union, not only by secession, but also by war. In Lincoln's fourth annual message to Congress, dated December 6, 1864, listen to what Lincoln said: "In stating a single condition of peace, I mean simply to say that the war will cease on the part of the government whenever it shall cease on the part of those who began it." What was Lincoln saying? Lincoln was saying the South began the war. He was conveying the idea that it was the South who was at fault. Now the question has to be asked, what if those who began the war were the very ones who were trying to cast an accusation upon others for the very act that they did?

  #54 | 39:56 to 40:58 | cleaned

• You know, that's a standard operating procedure of a lot of people. I may be something, but I'll call you that something first. And so therefore, it puts the onus upon you. So Lincoln is trying to say, "Well, it was the South who started the war, they fired the first shot." Well, Hallam in his constitutional history states, and listen carefully, you can understand this very easily. He states, "The aggressor in war is not the first that uses force, but the first who renders force necessary." Did you hear that? The aggressor in war is not the first who uses force. But the first who renders force necessary.

  #55 | 41:01 to 41:48 | cleaned

• So here I am walking down the street, minding my own business. And a man steps out of an alley with a knife pulled and in a very hateful voice says, "Give me your money or I'm going to cut your throat." I say, "Sure, sure." And I reach into my coat pocket and I pull out a pistol and I shoot him. Who started it? I fired the first shot.

  #56 | 41:49 to 42:20 | cleaned

• But I didn't start it. The man who makes the force necessary is the aggressor. That's what Hallam is saying. While it is undoubtedly true that the South fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, it is equally true that Lincoln and his administration made the firing of that first shot necessary. For the sake of maintaining the Union, the South made concession after concession, surrendered right after right, submitted to unjust taxation, and consented to compromises, one after the other, that tended to weaken the South and strengthen the North, and for more than 40 years held to the constitutional agreement, even when the North continued

  #57 | 42:23 to 43:09 | cleaned

• to violate it in letter and in spirit. Now, it's not my intent to develop exactly how the war was begun. I am going to do that in our Southern History Conference because I have three messages on who began the war. And once you see the deceit, the duplicity of Lincoln and his administration, there is no question. Once you see his direct orders, there is no question who began the war. It was Lincoln and his administration. It was not the North that sent peace commissioners to the South before the war broke out. It was the South that sent peace commissioners to the North saying, "Look, let's settle our differences without war. Let's settle our differences peacefully." It was not the South who spurned, rejected, ridiculed, mocked, and deceived the peace commissioners. It was the North who did that. It was the South who, yes, took the forts in her possession, but it was the South who also then offered to pay into the Federal Treasury every penny that those forts were worth. The South was not trying to steal those buildings.

  #58 | 43:09 to 44:31 | cleaned

• It was not the South that was deceiving the North, it was the North that was deceiving the South, because while Lincoln and his cabinet were promising peace to all these peace commissioners, they were at the same time preparing for war. It was not the South who violated her agreement with the North. It was the North who violated her agreement with the South. It was the North who violated the armistice that existed between the South and the North.

  #59 | 44:33 to 45:14 | cleaned

• Now here's a little known fact. Did you know that an armistice existed between the United States government and the state of South Carolina and the state of Florida? South Carolina had entered into an armistice with the United States government on December the 6th, 1860.

  #60 | 45:15 to 45:39 | cleaned

• Florida had entered into an armistice with the United States government January 29, 1861. This was in regards to Fort Sumter in South Carolina and Fort Pickens in Florida. These armistices agreed that Fort Sumter and Pickens should neither be garrisoned nor provisioned as long as the armistices were in force. Papers to that effect had been filed in the United States Army and Navy departments, and Lincoln knew this.

  #61 | 45:48 to 46:27 | cleaned

• Thus the reason for all of his subterfuge, deceit, and the secret orders that were issued by him. Now let me tell you what an armistice is. An armistice simply means to stand still. It's a truce. It is a cessation of arms. It is a suspension of hostilities by agreement of the parties. And what an armistice means is this, that neither side moves. That neither side will do anything.

  #62 | 46:31 to 47:02 | cleaned

• The status quo will be maintained. So if I enter into an armistice with Allison, and he has 600 rounds of ammunition and I have 700 rounds of ammunition, and we enter into an armistice, it means this. He doesn't go out and try to get more ammo, and I don't go out and try to get more ammo. We just maintain the status quo. We've got it right here. He's got a week's provision, I've got a week's provision. We just maintain the status quo.

  #63 | 47:03 to 47:28 | cleaned

• So here was a legal document that had been signed between the United States government and the state of South Carolina, and the United States government and the state of Florida. And it was Lincoln and his administration and the United States government that agreed with South Carolina and Florida that they would never, ever, while this armistice was in effect, attempt to provision or garrison either one of these forts. And what did Lincoln do? Lincoln sent expeditions to garrison and reprovision both of those forts, thus violating the armistice. In direct violation of a legally binding recorded document. The Secretary of the United States Navy, Gideon Welles, wrote, "It is very important that the rebels strike the first blow in the conflict." Why?

