Civil Government: Power, Nations, and Constitutional Order: Where We Are & How We Got Here

The Desire For Power #1

Transcript: AI Transcript

Professor: John Weaver

Subject: Civil Government

Genre: Sermon

Dictation Name:

Date: 2002-07-21

Synopsis: John Weaver argues that all power belongs to God and is only delegated to men, who often abuse it. Using Psalm 62:11 as a foundation, he contends that the root sin of power-hunger leads to conflict. The bulk of the sermon is a historical argument that the American Civil War was not primarily about slavery but about power and control between the North and South, evidenced by constitutional amendments proposed to protect slavery permanently.

[John Weaver] Alright, Psalm 62. Psalm 62. And let's read the entire Psalm. Only 12 short verses. Psalm 62, verse 1. David says, Truly my soul waited upon God. From Him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation. He is my defense. I shall not be greatly moved. How long will you imagine mischief against a man? You shall be slain, all of you, as a bowing wall shall you be, and as a tottering fence. They only consult to cast Him down from His excellency.

[John Weaver] They delight in lies and bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly. My soul wait thou only upon God, for my expectation is from Him. He only is my rock and my salvation. He is my defense. I shall not be moved. In God is my salvation and my glory. The rock of my strength and my refuge is in God. Trust in Him at all times, ye people.

[John Weaver] Pour out your heart before Him. God is refuge for us. Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie. To be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity. Trust not in oppression, and become not vain in robbery. If riches increase, set not your heart upon them. God has spoken once. Twice have I heard this, that power belongeth unto God. Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy.

[John Weaver] For thou renders to every man according to his worth. Now look at verse 11. God hath spoken once, twice have I heard this, that power belongeth unto God. I've entitled the message today, The Desire for Power. But look back at verse 11 again. Power belongeth unto God. God alone is all powerful. He is the sovereign. He is the ultimate. He is the absolute. Properly speaking, all power belongs to God and to God alone. Now, power, authority, or jurisdiction that is given to men, properly speaking, is referred to as delegated authority.

[John Weaver] All that means is simply this. We would not have any authority, any power, any jurisdiction at all had God not given it to us. Delegated authority is a term, therefore, that acknowledges that all authority is from God. And secondly, it also acknowledges that those who have received delegated authority are accountable and responsible to the God who gave it.

[John Weaver] Now, the Bible tells us in Psalm 75, verses 6 and 7, Promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is judge. He putteth up one, and He taketh down another. So God, then, is the God of all power. Do you remember Romans 13 and verse 1? You don't have to turn there. But the Bible says, the powers that be are ordained of God. So no one can have any power except God has given them that power. Now, if you will turn in your Bibles, I could quote this, but I want you to see this one, Daniel chapter 2. And notice if you would please verse 21. Daniel 2 verse 21, and then we'll skip down to verse 37. Once again, referring to God's sovereignty, he says in Daniel 2 and verse 21, And He, that is God, changeth the times and the seasons. He, that is God, removeth kings and setteth up kings.

[John Weaver] He, that is God, giveth wisdom unto the wise and knowledge to them that know understanding. So it is God who removes kings and sets up kings.

[John Weaver] Now, if you'll skip down to verse 37, here's what Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar. And may I remind you that Nebuchadnezzar was one of the most powerful monarchs in the world at that particular time. So Daniel says, Thou, O king, art a king of kings. Why? For the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, strength, and glory. So what Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar simply is this. The only reason you have a kingdom The only reason you have any power, any authority, is God gave it to you. God delegated that authority to you.

[John Weaver] Now, if you'll go back in your Bibles to Psalm 62, let me just show you a simple problem, and yet one that is very prominent. A simple problem with what you and I would call delegated authority. Go back in your Bibles to Psalm 62, and look if you would please at verse 3. Psalm 62 and verse 3 reveals one of the main problems with delegated authority. And that problem is its abuse, its corruption, and its perversion. In verse 3 it says of Psalm 62, How long will you imagine mischief against a man?

[John Weaver] You shall be slain, all of you, as a bowing wall shall you be, and as a tottering fence, They only consult to cast him down from His excellency. They delight in lies, they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly." So here then is delegated power, corrupted, abused, and perverted. Most of us have heard Lord Acton's dictum, and it simply goes like this, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is only true when it is applied to sinners. It is certainly not true when it is applied to God. For God is the most holy God. He is the omnipotent God. That is, He has all power. And God is not corrupted. God is absolutely holy in everything that He says and in everything that He does.

[John Weaver] Now, fallen man, however, is unlike God. Fallen man, is power hungry, power driven, and power man. Have you ever noticed the more power fallen men get, the more power they want? David said it like this in Psalm 37 and verse 35. He said, I have seen the wicked in power spreading himself like a green bay tree. And if you've ever seen a green bay tree, its branches, its roots just simply go everywhere and take over practically everything. And David said that's what the ungodly are like. They're power hungry and power mad.

[John Weaver] Now, fallen men seek to demonstrate and to exercise power by controlling and manipulating fellow men to do their bidding, fulfill their wishes, and by creating their own kingdom or their own utopia. It is not enough for fallen man to seek to control and manipulate his fellow men. Fallen man not only wants to be like God, he wishes to be God. Look in verse 4. He says, they only consult and cast him down from his excellency. That is, they only agree and try to get together to cast God down from His excellency, and he says these wicked rulers delight in lies, they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly. So civil rulers then, unrestrained by God's grace. Fallen men unrestrained by God's grace will always seek to replace the One True and Living God.

[John Weaver] Turn back in your Bibles to Psalm 2. Look at Psalm 2, and let's begin reading there with verse 1. Psalm 2, verse 1. David asks a very simple question. He asks, why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? Remember, a vain thing is something that is useless, worthless. So why do the people imagine a vain thing? Now watch. The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder and cast their cords away from us.

[John Weaver] So what do fallen men want to do? They want to break God's limitation and boundaries that is placed upon them. They want literally to usurp the position of God Himself.

[John Weaver] Now, we need to realize that the desire for power is a root sin and a root cause of many conflicts. Power-hungry men and power-mad men cannot be satisfied with limited, defined, and delegated authority. The more authority that is conferred upon them, the more power they want for themselves, even if they have to steal and arrogate and usurp that power to themselves. And once they've usurped that power to themselves, then they have to demonstrate their godhood by exercising that power over all things and over all people.

[John Weaver] Now, do you remember the temptation in Genesis chapter 3 and verse 5? Do you remember what the serpent said? He asked a simple question. Does thou not know? Does thou not know that the day that you eat this fruit, you shall be as God's, knowing good and evil. And the Hebrew word for knowing has the force of determining. You shall be as God's, determining for yourselves good and evil.

[John Weaver] In other words, you don't need God to tell you what to do. You don't need God to tell you what's right and what's wrong. You eat this fruit and you shall be God's for yourself. That same temptation that occurred in Genesis 3 and verse 5 is equally true today, historically, politically, and even temporally, that is, in our present time, because fallen man always seeks to play God.

[John Weaver] Now, one of the greatest myths of politically correct history is that the South fought the war of 1861 to 1865 to preserve slavery. And that the North fought the war of 1861 through 1865 to free the slaves. That's one of the greatest politically correct myths that is in existence today. Initially, of course, Lincoln himself said the reason he started the war was to preserve the Union. However, after many devastating losses on the battlefield, It became politically expedient for Abraham Lincoln to issue what is known as the Emancipation Proclamation. Now I'm certainly not going to re-preach the message that I preached to you about a month ago in the Emancipation Proclamation, but let me refresh your mind with one simple truth. The Emancipation Proclamation did not release a single slave. However, propaganda and political correctness now dictate that the war was fought over the issue of slavery.

[John Weaver] Now let me ask a rhetorical question. After all the smoke is blown away, and after all these years that we've had to study and to think about it, do you not think that the desire for power or control had something to do with the War of Northern Aggression. Now, I want you to understand something, that power involves all kinds of issues. I mean, you can't talk about power without talking about economics. You can't talk about power without talking about education, occupations.

[John Weaver] Let me give you an example. Money. Do you realize that Scripture tells us in 1 Timothy 6 and verse 10 that the love of money is the root of all evil? Now watch, it is not money that is the root of all evil. It is the love of money that is the root of all evil. Well, why do men love money? Because of what they can get with money. And if you have money, then you have power. You have power to do as you please. You have power to interfere. You have power to manipulate. You have power to control.

[John Weaver] Think, for instance, of taxes, tariffs, imports, exports. Why has our court rightly ruled that the power to tax is what? The power to destroy. Why? Because the power to tax is nothing less than control, and control is power manifested. It's just that simple. In 1787, 12 of the 13 states sent 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Originally, those delegates went there to overhaul the Articles of Confederation. Instead, after six weeks of absolute secrecy, the end result was what you and I have today as the Constitution of the United States, by the way. I just told you 12 out of the 13 states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Do you know which state did not send delegates to the Constitutional Convention and why that state did not send delegates to the Constitutional Convention? The state that did not send delegates was the state of New Jersey. And the reason it did not send delegates was because it did not wish, it did not want, it did not desire for slavery to be interfered with.

[John Weaver] And you've got to remember that many northerners became extremely wealthy by virtue of the slave trade. Now before I get started today, let me remind you of one other thing. I've told you this before, but I'm saying it again. May I remind you? that there was never a slave brought into this country under the confederate flag. Any confederate flag. All slaves were brought into this country under the stars and stripes, the very flag that all blacks now pledge allegiance to. That's the flag that brought them in to this country as slaves. And they were brought in this country by people of the North. New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, the New England states, and I might add, it was the North that held a monopoly on the slave trade because they also held a monopoly, basically speaking, on the shipping industry. The shipping industry was mainly in those New England states. So not one slave was ever brought into this country under a confederate flag. And I'm going to show you, I'm going to prove to you absolutely today, I hope most certainly, that slavery was not the issue and it could not have been an issue.

[John Weaver] The issue was rather power and control. Now, I want you to understand that when the Constitutional Convention met, it dealt mostly with power. How could power be equally shared? You see, the larger states wanted representation based upon population. The smaller states wanted equal representation. Come on, let's take a state like New York and you compare that with a state like Georgia. There's far more people in New York than there were in Georgia. So how in the world are you going to share this power? What is going to stop the larger states from usurping and ruling over then the smaller states?

[John Weaver] So the delegates then settled what is known as the Bicameral Congress, in which two houses then would act in a push-pull manner. The House of Representatives, our forefathers said, would be based upon population. So that means the northern states are going to have more representatives in the House than the southern states. But then it also said the Senate was going to be comprised of two members from each state. So that means then that the smaller states are going to have equal representation in the Senate, although they will not necessarily have the same representation in the House. Now, basically speaking, The Senate was there to put the brakes, so to speak, on a runaway house.