  #64 | 47:29 to 48:34 | cleaned

• Well, to make it look like we started the war. When Lincoln sent the Fox expedition under the command of Captain G.V. Fox, it was predetermined by Lincoln and Fox to start the war. Listen to what Captain Fox's proposal to Lincoln was. Here's what he said: "I simply propose three tugs, convoyed by light draft men of war, the first tug to lead in empty to open their fire." What did he say? "I'm going to send an empty vessel in there just to get him to shoot." The Fox expedition failed to provision Fort Sumter. Did that distress Lincoln?

  #65 | 48:35 to 49:21 | cleaned

• And the answer is no. Listen, on May the 1st, 1861, Lincoln wrote to Captain Fox and here's what he says: "I sincerely regret that the failure of the attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of annoyance to you. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail. And so it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." What did Lincoln just say? He said, "Captain Fox, don't worry that you failed to reprovision Fort Sumter."

  #66 | 49:21 to 49:59 | cleaned

• "We got what we wanted. We wanted a war. And we got it. And our anticipation is justified by the result." Do you realize even northerners at that time recognized that it was Lincoln that started the war? The New York Herald said, "We have no doubt that Mr. Lincoln wants the cabinet at Montgomery to take the initiative by capturing the two forts in its waters. For it would give him the opportunity of throwing upon the Southern Confederacy the responsibility of commencing hostilities."

  #67 | 50:00 to 50:41 | cleaned

• "But the country and posterity will hold him just as responsible as if he struck the first blow." Now that was the New York Herald. They said, "We know what Lincoln wants. He wants the South to take those forts because he wants a war." But he said, "The country and posterity will hold him responsible as if he struck the first blow." Benjamin Williams of Lowell, Massachusetts, certainly no friend of the South, said this: "The South was invaded and a war of subjugation was begun by the federal government against the seceding states in amazing disregard of the foundation principle of its existence. And the South accepts the contest forced upon her with the courage characteristic of this proud-spirited people." So here was a Massachusetts man saying, "The South was invaded and a war of subjugation was begun."

  #68 | 50:42 to 51:40 | cleaned

• Horton in his history says this, listen carefully, this is vitally important: "The first gun of the war was the gun put into that war fleet that sailed against Charleston. The first gun fired at Fort Sumter was the first gun fired in self-defense. This is a simple fact, stripped of all nonsense, with which it has been surrounded by the abolitionists." How true. He said the first gun was that was loaded on that fleet that came to South Carolina in violent and wicked, ungodly, unlawful, disrespect for the armistice that had been signed. The war of 1861 through 1864 was a war against right. At its very foundation, it was a war against culture, against the Christian culture, and a war that was waged for theological reasons as well as political and economic reasons. It was indeed a war of aggression, and it was for the North, and it was a war of self-defense for the South. The war against the South, listen carefully, was against the people of the South, men, women, and children.

  #69 | 51:40 to 53:11 | cleaned

• Now, I want you to listen very carefully because I'm fixing to tie this together, and I want you to see exactly why their blood cries from the ground. General Patrick Cleburne, who was a Confederate general, in a letter dated January 1864, said this: "The conqueror's policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity against them. It is said that slavery is all we're fighting for."

  #70 | 53:13 to 53:48 | cleaned

• "And if we give it up, we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government and to deprive us of our rights and liberties." Cleburne was right. He said they're not fighting for slavery. We're not fighting to defend it. They're not fighting to abolish it. He says, what they're fighting for is sectional superiority.

  #71 | 53:49 to 54:24 | cleaned

• That is, the northern section will be over the southern section. And at the same time, they're going to deprive us of our rights and our liberties. General Patrick Cleburne understood that the war against the South was a war against liberty. And as long as the South stood in the way of Lincoln and his plans and the plans of the controlling elite, the South must be destroyed.

  #72 | 54:24 to 54:50 | cleaned

• Now let me give you the evidence of this. I'm going to give you the words of General William Tecumseh Sherman and also the words of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Listen to what Sherman said: "The young bloods of the South, sons of planters, lawyers, about town, good billiard players and sportsmen, men who never did any work and never will, must be put down. War suits them. They are splendid riders, first-rate shots, and utterly reckless. These men must all be killed or employed by us before we can hope for peace." Did you hear what Sherman said? By the way, General Sherman was the one who said, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian," and he should know because he killed thousands of them. And so he's saying that the Southern men must be killed or employed by us. In other words, we've got to get them to compromise. Then Major General William T. Sherman again on January 31st, 1864 said this: "The government of the United States has any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war, to take their lives, their homes, their land, their everything."

  #73 | 54:51 to 56:23 | cleaned

• "War is simply unrestrained by the Constitution. To the persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of is the better."

  #74 | 56:23 to 56:33 | cleaned

• Now, don't you listen to that man. He said the United States government has the right to take our lives, our homes, our property, whatever they want. And the quicker we are put to death, the better.

  #75 | 56:36 to 56:51 | cleaned

• Now, if that doesn't upset you, listen to this next letter. Because the war was not just against men and women. It was also against children. In a letter written June the 21st, 1864, to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, Sherman said this: "There is a class of people, men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order." Stanton replied, "Your letter of the 21st of June has just reached me and meets my approval." What did the Secretary of War just give Sherman permission to do? To kill men, women, and children. Not just soldiers, but civilians. Kill them all.

  #76 | 56:53 to 57:55 | cleaned

• Let me tell you something, folks. The War of Northern Aggression must be laid at the feet of Abraham Lincoln and his administration and at the feet of those who endorsed and supported and wanted that war.

  #77 | 57:56 to 58:17 | cleaned

• Now, why did Abel's blood cry from the ground? Because he was righteous and innocent. He had done nothing worthy of death. Therefore, Cain was held accountable and responsible for his murder. Why did the blood of Naboth and the blood of his sons cry from the ground? Because they were unjustly and unrighteously condemned by wicked civil rulers. Therefore, the governments of Ahab and Jezebel were held accountable and responsible for their murders. Why did the blood of the martyrs in Revelation 6 cry for vengeance? Because they had been unrighteously and unjustly condemned by a wicked and ungodly government. Therefore, that government was held responsible and accountable for their deaths.

  #78 | 58:18 to 59:16 | cleaned

• May I remind you what God did to Assyria, to Babylon, to Edom, and to all those other countries that attacked and murdered His people. He held them accountable. He held them responsible. He judged them. Why does the blood of our forefathers, those men who died fighting in 1861 to 1865, why does their blood cry from the ground? The answer is simple. They were righteous. They were defending the truth. They were defending righteousness. They were defending principle. They were defending their home, their lives, their families, their country.

  #79 | 59:16 to 59:58 | cleaned

• The South did not invade the North. The North invaded the South. When Southern boys were asked by the Yankees, "Why are you fighting?" the most frequent answer to that question is this: "Because you're here. If you weren't here, we wouldn't be fighting. You invaded us, we didn't invade you." Do you know what the motto of the Confederate government was? Deo Vindice. Latin, "God Vindicates." God justifies.

  #80 | 1:00:01 to 1:00:49 | cleaned

• What were our forefathers saying? God Himself will vindicate our cause. We're righteous in it. We're holy and godly in it, and we're fighting a war of self-defense.

  #81 | 1:00:51 to 1:01:05 | cleaned

• Now let me make just several quick applications. Listen, number one, and I want you to understand this. If this thought lands in your mind, if it lands in your heart, it lets you see the seriousness of the situation that we're in in this country. Here's the first application: God holds governments and civil rulers just as accountable to His law as He does individuals. Murder and theft are still murder and theft no matter who commits them.

  #82 | 1:01:06 to 1:01:48 | cleaned

• Therefore, all unnecessary and unjust wars are under God's wrath and God's condemnation. And God will hold the civil rulers responsible and accountable for murder. But please remember, when God judged Manasseh, He judged the people as well, for the people never stopped him. God holds governments just as accountable as He does individuals.

  #83 | 1:01:51 to 1:02:33 | cleaned

• Secondly, our ancestors' blood cries to God not only for vengeance and justice, but that blood also cries to us for vindication. Let me ask you a question. Were they wrong? And the answer is, of course not. Well, if they were not wrong, then we're the ones who must vindicate them. We must study their cause. We must emulate their principle. We must apply their faith to our lives. It is we who now stand in their stead, and we must stand for self-government, limited civil government, states' rights, self-defense, and fight once again for our Constitutional Republic which our forefathers gave us, just as they did. How do we vindicate them?

  #84 | 1:02:34 to 1:03:30 | cleaned

• By standing where they stood. One last, and I want you to look at it. Turn in your Bibles to Hebrews 12, and look at verse 24. Hebrews 12 verse 24. I can quote this verse, but I do want you to see it. Look at Hebrews 12 verse 24. The Bible says, "And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." The blood of Jesus Christ speaks of better things than that of Abel. Now, are you listening? It is true that Christ's blood speaks of justice.

  #85 | 1:03:31 to 1:04:25 | cleaned

• Because God was absolutely just when He poured upon Christ His wrath, who there is our substitute, who stood in our place. But although Christ's blood was shed through justice, it was also shed in the mercy and the grace of God. Hence, the blood of Christ speaks better things than that of Abel. It does not just simply cry for justice. It now cries for forgiveness and reconciliation based upon the person and work of Jesus Christ. Do you understand that it is only in Christ and through Christ there can ever be any forgiveness and any reconciliation? The blood of Jesus Christ speaks better things than that of Abel. Their blood cries from the ground, and it does, and it shall, and it will, until God sovereignly vindicates it.

  #86 | 1:04:28 to 1:05:48 | cleaned

• And He shall, in His time, and will do it for our good and His glory. Let's pray. Father, we ask that You speak to our hearts, speak to our lives. Help us see this vital principle, Lord, that governments are just as answerable and accountable to Thee as individuals are. Help us, Lord, to grasp that simple fact, and help us to stand for Thee in truth and in righteousness. In Thy name we pray, Amen.

  #87 | 1:05:49 to 1:06:27 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-06T00:16:20Z