[John Weaver] And may I point this out, that initially, and constitutionally, where did the Senators come from? The states. The states appointed the Senators. The Senators were not elected by popular vote. The reason the Senators were appointed by the states was to preserve states' rights. In other words, those senators represented states and guess what? If those senators did not represent the states, then the states could recall those senators and appoint others who would truly represent states' rights. And so here you had a balance of power then between the larger states and the small states in the government.

[John Weaver] Now, did the Constitution deal with slavery? And the answer is yes. But I want you to understand that it did so in such a way to preserve the balance of power between the North and the South. When the Constitution of the United States was ratified, every state had slaves in it. All the Northern states as well as the Southern states. It is true. There were more slaves in the South than there were in the North. But you ask, well, why in the world is that? And the answer is very simple.

[John Weaver] Because of the climatic and the geographical considerations. Agriculture, largely speaking, was in the South. We've got a growing season down here that is unparalleled to the North. We have a growing season down here that's unparalleled to many of the western states, maybe except for California. But Alice and I have been out in Montana in July, and guess what? They still have their plants indoors in July because it's still too cool to plant them out in the garden. And they have such a short growing season, they have to have everything inside and stick it out just for a week or two so it can mature and they can collect the fruit. Now, it is true there were more in the South, but basically because of climate, geography, and agriculture.

[John Weaver] Now, let me show you how the Constitution dealt openly with slavery. For instance, Article 1, Section 2 refers to the slaves as all other persons. Article 1, Section 9 calls them such persons as any states now existing shall think proper to admit. Article 4, Section 2 includes them in the category of persons held in service or labor.

[John Weaver] Now, in order to keep the North from dominating the South, since the North was more largely populated than the South, the delegates agreed on what is known as the Three-Fifths Clause. The Three-Fifths Clause just said, we're going to count all of your slaves as people populating the states. three-fifths of them, two-fifths we will not count. Now the blacks could not vote, the slaves could not vote, but yet they were counted for population reasons so that the South then could have a larger number of congressmen to balance off the power that would be in the House of Representatives. So the Congress also, our Constitution also then made provision to balance off the number of slave states and the free states to be admitted to the Union in the future. Now, although the Constitutional Convention went through all of this trouble to make sure there's a balance of power between the North and the South, and please remember the West did not exist at that particular time as far as we're concerned, They went through all of this to make sure that there was a

[John Weaver] balance of power between the North and the South. But although there was a balance of power initially, it did not last long. Because the Northern states had a tremendous increase in population because of immigration. And already, the North outvoted the South. And the House of Representatives by 105 to 81 as early as 1819 Only in the Senate was there a balance. You had 11 free states and 11 slave states.

[John Weaver] Now, when Missouri petitioned Congress to enter the Union as a slave state in 1819, there was a firestorm kindled. Let me tell you what the elderly Thomas Jefferson said. He said, quote, this momentous question like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror, I considered it at once the nail, that is, the death nail of the union." What was he saying? Because now this precarious balance of power is going to be broken. And old Thomas Jefferson said, there's going to be some fighting before long. Northern states were concerned then about southern power and influence. They did not want the South to have any power or any influence.

[John Weaver] They wanted to run and control things. Senator Rufus King from New York succinctly stated it this way. Listen to what he said. I don't see how it could be clearer. He said, and I quote, the disproportionate power and influence allowed to the slave-holding states was a necessary sacrifice to the establishment of the Constitution. But the extension of disproportionate power to the new states would be unjust and odious. The states whose power would be abridged and whose burdens would be increased by the measure cannot be expected to consent to it." What did he say? It was a necessary sacrifice at first, he said, just to get everybody together. But now that everybody's together, we don't want it anymore. We want to be the ones that are in control. So Senator King, then, of New York is admitting that this compromise was necessary at the first, but since it is no longer necessary, the North is unwilling for any Southern states to expand.

[John Weaver] Now, let me ask you a question. If the North already outvoted the South in the House, and they did, 105 to 81, how could the admission of the state of Missouri be a threat to that power? I mean, Missouri's not going to have that many people to give them representatives that would exceed the North. Well, of course not. Well, Josiah Quincy said it like this. He said the Slave Representation Clause is the cause of all the difficulties we labor under.

[John Weaver] The southern states have an influence in our national councils altogether disproportionate to their wealth, strength, and resources. Now what was he saying? By the way, please remember, it is true the South had less people in it. When the war broke out, there were 9 million people in the South and about 2 million of them were slaves. compared to about 23 million in the north. Now, please keep in mind what he's saying is the southern states already have more power than we want to acknowledge and to allow them to have. And please remember that although the southern states were smaller, they produced about 80 to 90% of the monies that the federal government used And most of those monies were going to the North and none of it coming back into the South. And so now he's saying, look, we don't like this. Historian James Banner said it like this.

[John Weaver] What the Federalists wanted and what their assaults upon the Three-Fifths Clause were designed to gain, listen carefully, was not the abolition of slavery, but the abolition of Negro representation. Freed, it appeared, the Negro was more of a political threat than enslaved. So they did not want the slaves to be freed, they just did not want that three-fifths clause to count any longer. So if that three-fifths clause did not count, that means the South has less and less power and the North has more and more power. Well here, when Missouri then in 1819 wanted to be admitted as a state, trouble broke out. So finally what happened was this, the Missouri Compromise was reached in 1820, and Missouri then was admitted as a slave state, but Maine was also admitted as a free state, once again giving us a balance of power. Now the big deadlock really came between the North and the South over the extension of slavery into the new territories. I want you to stop and think with me just for a moment.

[John Weaver] The extension of slavery into the new territories. While none of the territories were yet states, yet the North did not want the South to even carry their slaves into those territories. The North not only wanted them to be absolutely slave free, they said to the South, you cannot even carry your slaves over there. Keeping the slaves out of the territories was a good way of keeping blacks out altogether. Now watch this carefully. Blocking the spread of slavery was an easy way to block and contain the South's political influence.

[John Weaver] Now, let's suppose for a moment that you're a Southerner and you just happen to have two slaves or three slaves. Or maybe you have a hundred. And all of a sudden, all this vast territory is opened up out west because of the Mexican War, 1846. All these territories are opened up. And you're thinking that you might like to migrate out there and just settle down. It's not necessarily a slave territory. Slaves may or may not be permitted once the territory becomes a state. But you want to go out there as a southerner and carry your slaves with you. Well, if you cannot carry your slaves with you, in all probability, you would not go. So watch carefully. Denying the access of those territories to the slaves would be an equal way of denying those territories to the southerners. So the southerners then Nor the blacks would be in the territories, and that means the North would control them all.

[John Weaver] Now the slavery question that had lain dormant for about 25 years after the Missouri Compromise, all of a sudden came back into existence. Not only because of the annexation of Texas, but because of the Mexican War. Now the annexation of Texas, President Polk worked that out. Because he said, all right, boys, we can understand Texas. It's in the south. It's in the southern region. And slaves are going to be there.

[John Weaver] And what we will do is we will admit Oregon in the northwest. And we'll have it balanced out once again. But in 1846, when the Mexican War was in full swing, and it looked as if, of course, we were going to went on those territories. And by the way, let me give you a quote. I just thought about it. I read this to my wife the other day. I was reading. I thought it was really enlightening.

[John Weaver] Now, I do not like Henry David Thoreau at all. Thoreau was a communist, a utopian, a socialist. But Thoreau said something that is so astounding, it is unbelievable. Talking about the war on Mexico, He said, the United States will win the war with Mexico. But it will be as a man who swallows the arsenic. In swallowing Mexico, they will kill us. Would you like to tell me who the fastest growing ethnic group in this country is?

[John Weaver] You understand what I'm saying? He was right on that. He said in winning Mexico, the Mexican war, it will be, as a man who swallows for arsenic, he'll kill his own self in doing so. But anyhow, the war was going on. So on August 8, 1846, Congressman David Wilmot from northern Pennsylvania proposed a rider to a war appropriations bill. Here's what the rider said. as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory except for crime where the party shall have first been duly convicted." So this provision became known as the Wilmot Proviso. So here then is a war appropriations bill and he sneaks this little provision in saying alright we're going to give this money to the war against Mexico but it's with this provision that slavery can never ever exist in any of the territories that are acquired from Mexico.

[John Weaver] Hence what you have now once again is a power struggle and a struggle for control. Now, northerners were incensed that the United States might have a victory against Mexico and that those territories would now be open to slave states. Slavery might go there. And the North was incensed that here slavery might be going into an area where the United States military had quote-unquote conquered those territories.

[John Weaver] On the other hand, the Southerners were incensed at being denied equal access to an area that their money and their lives were given in helping to conquer. And may I remind you of a simple fact? More Southerners fall. And the war against Mexico then did Northerners. And if you will study, you will find that in every war that has ever existed since the founding of this country, it has been Southerners who have done most of the fighting. In every war. World War I, World War II, it doesn't matter. It's been Southerners. So, the Southern was incensed at the fact that, look, it is our money. It is our men who are dying to conquer these territories and now you're telling us we can't even go there and we can't carry our slaves there? So Southern honor as well as justice was at stake. Now John C.

[John Weaver] Calhoun is known as that ironclad Southerner. He led the charge against such Northern reasoning arguing that Congress should not exclude slavery from those territories, and also arguing that Congress did not have the authority to do so. Listen to what he said. I'm going to give you a quote. He said, Sir, these territories are the property of the states united, held jointly for their common use. Under the Constitution, citizens of any state must be free to migrate there with their possessions, including slaves.

[John Weaver] Is it consistent with justice? Is it consistent with equality that any portion of the partners, outnumbering another portion, shall oust them from the common property of theirs? Would that be consistent? Can it be consistent with the idea of common property held jointly for the benefit of all? Would it be so considered in private life? Would it not be considered the most flagrant outrage in the world, one which any court of equity would restrain by injunction, which any court of law in the world would overrule?" He said, look, you can't keep the citizens of any state out of common property that is held in trust for every citizen. It's absolutely monstrous. And please remember that these territories that were acquired from Mexico as a whole were not suited for plantation life anyhow.

[John Weaver] How many plantations do you know of that now exist in the desert of Arizona or in New Mexico? There is very little farming in many of those western territories even today, even with modern day irrigation. As one southern congressman said in exasperation, that the whole controversy over the territory related to an imaginary Negro in an impossible place. Why are you fussing over something that hasn't even happened?

[John Weaver] Now, President Polk suggested the expansion of the Missouri Compromise line all the way to the Pacific. In other words, here's this line going all the way over to the Pacific, Anything north of that line would always be free states. Anything south of that line would always be slave states. Well, northern congressmen prevented this measure from resolving the issue.

[John Weaver] Now, I want you to understand, and I'm saying this emphatically, I'm saying it for emphasis, that the issue is really not slavery. The issue is not even really the extension of slavery into the territories. The issue is control. The issue is power. So here's a deadlock. The North said, we don't want anybody over there carrying slaves into those territories. The South said, you've got the list. It's our men who fought and died. It's our money that was spent conquering those territories.

[John Weaver] Well, Michigan Senator Lewis Cass endeavored to reach another compromise by which he called it popular sovereignty. So Senator Cass said, here's what we're going to do. We're going to let each territory decide for itself whether or not it will enter the Union as a free state or a slave state. Thus, each territory would be open to slavery initially.

[John Weaver] Now Cass never specified at what point, prior to statehood, the territorial government could vote on it and or prohibit slavery. His compromise not only failed, but it also failed the United Party.

[John Weaver] Now please keep in mind that the Free Soilers, the Free Soil Party, and I'll tell you a little bit more about their slogan in just a moment, but the Free Soilers, even the Free Soil Democrats, were really interested in one thing. in keeping all blacks out of the territories. By the way, I want you to understand that a territory was under the authority and the control of Congress.

[John Weaver] So here's what Congressman David Wilmot himself said. Are you listening? Quote, the Negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent. Let us keep what remains for ourselves and our children, for the immigrant that seeks our shores, for the poor man that wealth shall oppress, for the free white laborer who shall desire to hew him out of the home of happiness and peace on the distant shores of the mighty Pacific."

[John Weaver] Did you hear what he said? The Negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent. We don't want them out there. We're saving this territory for white men only. So their slogan, free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men, referred only to free white men who were settling out in the territories.

[John Weaver] Now, President Zachary Taylor came along and he made a suggestion to some of these territories. Actually what he said is this, to the people out there, what you need to do is you actually need to become a state. and bypass even the territorial stage altogether. So you just get together as a group of people. You decide you don't want to become a territory under Congress's jurisdiction. You want to go ahead and become a state. Just bypass the territorial stage altogether.

[John Weaver] And that's exactly what California did in 1849. And then New Mexico was about to do the same and all of a sudden you had once again an upsetting of this delicate balance of power between the states. And so even in 1850, secession then began to receive a serious hearing in the South. Listen to what Congressman Robert Toombs of Georgia said, and by the way, Toombs County is named after him. Congressman Robert Toombs of Georgia before a convention in 1850 said this, quote, I do not then hesitate to avow before this house and the country and in the presence of the living God. that if by your legislation you seek to drive us from the territories of California and New Mexico, purchased by the common blood and treasure of the whole people, and to abolish slavery in this district, thereby attempting to fix a national degradation upon the half of the slaves of this Confederacy, I am for disunion." That was in 1850. Now, what stopped the war from happening in 1850?

[John Weaver] Well, once again, the Union was saved by compromise because Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun worked out what is known as the Compromise of 1850. However, it was Stephen A. Douglas who actually pushed it through the House because some of these men died shortly thereafter. In fact, John C. Calhoun died 27 days afterwards, but before he died, he went to to the house, and he made this statement.

[John Weaver] Listen to what he said. John C. Calhoun, an ironclad southerner, said this. The overbearing North, he warned, was snapping the ties of the Union one after another. It cannot be saved by eulogies on the Union, however splendid or numerous. They cried, Union! Union! The glorious Union! can no more prevent disunion than the cry of help, help, glorious help on the part of a physician can save a patient lying seriously ill. Now listen to what he says. Only the North, politically stronger, could save a union by agreeing to a full and final settlement on the principle of justice of all the questions at issue between the two sections. Failing that, Let the states we both represent agree to separate and part in peace. And if you're unwilling that we should part in peace, tell us so, and we shall know what to do when you reduce the question to submission or resistance. So John C. Calhoun said, look, the North is politically stronger. He said, if you want to settle this issue, let's settle it.

[John Weaver] You just do what is right. You do what is just. And we can settle the issue right now. I want you to understand once again, the issue is power. The issue is control. The issue is who will rule. Will there be an elite? Will there be a sectarian? Or will there be a sectional control of the country?

[John Weaver] Now I'm going to give you, in just a few moments, the fullest and the most absolute proof that the war of 1861 to 1865 was not over slavery. It is true that slavery was an issue used later in the war. It is equally true that the abolitionists, who were few in number, pushed for the abolition of slavery, but the war was not over slavery at all. It was about power and control. Now let me begin to give you what I'm going to call the absolute proof that the war is not over slavery, or wasn't over slavery.

[John Weaver] At the opening session of the second session of the 36th Congress of December of 1860, President Buchanan recommended in his annual messages right before Lincoln took over, three explanatory amendments needed to be added to the Constitution on the subject of slavery. Here's what President Buchanan recommended. The first was an expressed recognition of the right of property in slaves. The second declared the duty of protecting this right in the territories.

[John Weaver] And the third recognized the validity of the Fugitive Slave Law. Now that's another issue and I'm not going to deal with that, but here the President said we need to have amendments to the Constitution that's going to deal with this issue and resolve the conflict between the North and the South. Now there were numerous resolutions offered to end the crisis, but the South preferred to secede rather than to consider anything that was not near a unanimous vote. Why? Because if something passed that was not a unanimous vote, The southern states realized it would only be a matter of time before they were facing the same exact issue again. And why keep fighting over the same thing? You're either going to resolve it or you're not going to resolve it. Well, most of the resolutions that were offered Either, number one, declared that Congress should have no jurisdiction over slavery, or number two, that Congress should not interfere with slavery within the states, or number three, that Congress must recognize that the regulations of the right to labor service was exclusively the right of each

[John Weaver] state. Now, the Crittenden Amendment and the Peace Convention resolutions contained such articles. Let me give you, and I'm going to show it to you, a copy of Senate Resolution 54. This came from the 32nd Congress, the second session, and of course this is verified from the Library of Congress as an actual copy and also the next one that I'm going to show you. And I might add this, I received these from Roger Davenport. But Roger Davenport received these from a black man who understood what the war was all about and he was trying to prove to other black folks that the war was not over slavery but it was over control. And so he took it upon himself to write the Library of Congress and get this documentation and they sent it to him. And so Roger then got a copy of it and sent it to me. So here it is, the Joint Resolution, SR 54, known also as the Crittenden Resolutions.

[John Weaver] And the date of this is January the 3rd, 1861. Now remember, the war didn't break out until April the 12th. So this is January the 3rd, 1861. I'm going to read just a little bit of this. Joint Resolutions. Proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of the United States, whereas serious and alarming dissensions have arisen between the northern and southern states concerning the rights and security of the rights of the slave-holding states, and especially their rights in the common territory of the United States, And whereas it is imminently desirable and proper that those dissensions which now threaten the very existence of this Union should be permanently quieted and settled by constitutional provisions which shall do equal justice to all sections and thereby restore to the people that peace and goodwill which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the United States. Therefore, and then we begin with the resolutions. I'm going to just read several of them briefly.

[John Weaver] Article 1, here's the first resolution. In all territories of the United States, now held or hereafter acquired, situate north of latitude 36 degrees and 30 minutes slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime, is prohibited, while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all the territories south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress, but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance."

[John Weaver] Now, I'm skipping on down. So here it is stating, look, we're going to recognize in the South there is going to be slavery. Here's Article 2. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction and situate within the limits of states that permit holding of slaves. What? Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery. Article 3. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia.

[John Weaver] That may surprise you, but there were slave markets in Washington, D.C. Many slaves bought and sold in Washington, D.C. in the nation's capital. So Article 3 says, Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia so long as it exists in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland, or either nor without the consent of the inhabitants, nor without just compensation first made to such owners of slaves as do consent to its abolishment.

[John Weaver] So they said, all right. Congress cannot abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and those who do consent are going to be paid for their slaves. Listen to Article 4. Congress shall have no power to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one state to another, or to a territory in which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by land, navigable rivers, or by sea. And then Article 5, I'm going to skip that. But listen to Article 6.

[John Weaver] No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding Articles. Did you hear that? No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding Articles. I'm going to skip down. And no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the states by whose law it is or may be allowed or permitted.

[John Weaver] Now, how much plainer can you get? Let me read the last resolution. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America and Congress assembled that the laws now enforced for the recovery of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and mandatory provisions of the Constitution and have been sanctioned as valid and constitutional by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States and then goes right on. So here then was House Bill or Senate Bill 54 which says, look, we're not going to interfere with the slaves in the South. The South can have their slaves.

[John Weaver] Now, this was just one of numerous resolutions. Now, for some time, no agreement was reached on these resolutions.

[John Weaver] Finally, the House Select Committee reported on February 27, 1861, a resolution of its own. And I want you to listen to this resolution. It's very brief. The House Select Committee February 27, 1861. Here's their resolution. No amendment of this Constitution having for its object any interference within the States with the relation between their citizens and those described in Section 2 of the First Article of the Constitution as all other persons, shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union. There. Did you understand that?

[John Weaver] Now, maybe this is because there's lawyers around 1861 as well. But let me tell you what it says, then I'm going to tell you what happened to it. What it said was basically this. There can be no amendment to the Constitution to interfere with slavery within the states where slavery exists. And no non-holding slave state can interfere with a slave-holding state without the consent of every state in the union.

[John Weaver] Now let me ask you a question. Do you think any southern state then is going to give its consent for a northern state to interfere in its state's business? And the answer is absolutely no. Well, here's what happened. When that resolution was offered, Thomas Corwin of Ohio offered a substitute. He offered H.R. 80. What he said was, boys, what you've come up with is good, but it's just very difficult to understand.

[John Weaver] So let's put it in plain everyday language. This is March the 1st, 1861. Here is the Corwin Resolution. No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or serviced by the laws of said state. Isn't that simple? Congress shall not have the power. I can't believe here was a Yankee congressman putting it in black and white and yet preserving states' rights and says, Congress, you do not have the power. Now, are you ready? This amendment passed the House 133 to 65. This amendment on March 2nd passed the Senate 24 to 12. It passed in the House and in the Senate, and on the same day it received the unnecessary approval of the President. Illinois, Ohio, and Maryland ratified this amendment.

[John Weaver] Other states just simply did not act upon it, only because it was not regarded as a sufficient concession to hold the southern states, which had not seceded, and much less get those back that had seceded. Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. Here's a resolution that passed the House and passed the Senate. that says 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. Now, if that's not sufficient, later in 1861, in a last-ditch effort, Abraham Lincoln proposed this as the 13th amendment to the Constitution. This was the only amendment proposed and signed by a sitting president. Here was the 13th amendment that President Abraham Lincoln wanted. 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 labor or service by the laws of said state, exactly the same as the Corwin Resolution.

[John Weaver] Now here's my question. If slavery, and only slavery, was the issue, If the North was really, truly fighting to free the slaves, why did they say otherwise? Why did a northern congressman and a northern president offer an amendment to the Constitution that would forever prohibit Congress from either abolishing or interfering with slavery? And here's my other question, folks. If the South was really and truly fighting to preserve their peculiar institution, to preserve slavery.

[John Weaver] Why fight when someone's giving you what you want? The North said, here, you can have your slaves. Keep them. We don't want them. We won't interfere. We will never abolish slavery. But you see, folks, the issue was not over slavery. It was over power and control.

[John Weaver] Now, I ran across some amazing material in my studies in the last several weeks, which brought me to this real startling conclusion, which I'm going to preach on next week. The more things change, the more they remain the same. The issue, even today, is still over power and control. And when fallen men abuse and usurp and steal power that does not belong to them, it's only so that they may play God themselves and try to create their own utopia and their own little kingdom. Power belongs unto God. And when God delegates power, He does so to be exercised within certain limitations, within certain boundaries. As God said to the sea, hitherto shalt thou come and no further. So likewise, God says to all of His delegated authorities, hitherto shalt thou come and no further. Let's pray.

[John Weaver] Father, we ask in the name of Jesus Christ, for Your grace and Your mercy. We ask, Lord, that You would help us, that You would give us understanding, that You would teach us, that You would build us up in the most holy faith, and enable us, Father, to worship and serve Thee acceptably with reverence and godly fear. Give us wisdom to know what to do in this day and time. In Christ's name we pray. Amen.

The Desire For Power #1

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	112502142844
Subject	Civil Government
Course	Civil Government: Power, Nations, and Constitutional Order: Where We Are & How We Got Here
Genre	Sermon
Date	2002-07-21
Dictation Name
Book	Book 021: The Desire For Power — Chapter 1
Source Timed Segments	79

Formatted Transcript

Introduction: Power Belongs to God

Reading of Psalm 62, emphasizing verse 11 that power belongs to God. All human authority is delegated and accountable to God.

Alright, Psalm 62. Psalm 62. And let's read the entire Psalm. Only 12 short verses. Psalm 62, verse 1. David says,

Scripture Reading — Psalm 62:1-12

"Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. How long will ye imagine mischief against a man? ye shall be slain all of you: as a bowing wall shall ye be, and as a tottering fence. They only consult to cast him down from his excellency."

"They delight in lies: they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly. Selah. My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from him. He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved. In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. Trust in him at all times; ye people." "Pour out your heart before him: God is a refuge for us. Selah. Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity. Trust not in oppression, and become not vain in robbery: if riches increase, set not your heart upon them. God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God. Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy."

"For thou renderest to every man according to his work." Now look at verse 11. "God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God." I've entitled the message today, "The Desire for Power." But look back at verse 11 again. "Power belongeth unto God." God alone is all-powerful. He is the sovereign. He is the ultimate. He is the absolute. Properly speaking, all power belongs to God and to God alone. Now, power, authority, or jurisdiction that is given to men, properly speaking, is referred to as delegated authority.

All that means is simply this. We would not have any authority, any power, any jurisdiction at all had God not given it to us. Delegated authority is a term, therefore, that acknowledges that all authority is from God. And secondly, it also acknowledges that those who have received delegated authority are accountable and responsible to the God who gave it.

The Abuse of Delegated Authority

Fallen man corrupts delegated power, seeking to usurp God's place. The desire for power is a root sin causing conflict.

Now, if you'll go back in your Bibles to Psalm 62, let me just show you a simple problem, and yet one that is very prominent. A simple problem with what you and I would call delegated authority. Go back in your Bibles to Psalm 62, and look if you would please at verse 3. Psalm 62 and verse 3 reveals one of the main problems with delegated authority. And that problem is its abuse, its corruption, and its perversion. In verse 3 it says of Psalm 62,

Scripture Reading — Psalm 62:3-4

"How long will ye imagine mischief against a man?" "Ye shall be slain all of you: as a bowing wall shall ye be, and as a tottering fence. They only consult to cast him down from his excellency: they delight in lies: they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly."

So here then is delegated power, corrupted, abused, and perverted. Most of us have heard Lord Acton's dictum, and it simply goes like this: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is only true when it is applied to sinners. It is certainly not true when it is applied to God. For God is the most holy God. He is the omnipotent God. That is, He has all power. And God is not corrupted. God is absolutely holy in everything that He says and in everything that He does.

Now, fallen man, however, is unlike God. Fallen man is power-hungry, power-driven, and power-mad. Have you ever noticed the more power fallen men get, the more power they want? David said it like this in Psalm 37 and verse 35. He said, "I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree." And if you've ever seen a green bay tree, its branches, its roots just simply go everywhere and take over practically everything. And David said that's what the ungodly are like. They're power-hungry and power-mad.

Now, fallen men seek to demonstrate and to exercise power by controlling and manipulating fellow men to do their bidding, fulfill their wishes, and by creating their own kingdom or their own utopia. It is not enough for fallen man to seek to control and manipulate his fellow men. Fallen man not only wants to be like God, he wishes to be God. Look in verse 4. He says, "They only consult to cast him down from his excellency." That is, they only agree and try to get together to cast God down from His excellency, and he says these wicked rulers delight in lies, they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly. So civil rulers then, unrestrained by God's grace, fallen men unrestrained by God's grace will always seek to replace the One True and Living God.

Turn back in your Bibles to Psalm 2. Look at Psalm 2, and let's begin reading there with verse 1. Psalm 2, verse 1. David asks a very simple question. He asks,

Scripture Reading — Psalm 2:1-3

"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?"

Remember, a vain thing is something that is useless, worthless. So why do the people imagine a vain thing? Now watch.

Scripture Reading — Psalm 2:1-3

"The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us."

So what do fallen men want to do? They want to break God's limitation and boundaries that are placed upon them. They want literally to usurp the position of God Himself. Now, we need to realize that the desire for power is a root sin and a root cause of many conflicts. Power-hungry men and power-mad men cannot be satisfied with limited, defined, and delegated authority. The more authority that is conferred upon them, the more power they want for themselves, even if they have to steal and arrogate and usurp that power to themselves. And once they've usurped that power to themselves, then they have to demonstrate their godhood by exercising that power over all things and over all people.

Now, do you remember the temptation in Genesis chapter 3 and verse 5? Do you remember what the serpent said? He asked a simple question.

Scripture Reading — Genesis 3:5

"Doth thou not know? Doth thou not know that the day that you eat this fruit, you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

And the Hebrew word for knowing has the force of determining. You shall be as gods, determining for yourselves good and evil. In other words, you don't need God to tell you what to do. You don't need God to tell you what's right and what's wrong. You eat this fruit and you shall be gods for yourself. That same temptation that occurred in Genesis 3 and verse 5 is equally true today, historically, politically, and even temporally, that is, in our present time, because fallen man always seeks to play God.

Historical Myth: The Civil War and Slavery

Challenges the politically correct view that the Civil War was fought over slavery, asserting it was about power and control.

Now, one of the greatest myths of politically correct history is that the South fought the war of 1861 to 1865 to preserve slavery, and that the North fought the war of 1861 through 1865 to free the slaves. That's one of the greatest politically correct myths that is in existence today. Initially, of course, Lincoln himself said the reason he started the war was to preserve the Union. However, after many devastating losses on the battlefield, it became politically expedient for Abraham Lincoln to issue what is known as the Emancipation Proclamation. Now I'm certainly not going to re-preach the message that I preached to you about a month ago on the Emancipation Proclamation, but let me refresh your mind with one simple truth. The Emancipation Proclamation did not release a single slave. However, propaganda and political correctness now dictate that the war was fought over the issue of slavery.

Power and the Constitutional Convention

The Constitution was designed to balance power between large and small states, including compromises on slavery for political balance.

And you've got to remember that many northerners became extremely wealthy by virtue of the slave trade. Now before I get started today, let me remind you of one other thing. I've told you this before, but I'm saying it again. May I remind you that there was never a slave brought into this country under the Confederate flag. Any Confederate flag. All slaves were brought into this country under the stars and stripes, the very flag that all blacks now pledge allegiance to. That's the flag that brought them into this country as slaves. And they were brought into this country by people of the North. New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, the New England states, and I might add, it was the North that held a monopoly on the slave trade because they also held a monopoly, basically speaking, on the shipping industry. The shipping industry was mainly in those New England states. So not one slave was ever brought into this country under a Confederate flag. And I'm going to show you, I'm going to prove to you absolutely today, I hope most certainly, that slavery was not the issue and it could not have been an issue.

The issue was rather power and control. Now, I want you to understand that when the Constitutional Convention met, it dealt mostly with power. How could power be equally shared? You see, the larger states wanted representation based upon population. The smaller states wanted equal representation. Come on, let's take a state like New York and you compare that with a state like Georgia. There's far more people in New York than there were in Georgia. So how in the world are you going to share this power? What is going to stop the larger states from usurping and ruling over then the smaller states?

So the delegates then settled what is known as the Bicameral Congress, in which two houses then would act in a push-pull manner. The House of Representatives, our forefathers said, would be based upon population. So that means the northern states are going to have more representatives in the House than the southern states. But then it also said the Senate was going to be comprised of two members from each state. So that means then that the smaller states are going to have equal representation in the Senate, although they will not necessarily have the same representation in the House. Now, basically speaking, the Senate was there to put the brakes, so to speak, on a runaway house. And may I point this out, that initially, and constitutionally, where did the Senators come from? The states. The states appointed the Senators. The Senators were not elected by popular vote. The reason the Senators were appointed by the states was to preserve states' rights. In other words, those senators represented states and guess what? If those senators did not represent the states, then the states could recall those senators and appoint others who would truly represent states' rights. And so here you had a balance of power then between the larger states and the small states in the government.

The Three-Fifths Clause and Political Balance

The Three-Fifths Clause was a power-balancing measure, not a moral statement on slavery. Northern opposition was about political control.

Now, in order to keep the North from dominating the South, since the North was more largely populated than the South, the delegates agreed on what is known as the Three-Fifths Clause. The Three-Fifths Clause just said, we're going to count all of your slaves as people populating the states, three-fifths of them, two-fifths we will not count. Now the blacks could not vote, the slaves could not vote, but yet they were counted for population reasons so that the South then could have a larger number of congressmen to balance off the power that would be in the House of Representatives. So the Congress also, our Constitution also then made provision to balance off the number of slave states and the free states to be admitted to the Union in the future. Now, although the Constitutional Convention went through all of this trouble to make sure there's a balance of power between the North and the South, and please remember the West did not exist at that particular time as far as we're concerned, they went through all of this to make sure that there was a

balance of power between the North and the South. But although there was a balance of power initially, it did not last long. Because the Northern states had a tremendous increase in population because of immigration. And already, the North outvoted the South in the House of Representatives by 105 to 81 as early as 1819. Only in the Senate was there a balance. You had 11 free states and 11 slave states.

Now, when Missouri petitioned Congress to enter the Union as a slave state in 1819, there was a firestorm kindled. Let me tell you what the elderly Thomas Jefferson said. He said, quote, "this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union." What was he saying? Because now this precarious balance of power is going to be broken. And old Thomas Jefferson said, there's going to be some fighting before long. Northern states were concerned then about southern power and influence. They did not want the South to have any power or any influence.

They wanted to run and control things. Senator Rufus King from New York succinctly stated it this way. Listen to what he said. I don't see how it could be clearer. He said, and I quote, "the disproportionate power and influence allowed to the slave-holding states was a necessary sacrifice to the establishment of the Constitution. But the extension of disproportionate power to the new states would be unjust and odious. The states whose power would be abridged and whose burdens would be increased by the measure cannot be expected to consent to it." What did he say? It was a necessary sacrifice at first, he said, just to get everybody together. But now that everybody's together, we don't want it anymore. We want to be the ones that are in control. So Senator King, then, of New York is admitting that this compromise was necessary at the first, but since it is no longer necessary, the North is unwilling for any Southern states to expand.

Now, let me ask you a question. If the North already outvoted the South in the House, and they did, 105 to 81, how could the admission of the state of Missouri be a threat to that power? I mean, Missouri's not going to have that many people to give them representatives that would exceed the North. Well, of course not. Well, Josiah Quincy said it like this. He said the Slave Representation Clause is the cause of all the difficulties we labor under. The southern states have an influence in our national councils altogether disproportionate to their wealth, strength, and resources. Now what was he saying? By the way, please remember, it is true the South had less people in it. When the war broke out, there were 9 million people in the South and about 2 million of them were slaves, compared to about 23 million in the North. Now, please keep in mind what he's saying is the southern states already have more power than we want to acknowledge and to allow them to have. And please remember that although the southern states were smaller, they produced about 80 to 90% of the monies that the federal government used. And most of those monies were going to the North and none of it coming back into the South. And so now he's saying, look, we don't like this. Historian James Banner said it like this.

Territorial Expansion and the Power Struggle

The Missouri Compromise, Wilmot Proviso, and debates over new territories were about containing Southern political influence, not slavery.

What the Federalists wanted and what their assaults upon the Three-Fifths Clause were designed to gain, listen carefully, was not the abolition of slavery, but the abolition of Negro representation. Freed, it appeared, the Negro was more of a political threat than enslaved. So they did not want the slaves to be freed, they just did not want that three-fifths clause to count any longer. So if that three-fifths clause did not count, that means the South has less and less power and the North has more and more power. Well here, when Missouri then in 1819 wanted to be admitted as a state, trouble broke out. So finally what happened was this, the Missouri Compromise was reached in 1820, and Missouri then was admitted as a slave state, but Maine was also admitted as a free state, once again giving us a balance of power. Now the big deadlock really came between the North and the South over the extension of slavery into the new territories. I want you to stop and think with me just for a moment.

The extension of slavery into the new territories. While none of the territories were yet states, yet the North did not want the South to even carry their slaves into those territories. The North not only wanted them to be absolutely slave free, they said to the South, you cannot even carry your slaves over there. Keeping the slaves out of the territories was a good way of keeping blacks out altogether. Now watch this carefully. Blocking the spread of slavery was an easy way to block and contain the South's political influence.

Now, let's suppose for a moment that you're a Southerner and you just happen to have two slaves or three slaves. Or maybe you have a hundred. And all of a sudden, all this vast territory is opened up out west because of the Mexican War, 1846. All these territories are opened up. And you're thinking that you might like to migrate out there and just settle down. It's not necessarily a slave territory. Slaves may or may not be permitted once the territory becomes a state. But you want to go out there as a southerner and carry your slaves with you. Well, if you cannot carry your slaves with you, in all probability, you would not go. So watch carefully. Denying the access of those territories to the slaves would be an equal way of denying those territories to the southerners. So the southerners then, nor the blacks, would be in the territories, and that means the North would control them all.

Now the slavery question that had lain dormant for about 25 years after the Missouri Compromise, all of a sudden came back into existence. Not only because of the annexation of Texas, but because of the Mexican War. Now the annexation of Texas, President Polk worked that out. Because he said, all right, boys, we can understand Texas. It's in the south. It's in the southern region. And slaves are going to be there.

And what we will do is we will admit Oregon in the northwest. And we'll have it balanced out once again. But in 1846, when the Mexican War was in full swing, and it looked as if, of course, we were going to win those territories. And by the way, let me give you a quote. I just thought about it. I read this to my wife the other day. I was reading. I thought it was really enlightening.

Now, I do not like Henry David Thoreau at all. Thoreau was a communist, a utopian, a socialist. But Thoreau said something that is so astounding, it is unbelievable. Talking about the war on Mexico, he said, the United States will win the war with Mexico. But it will be as a man who swallows the arsenic. In swallowing Mexico, they will kill us. Would you like to tell me who the fastest growing ethnic group in this country is?

You understand what I'm saying? He was right on that. He said in winning Mexico, the Mexican war, it will be, as a man who swallows for arsenic, he'll kill his own self in doing so. But anyhow, the war was going on. So on August 8, 1846, Congressman David Wilmot from northern Pennsylvania proposed a rider to a war appropriations bill. Here's what the rider said: "as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall have been first duly convicted." So this provision became known as the Wilmot Proviso. So here then is a war appropriations bill and he sneaks this little provision in saying, alright, we're going to give this money to the war against Mexico, but it's with this provision that slavery can never ever exist in any of the territories that are acquired from Mexico.

Hence what you have now once again is a power struggle and a struggle for control. Now, northerners were incensed that the United States might have a victory against Mexico and that those territories would now be open to slave states. Slavery might go there. And the North was incensed that here slavery might be going into an area where the United States military had, quote-unquote, conquered those territories. On the other hand, the Southerners were incensed at being denied equal access to an area that their money and their lives were given in helping to conquer. And may I remind you of a simple fact? More Southerners fell in the war against Mexico than did Northerners. And if you will study, you will find that in every war that has ever existed since the founding of this country, it has been Southerners who have done most of the fighting. In every war. World War I, World War II, it doesn't matter. It's been Southerners. So, the Southerner was incensed at the fact that, look, it is our money. It is our men who are dying to conquer these territories and now you're telling us we can't even go there and we can't carry our slaves there? So Southern honor as well as justice was at stake. Now John C.

Calhoun is known as that ironclad Southerner. He led the charge against such Northern reasoning arguing that Congress should not exclude slavery from those territories, and also arguing that Congress did not have the authority to do so. Listen to what he said. I'm going to give you a quote. He said, "Sir, these territories are the property of the states united, held jointly for their common use. Under the Constitution, citizens of any state must be free to migrate there with their possessions, including slaves." "Is it consistent with justice? Is it consistent with equality that any portion of the partners, outnumbering another portion, shall oust them from the common property of theirs? Would that be consistent? Can it be consistent with the idea of common property held jointly for the benefit of all? Would it be so considered in private life? Would it not be considered the most flagrant outrage in the world, one which any court of equity would restrain by injunction, which any court of law in the world would overrule?" He said, look, you can't keep the citizens of any state out of common property that is held in trust for every citizen. It's absolutely monstrous. And please remember that these territories that were acquired from Mexico as a whole were not suited for plantation life anyhow.

How many plantations do you know of that now exist in the desert of Arizona or in New Mexico? There is very little farming in many of those western territories even today, even with modern day irrigation. As one southern congressman said in exasperation, that the whole controversy over the territory related to an imaginary Negro in an impossible place. Why are you fussing over something that hasn't even happened?

Now, President Polk suggested the expansion of the Missouri Compromise line all the way to the Pacific. In other words, here's this line going all the way over to the Pacific. Anything north of that line would always be free states. Anything south of that line would always be slave states. Well, northern congressmen prevented this measure from resolving the issue.

Secession Threats and Compromise of 1850

Southern leaders threatened disunion over denial of equal access to territories, leading to the Compromise of 1850.

And that's exactly what California did in 1849. And then New Mexico was about to do the same and all of a sudden you had once again an upsetting of this delicate balance of power between the states. And so even in 1850, secession then began to receive a serious hearing in the South. Listen to what Congressman Robert Toombs of Georgia said, and by the way, Toombs County is named after him. Congressman Robert Toombs of Georgia before a convention in 1850 said this, quote, "I do not then hesitate to avow before this house and the country and in the presence of the living God, that if by your legislation you seek to drive us from the territories of California and New Mexico, purchased by the common blood and treasure of the whole people, and to abolish slavery in this district, thereby attempting to fix a national degradation upon the half of the slaves of this Confederacy, I am for disunion." That was in 1850. Now, what stopped the war from happening in 1850?

Well, once again, the Union was saved by compromise because Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun worked out what is known as the Compromise of 1850. However, it was Stephen A. Douglas who actually pushed it through the House because some of these men died shortly thereafter. In fact, John C. Calhoun died 27 days afterwards, but before he died, he went to the house, and he made this statement. Listen to what he said. John C. Calhoun, an ironclad southerner, said this. "The overbearing North," he warned, "was snapping the ties of the Union one after another. It cannot be saved by eulogies on the Union, however splendid or numerous. They cried, 'Union! Union! The glorious Union!' can no more prevent disunion than the cry of 'help, help, glorious help' on the part of a physician can save a patient lying seriously ill." Now listen to what he says. "Only the North, politically stronger, could save a union by agreeing to a full and final settlement on the principle of justice of all the questions at issue between the two sections. Failing that, let the states we both represent agree to separate and part in peace. And if you're unwilling that we should part in peace, tell us so, and we shall know what to do when you reduce the question to submission or resistance." So John C. Calhoun said, look, the North is politically stronger. He said, if you want to settle this issue, let's settle it.

You just do what is right. You do what is just. And we can settle the issue right now. I want you to understand once again, the issue is power. The issue is control. The issue is who will rule. Will there be an elite? Will there be a sectarian? Or will there be a sectional control of the country?

Absolute Proof: Proposed Constitutional Amendments

The Crittenden Resolutions and Corwin Amendment, which would have permanently protected slavery, prove the war was not about slavery.

At the opening session of the second session of the 36th Congress of December of 1860, President Buchanan recommended in his annual messages right before Lincoln took over, three explanatory amendments needed to be added to the Constitution on the subject of slavery. Here's what President Buchanan recommended. The first was an expressed recognition of the right of property in slaves. The second declared the duty of protecting this right in the territories. And the third recognized the validity of the Fugitive Slave Law. Now that's another issue and I'm not going to deal with that, but here the President said we need to have amendments to the Constitution that's going to deal with this issue and resolve the conflict between the North and the South. Now there were numerous resolutions offered to end the crisis, but the South preferred to secede rather than to consider anything that was not near a unanimous vote. Why? Because if something passed that was not a unanimous vote, the southern states realized it would only be a matter of time before they were facing the same exact issue again. And why keep fighting over the same thing? You're either going to resolve it or you're not going to resolve it. Well, most of the resolutions that were offered either, number one, declared that Congress should have no jurisdiction over slavery, or number two, that Congress should not interfere with slavery within the states, or number three, that Congress must recognize that the regulations of the right to labor service was exclusively the right of each

state. Now, the Crittenden Amendment and the Peace Convention resolutions contained such articles. Let me give you, and I'm going to show it to you, a copy of Senate Resolution 54. This came from the 32nd Congress, the second session, and of course this is verified from the Library of Congress as an actual copy and also the next one that I'm going to show you. And I might add this, I received these from Roger Davenport. But Roger Davenport received these from a black man who understood what the war was all about and he was trying to prove to other black folks that the war was not over slavery but it was over control. And so he took it upon himself to write the Library of Congress and get this documentation and they sent it to him. And so Roger then got a copy of it and sent it to me. So here it is, the Joint Resolution, SR 54, known also as the Crittenden Resolutions.

And the date of this is January the 3rd, 1861. Now remember, the war didn't break out until April the 12th. So this is January the 3rd, 1861. I'm going to read just a little bit of this. "Joint Resolutions. Proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of the United States, whereas serious and alarming dissensions have arisen between the northern and southern states concerning the rights and security of the rights of the slave-holding states, and especially their rights in the common territory of the United States, and whereas it is eminently desirable and proper that those dissensions which now threaten the very existence of this Union should be permanently quieted and settled by constitutional provisions which shall do equal justice to all sections and thereby restore to the people that peace and goodwill which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the United States. Therefore," and then we begin with the resolutions. I'm going to just read several of them briefly.

Article 1, here's the first resolution. "In all territories of the United States, now held or hereafter acquired, situate north of latitude 36 degrees and 30 minutes, slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime, is prohibited, while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all the territories south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress, but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance." Now, I'm skipping on down. So here it is stating, look, we're going to recognize in the South there is going to be slavery. Here's Article 2. "Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction and situate within the limits of states that permit the holding of slaves." What? Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery. Article 3. "Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia."

That may surprise you, but there were slave markets in Washington, D.C. Many slaves bought and sold in Washington, D.C. in the nation's capital. So Article 3 says, "Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia so long as it exists in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor without the consent of the inhabitants, nor without just compensation first made to such owners of slaves as do consent to its abolishment." So they said, all right. Congress cannot abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and those who do consent are going to be paid for their slaves. Listen to Article 4. "Congress shall have no power to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one state to another, or to a territory in which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by land, navigable rivers, or by sea." And then Article 5, I'm going to skip that. But listen to Article 6.

"No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding Articles." Did you hear that? No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding Articles. I'm going to skip down. "And no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the states by whose law it is or may be allowed or permitted."

Now, how much plainer can you get? Let me read the last resolution. "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the laws now enforced for the recovery of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and mandatory provisions of the Constitution and have been sanctioned as valid and constitutional by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States," and then goes right on. So here then was House Bill or Senate Bill 54 which says, look, we're not going to interfere with the slaves in the South. The South can have their slaves.

Now, this was just one of numerous resolutions. Now, for some time, no agreement was reached on these resolutions. Finally, the House Select Committee reported on February 27, 1861, a resolution of its own. And I want you to listen to this resolution. It's very brief. The House Select Committee, February 27, 1861. Here's their resolution. "No amendment of this Constitution having for its object any interference within the States with the relation between their citizens and those described in Section 2 of the First Article of the Constitution as 'all other persons,' shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union." There. Did you understand that?

Now, maybe this is because there's lawyers around 1861 as well. But let me tell you what it says, then I'm going to tell you what happened to it. What it said was basically this. There can be no amendment to the Constitution to interfere with slavery within the states where slavery exists. And no non-slave-holding state can interfere with a slave-holding state without the consent of every state in the union.

Now let me ask you a question. Do you think any southern state then is going to give its consent for a northern state to interfere in its state's business? And the answer is absolutely no. Well, here's what happened. When that resolution was offered, Thomas Corwin of Ohio offered a substitute. He offered H.R. 80. What he said was, boys, what you've come up with is good, but it's just very difficult to understand.

So let's put it in plain everyday language. This is March the 1st, 1861. Here is the Corwin Resolution. "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give 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." Isn't that simple? Congress shall not have the power. I can't believe here was a Yankee congressman putting it in black and white and yet preserving states' rights and says, Congress, you do not have the power. Now, are you ready? This amendment passed the House 133 to 65. This amendment on March 2nd passed the Senate 24 to 12. It passed in the House and in the Senate, and on the same day it received the unnecessary approval of the President. Illinois, Ohio, and Maryland ratified this amendment.

Other states just simply did not act upon it, only because it was not regarded as a sufficient concession to hold the southern states, which had not seceded, and much less get those back that had seceded. Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. Here's a resolution that passed the House and passed the Senate that says 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. Now, if that's not sufficient, later in 1861, in a last-ditch effort, Abraham Lincoln proposed this as the 13th amendment to the Constitution. This was the only amendment proposed and signed by a sitting president. Here was the 13th amendment that President Abraham Lincoln wanted. "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," exactly the same as the Corwin Resolution.

Now here's my question. If slavery, and only slavery, was the issue, if the North was really, truly fighting to free the slaves, why did they say otherwise? Why did a northern congressman and a northern president offer an amendment to the Constitution that would forever prohibit Congress from either abolishing or interfering with slavery? And here's my other question, folks. If the South was really and truly fighting to preserve their peculiar institution, to preserve slavery,

Conclusion: The Ongoing Issue of Power

The issue remains power and control. Fallen men abuse delegated authority to play God. Power belongs to God and must be exercised within His limits.

Now, I ran across some amazing material in my studies in the last several weeks, which brought me to this real startling conclusion, which I'm going to preach on next week. The more things change, the more they remain the same. The issue, even today, is still over power and control. And when fallen men abuse and usurp and steal power that does not belong to them, it's only so that they may play God themselves and try to create their own utopia and their own little kingdom. Power belongs unto God. And when God delegates power, He does so to be exercised within certain limitations, within certain boundaries. As God said to the sea, "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further." So likewise, God says to all of His delegated authorities, "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further." Let's pray.

Father, we ask in the name of Jesus Christ, for Your grace and Your mercy. We ask, Lord, that You would help us, that You would give us understanding, that You would teach us, that You would build us up in the most holy faith, and enable us, Father, to worship and serve Thee acceptably with reverence and godly fear. Give us wisdom to know what to do in this day and time. In Christ's name we pray. Amen.

Study Guide

Major Themes

God's Sovereignty Over Power

Summary: All power belongs to God; human authority is delegated and accountable to Him.

Evidence: Psalm 62:11: 'Power belongeth unto God.' Romans 13:1: 'the powers that be are ordained of God.'

The Corruption of Delegated Power

Summary: Fallen man abuses power, seeking to usurp God's authority and control others.

Evidence: Psalm 62:3-4 describes rulers who 'imagine mischief' and 'delight in lies.' Lord Acton's dictum: 'power corrupts.'

The Desire for Power as Root Sin

Summary: The lust for power is a fundamental sin leading to conflict and rebellion against God.

Evidence: Genesis 3:5 temptation: 'ye shall be as gods.' Psalm 2: rulers conspire against God to break His bands.

Historical Revisionism of the Civil War

Summary: The popular narrative that the Civil War was fought to free slaves is a myth; the true cause was a power struggle.

Evidence: Lincoln initially fought to preserve the Union; Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves. The war was about control.

Constitutional Compromises as Power Balances

Summary: The Constitution's slavery-related clauses were political compromises to balance power between North and South.

Evidence: Three-Fifths Clause, Bicameral Congress, and Senate appointment by states were designed to prevent Northern domination.

Northern Opposition to Slavery as Political Containment

Summary: Northern efforts to restrict slavery in territories were aimed at limiting Southern political influence, not moral concern for blacks.

Evidence: Senator Rufus King and others admitted the Three-Fifths Clause gave disproportionate power. Wilmot Proviso aimed to keep blacks out.

Proposed Amendments Prove War Was Not About Slavery

Summary: The Crittenden and Corwin Amendments, which would have permanently protected slavery, were passed or proposed, showing slavery was not the issue.

Evidence: Corwin Amendment passed House and Senate, signed by President, and proposed as 13th Amendment by Lincoln.

The Ongoing Battle for Power

Summary: The struggle for power continues today as fallen men seek to create their own utopias, usurping God's authority.

Evidence: The more things change, the more they remain the same. Power belongs to God and must be exercised within His limits.

Key Arguments

All power is delegated by God

Summary: Human authority is not inherent but given by God, and those who hold it are accountable to Him.

Evidence: Psalm 62:11; Romans 13:1; Daniel 2:21, 37. 'Promotion cometh neither from the east... but God is the judge.'

Fallen man inevitably abuses power

Summary: Sinful humans are power-hungry and seek to control others, ultimately trying to replace God.

Evidence: Psalm 62:3-4; Psalm 2:1-3; Genesis 3:5. 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely' applies to sinners.

The Civil War was a power struggle, not a moral crusade

Summary: The North's actions, including proposed constitutional amendments to protect slavery, prove the war was about control, not emancipation.

Evidence: Lincoln's initial war aim was preserving the Union. The Corwin Amendment would have forbidden Congress from abolishing slavery.

The Three-Fifths Clause was a political compromise

Summary: The clause was designed to balance representation between North and South, not to dehumanize slaves.

Evidence: It counted slaves for population to give the South more House seats, offsetting Northern population advantage.

Northern opposition to slavery expansion was racially motivated

Summary: Northern politicians sought to keep blacks out of territories to preserve them for white settlers, not to end slavery.

Evidence: Congressman David Wilmot: 'The Negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent... keep what remains for ourselves.'

The South seceded over loss of political power

Summary: Southern leaders threatened disunion when they perceived an irreversible loss of influence in the federal government.

Evidence: Robert Toombs in 1850: 'if by your legislation you seek to drive us from the territories... I am for disunion.'

Constitutional amendments offered to protect slavery were rejected

Summary: The South rejected permanent constitutional guarantees for slavery because the real issue was political control, not slavery itself.

Evidence: Crittenden Resolutions and Corwin Amendment passed Congress but were not ratified by enough states; South had already seceded.

The abuse of delegated authority continues today

Summary: Modern political struggles are still about power and control, as fallen men seek to usurp God's authority.

Evidence: The more things change, the more they remain the same. Power belongs to God and must be exercised within His limits.

Scripture References

Psalm 62:1-12

Context: The entire Psalm is read, emphasizing God as the source of salvation and power.

Psalm 62:11

Context: Key verse: 'God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God.'

Psalm 75:6-7

Context: Promotion comes from God; He puts down one and sets up another.

Romans 13:1

Context: The powers that be are ordained of God.

Daniel 2:21

Context: God changes times and seasons, removes kings and sets up kings.

Daniel 2:37

Context: God gave Nebuchadnezzar his kingdom, power, strength, and glory.

Psalm 62:3-4

Context: Describes the abuse of power: imagining mischief, delighting in lies, blessing with mouth but cursing inwardly.

Psalm 37:35

Context: David saw the wicked in great power, spreading like a green bay tree.

Psalm 2:1-3

Context: Kings and rulers take counsel against the Lord and His anointed, seeking to break their bands.

Genesis 3:5

Context: The serpent's temptation: 'ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.'

1 Timothy 6:10

Context: The love of money is the root of all evil; money represents power.

Historical References

American Civil War (1861-1865)

Context: Argued to be a war over power and control, not slavery. Lincoln's initial aim was preserving the Union.

Emancipation Proclamation

Context: Issued by Lincoln as a political expedient after battlefield losses; did not free a single slave.

Constitutional Convention of 1787

Context: Delegates met to overhaul Articles of Confederation but created the Constitution, focusing on power balance.

Three-Fifths Clause

Context: Constitutional compromise counting slaves as three-fifths of a person for representation, balancing North-South power.

Missouri Compromise (1820)

Context: Admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state to maintain Senate balance.

Wilmot Proviso (1846)

Context: Proposed banning slavery in territories acquired from Mexico, seen as a Northern power play.

Compromise of 1850

Context: Series of bills brokered by Clay, Webster, and Calhoun to resolve territorial and slavery disputes.

Crittenden Resolutions (1861)

Context: Proposed constitutional amendments to protect slavery permanently; passed Congress but not ratified.

Corwin Amendment (1861)

Context: Proposed 13th Amendment forbidding Congress from abolishing slavery; passed Congress, endorsed by Lincoln.

Mexican-American War (1846-1848)

Context: Acquisition of new territories intensified the power struggle over slavery's expansion.

Important Quotes

Power belongeth unto God.

Significance: The foundational scripture for the sermon, establishing God's sole ownership of power.

Promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.

Significance: Reinforces that all authority is delegated by God.

How long will ye imagine mischief against a man? ye shall be slain all of you: as a bowing wall shall ye be, and as a tottering fence.

Significance: Illustrates the abuse and corruption of delegated power.

They only consult to cast him down from his excellency: they delight in lies: they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly.

Significance: Shows the deceitful nature of power-hungry rulers.

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.

Significance: The Corwin Amendment text, proving the North was willing to permanently protect slavery to preserve the Union.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Significance: Concluding observation that the struggle for power is timeless.

Discussion Questions

How does understanding that all power belongs to God change the way we view human authority?

Context: Based on Psalm 62:11 and the concept of delegated authority.

In what ways do we see the abuse of delegated authority in our own lives or society?

Context: From the description of fallen man's corruption of power in Psalm 62:3-4.

Why is the desire for power considered a root sin, and how does it manifest today?

Context: Connection to Genesis 3:5 and the temptation to be like God.

How does the historical evidence presented challenge the common narrative about the Civil War?

Context: The argument that the war was about power, not slavery, supported by the Corwin Amendment.

What can we learn from the constitutional compromises about balancing power in a fallen world?

Context: The design of the Bicameral Congress and Three-Fifths Clause as power-balancing measures.

How should Christians respond when they see power being abused or usurped?

Context: Application of the principle that power belongs to God and must be exercised within His limits.

What does it mean to 'play God' in our personal lives, and how can we guard against it?

Context: The tendency of fallen man to seek to determine good and evil for himself.

How does the love of money relate to the desire for power, according to 1 Timothy 6:10?

Context: Money as a means to gain power, control, and manipulation.

Applications

Recognize God as the ultimate source of all authority

Summary: Acknowledge that any power or authority we have is delegated by God and must be exercised in submission to Him.

Evidence: Psalm 62:11; Romans 13:1. 'Power belongeth unto God.'

Guard against the corruption of power

Summary: Be aware of the sinful tendency to abuse authority for selfish ends and seek to serve rather than control.

Evidence: Psalm 62:3-4 describes rulers who 'imagine mischief' and 'delight in lies.'

Resist the temptation to 'play God'

Summary: Avoid the sin of determining good and evil for ourselves, instead submitting to God's revealed will.

Evidence: Genesis 3:5 temptation: 'ye shall be as gods.'

Exercise delegated authority within God-given limits

Summary: Like the sea, our authority has boundaries set by God; we must not overstep them.

Evidence: God says to all delegated authorities, 'Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further.'

Trust in God's sovereignty over human affairs

Summary: Since God removes and sets up kings, we can trust His control over political and social powers.

Evidence: Daniel 2:21: 'he removeth kings, and setteth up kings.'

Be discerning about historical narratives

Summary: Question politically correct histories and seek truth, recognizing that power struggles often underlie conflicts.

Evidence: The myth that the Civil War was fought to free slaves is contradicted by historical evidence.

Avoid the love of money as a root of evil

Summary: Recognize that the pursuit of wealth is often a pursuit of power, which can lead to manipulation and control.

Evidence: 1 Timothy 6:10: 'the love of money is the root of all evil.'

Seek wisdom to navigate current power struggles

Summary: Pray for understanding and wisdom to act rightly in a world where fallen men continually seek to usurp God's authority.

Evidence: Closing prayer: 'Give us wisdom to know what to do in this day and time.'

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-05T20:01:47Z

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T12:42:38Z

Clean Transcript

The Desire For Power #1

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

Alright, Psalm 62. Psalm 62. And let's read the entire Psalm. Only 12 short verses. Psalm 62, verse 1. David says, "Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. How long will ye imagine mischief against a man? ye shall be slain all of you: as a bowing wall shall ye be, and as a tottering fence. They only consult to cast him down from his excellency."
#1 | 0:03 to 0:39 | cleaned
"They delight in lies: they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly. Selah. My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from him. He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved. In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. Trust in him at all times; ye people."
#2 | 0:39 to 1:02 | cleaned
"Pour out your heart before him: God is a refuge for us. Selah. Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity. Trust not in oppression, and become not vain in robbery: if riches increase, set not your heart upon them. God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God. Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy."
#3 | 1:03 to 1:29 | cleaned
"For thou renderest to every man according to his work." Now look at verse 11. "God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God." I've entitled the message today, "The Desire for Power." But look back at verse 11 again. "Power belongeth unto God." God alone is all-powerful. He is the sovereign. He is the ultimate. He is the absolute. Properly speaking, all power belongs to God and to God alone. Now, power, authority, or jurisdiction that is given to men, properly speaking, is referred to as delegated authority.
#4 | 1:30 to 2:20 | cleaned
All that means is simply this. We would not have any authority, any power, any jurisdiction at all had God not given it to us. Delegated authority is a term, therefore, that acknowledges that all authority is from God. And secondly, it also acknowledges that those who have received delegated authority are accountable and responsible to the God who gave it.
#5 | 2:20 to 2:47 | cleaned
Now, the Bible tells us in Psalm 75, verses 6 and 7, "Promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another." So God, then, is the God of all power. Do you remember Romans 13 and verse 1? You don't have to turn there. But the Bible says, "the powers that be are ordained of God." So no one can have any power except God has given them that power. Now, if you will turn in your Bibles, I could quote this, but I want you to see this one, Daniel chapter 2. And notice if you would please verse 21. Daniel 2 verse 21, and then we'll skip down to verse 37. Once again, referring to God's sovereignty, he says in Daniel 2 and verse 21, "And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings."
#6 | 2:47 to 3:51 | cleaned
"He giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding." So it is God who removes kings and sets up kings.
#7 | 3:52 to 4:01 | cleaned
Now, if you'll skip down to verse 37, here's what Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar. And may I remind you that Nebuchadnezzar was one of the most powerful monarchs in the world at that particular time. So Daniel says, "Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory." So what Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar simply is this. The only reason you have a kingdom, the only reason you have any power, any authority, is God gave it to you. God delegated that authority to you.
#8 | 4:01 to 4:37 | cleaned
Now, if you'll go back in your Bibles to Psalm 62, let me just show you a simple problem, and yet one that is very prominent. A simple problem with what you and I would call delegated authority. Go back in your Bibles to Psalm 62, and look if you would please at verse 3. Psalm 62 and verse 3 reveals one of the main problems with delegated authority. And that problem is its abuse, its corruption, and its perversion. In verse 3 it says of Psalm 62, "How long will ye imagine mischief against a man?"
#9 | 4:38 to 5:15 | cleaned
"Ye shall be slain all of you: as a bowing wall shall ye be, and as a tottering fence. They only consult to cast him down from his excellency: they delight in lies: they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly." So here then is delegated power, corrupted, abused, and perverted. Most of us have heard Lord Acton's dictum, and it simply goes like this: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is only true when it is applied to sinners. It is certainly not true when it is applied to God. For God is the most holy God. He is the omnipotent God. That is, He has all power. And God is not corrupted. God is absolutely holy in everything that He says and in everything that He does.
#10 | 5:16 to 6:12 | cleaned
Now, fallen man, however, is unlike God. Fallen man is power-hungry, power-driven, and power-mad. Have you ever noticed the more power fallen men get, the more power they want? David said it like this in Psalm 37 and verse 35. He said, "I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree." And if you've ever seen a green bay tree, its branches, its roots just simply go everywhere and take over practically everything. And David said that's what the ungodly are like. They're power-hungry and power-mad.
#11 | 6:12 to 6:56 | cleaned
Now, fallen men seek to demonstrate and to exercise power by controlling and manipulating fellow men to do their bidding, fulfill their wishes, and by creating their own kingdom or their own utopia. It is not enough for fallen man to seek to control and manipulate his fellow men. Fallen man not only wants to be like God, he wishes to be God. Look in verse 4. He says, "They only consult to cast him down from his excellency." That is, they only agree and try to get together to cast God down from His excellency, and he says these wicked rulers delight in lies, they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly. So civil rulers then, unrestrained by God's grace, fallen men unrestrained by God's grace will always seek to replace the One True and Living God.
#12 | 6:56 to 8:02 | cleaned
Turn back in your Bibles to Psalm 2. Look at Psalm 2, and let's begin reading there with verse 1. Psalm 2, verse 1. David asks a very simple question. He asks, "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?" Remember, a vain thing is something that is useless, worthless. So why do the people imagine a vain thing? Now watch. "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us."
#13 | 8:02 to 8:45 | cleaned
So what do fallen men want to do? They want to break God's limitation and boundaries that are placed upon them. They want literally to usurp the position of God Himself.
#14 | 8:47 to 9:04 | cleaned
Now, we need to realize that the desire for power is a root sin and a root cause of many conflicts. Power-hungry men and power-mad men cannot be satisfied with limited, defined, and delegated authority. The more authority that is conferred upon them, the more power they want for themselves, even if they have to steal and arrogate and usurp that power to themselves. And once they've usurped that power to themselves, then they have to demonstrate their godhood by exercising that power over all things and over all people.
#15 | 9:05 to 9:51 | cleaned
Now, do you remember the temptation in Genesis chapter 3 and verse 5? Do you remember what the serpent said? He asked a simple question. "Doth thou not know? Doth thou not know that the day that you eat this fruit, you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." And the Hebrew word for knowing has the force of determining. You shall be as gods, determining for yourselves good and evil.
#16 | 9:52 to 10:28 | cleaned
In other words, you don't need God to tell you what to do. You don't need God to tell you what's right and what's wrong. You eat this fruit and you shall be gods for yourself. That same temptation that occurred in Genesis 3 and verse 5 is equally true today, historically, politically, and even temporally, that is, in our present time, because fallen man always seeks to play God.
#17 | 10:28 to 10:54 | cleaned
Now, one of the greatest myths of politically correct history is that the South fought the war of 1861 to 1865 to preserve slavery, and that the North fought the war of 1861 through 1865 to free the slaves. That's one of the greatest politically correct myths that is in existence today. Initially, of course, Lincoln himself said the reason he started the war was to preserve the Union. However, after many devastating losses on the battlefield, it became politically expedient for Abraham Lincoln to issue what is known as the Emancipation Proclamation. Now I'm certainly not going to re-preach the message that I preached to you about a month ago on the Emancipation Proclamation, but let me refresh your mind with one simple truth. The Emancipation Proclamation did not release a single slave. However, propaganda and political correctness now dictate that the war was fought over the issue of slavery.
#18 | 10:58 to 12:16 | cleaned
Now let me ask a rhetorical question. After all the smoke is blown away, and after all these years that we've had to study and to think about it, do you not think that the desire for power or control had something to do with the War of Northern Aggression? Now, I want you to understand something, that power involves all kinds of issues. I mean, you can't talk about power without talking about economics. You can't talk about power without talking about education, occupations.
#19 | 12:17 to 13:00 | cleaned
Let me give you an example. Money. Do you realize that Scripture tells us in 1 Timothy 6 and verse 10 that the love of money is the root of all evil? Now watch, it is not money that is the root of all evil. It is the love of money that is the root of all evil. Well, why do men love money? Because of what they can get with money. And if you have money, then you have power. You have power to do as you please. You have power to interfere. You have power to manipulate. You have power to control.
#20 | 13:00 to 13:36 | cleaned
Think, for instance, of taxes, tariffs, imports, exports. Why has our court rightly ruled that the power to tax is what? The power to destroy. Why? Because the power to tax is nothing less than control, and control is power manifested. It's just that simple. In 1787, 12 of the 13 states sent 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Originally, those delegates went there to overhaul the Articles of Confederation. Instead, after six weeks of absolute secrecy, the end result was what you and I have today as the Constitution of the United States. By the way, I just told you 12 out of the 13 states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Do you know which state did not send delegates to the Constitutional Convention and why that state did not send delegates to the Constitutional Convention? The state that did not send delegates was the state of New Jersey. And the reason it did not send delegates was because it did not wish, it did not want, it did not desire for slavery to be interfered with.
#21 | 13:36 to 15:08 | cleaned
And you've got to remember that many northerners became extremely wealthy by virtue of the slave trade. Now before I get started today, let me remind you of one other thing. I've told you this before, but I'm saying it again. May I remind you that there was never a slave brought into this country under the Confederate flag. Any Confederate flag. All slaves were brought into this country under the stars and stripes, the very flag that all blacks now pledge allegiance to. That's the flag that brought them into this country as slaves. And they were brought into this country by people of the North. New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, the New England states, and I might add, it was the North that held a monopoly on the slave trade because they also held a monopoly, basically speaking, on the shipping industry. The shipping industry was mainly in those New England states. So not one slave was ever brought into this country under a Confederate flag. And I'm going to show you, I'm going to prove to you absolutely today, I hope most certainly, that slavery was not the issue and it could not have been an issue.
#22 | 15:09 to 16:32 | cleaned
The issue was rather power and control. Now, I want you to understand that when the Constitutional Convention met, it dealt mostly with power. How could power be equally shared? You see, the larger states wanted representation based upon population. The smaller states wanted equal representation. Come on, let's take a state like New York and you compare that with a state like Georgia. There's far more people in New York than there were in Georgia. So how in the world are you going to share this power? What is going to stop the larger states from usurping and ruling over then the smaller states?
#23 | 16:32 to 17:22 | cleaned
So the delegates then settled what is known as the Bicameral Congress, in which two houses then would act in a push-pull manner. The House of Representatives, our forefathers said, would be based upon population. So that means the northern states are going to have more representatives in the House than the southern states. But then it also said the Senate was going to be comprised of two members from each state. So that means then that the smaller states are going to have equal representation in the Senate, although they will not necessarily have the same representation in the House. Now, basically speaking, the Senate was there to put the brakes, so to speak, on a runaway house.
#24 | 17:23 to 18:10 | cleaned
And may I point this out, that initially, and constitutionally, where did the Senators come from? The states. The states appointed the Senators. The Senators were not elected by popular vote. The reason the Senators were appointed by the states was to preserve states' rights. In other words, those senators represented states and guess what? If those senators did not represent the states, then the states could recall those senators and appoint others who would truly represent states' rights. And so here you had a balance of power then between the larger states and the small states in the government.
#25 | 18:11 to 18:55 | cleaned
Now, did the Constitution deal with slavery? And the answer is yes. But I want you to understand that it did so in such a way to preserve the balance of power between the North and the South. When the Constitution of the United States was ratified, every state had slaves in it. All the Northern states as well as the Southern states. It is true. There were more slaves in the South than there were in the North. But you ask, well, why in the world is that? And the answer is very simple.
#26 | 18:55 to 19:28 | cleaned
Because of the climatic and the geographical considerations. Agriculture, largely speaking, was in the South. We've got a growing season down here that is unparalleled to the North. We have a growing season down here that's unparalleled to many of the western states, maybe except for California. But Alice and I have been out in Montana in July, and guess what? They still have their plants indoors in July because it's still too cool to plant them out in the garden. And they have such a short growing season, they have to have everything inside and stick it out just for a week or two so it can mature and they can collect the fruit. Now, it is true there were more in the South, but basically because of climate, geography, and agriculture.
#27 | 19:28 to 20:24 | cleaned
Now, let me show you how the Constitution dealt openly with slavery. For instance, Article 1, Section 2 refers to the slaves as "all other persons." Article 1, Section 9 calls them "such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit." Article 4, Section 2 includes them in the category of "persons held to service or labor."
#28 | 20:24 to 20:49 | cleaned
Now, in order to keep the North from dominating the South, since the North was more largely populated than the South, the delegates agreed on what is known as the Three-Fifths Clause. The Three-Fifths Clause just said, we're going to count all of your slaves as people populating the states, three-fifths of them, two-fifths we will not count. Now the blacks could not vote, the slaves could not vote, but yet they were counted for population reasons so that the South then could have a larger number of congressmen to balance off the power that would be in the House of Representatives. So the Congress also, our Constitution also then made provision to balance off the number of slave states and the free states to be admitted to the Union in the future. Now, although the Constitutional Convention went through all of this trouble to make sure there's a balance of power between the North and the South, and please remember the West did not exist at that particular time as far as we're concerned, they went through all of this to make sure that there was a
#29 | 20:50 to 22:06 | cleaned
balance of power between the North and the South. But although there was a balance of power initially, it did not last long. Because the Northern states had a tremendous increase in population because of immigration. And already, the North outvoted the South in the House of Representatives by 105 to 81 as early as 1819. Only in the Senate was there a balance. You had 11 free states and 11 slave states.
#30 | 22:06 to 22:44 | cleaned
Now, when Missouri petitioned Congress to enter the Union as a slave state in 1819, there was a firestorm kindled. Let me tell you what the elderly Thomas Jefferson said. He said, quote, "this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union." What was he saying? Because now this precarious balance of power is going to be broken. And old Thomas Jefferson said, there's going to be some fighting before long. Northern states were concerned then about southern power and influence. They did not want the South to have any power or any influence.
#31 | 22:45 to 23:45 | cleaned
They wanted to run and control things. Senator Rufus King from New York succinctly stated it this way. Listen to what he said. I don't see how it could be clearer. He said, and I quote, "the disproportionate power and influence allowed to the slave-holding states was a necessary sacrifice to the establishment of the Constitution. But the extension of disproportionate power to the new states would be unjust and odious. The states whose power would be abridged and whose burdens would be increased by the measure cannot be expected to consent to it." What did he say? It was a necessary sacrifice at first, he said, just to get everybody together. But now that everybody's together, we don't want it anymore. We want to be the ones that are in control. So Senator King, then, of New York is admitting that this compromise was necessary at the first, but since it is no longer necessary, the North is unwilling for any Southern states to expand.
#32 | 23:45 to 24:53 | cleaned
Now, let me ask you a question. If the North already outvoted the South in the House, and they did, 105 to 81, how could the admission of the state of Missouri be a threat to that power? I mean, Missouri's not going to have that many people to give them representatives that would exceed the North. Well, of course not. Well, Josiah Quincy said it like this. He said the Slave Representation Clause is the cause of all the difficulties we labor under.
#33 | 24:54 to 25:32 | cleaned
The southern states have an influence in our national councils altogether disproportionate to their wealth, strength, and resources. Now what was he saying? By the way, please remember, it is true the South had less people in it. When the war broke out, there were 9 million people in the South and about 2 million of them were slaves, compared to about 23 million in the North. Now, please keep in mind what he's saying is the southern states already have more power than we want to acknowledge and to allow them to have. And please remember that although the southern states were smaller, they produced about 80 to 90% of the monies that the federal government used. And most of those monies were going to the North and none of it coming back into the South. And so now he's saying, look, we don't like this. Historian James Banner said it like this.
#34 | 25:33 to 26:46 | cleaned
What the Federalists wanted and what their assaults upon the Three-Fifths Clause were designed to gain, listen carefully, was not the abolition of slavery, but the abolition of Negro representation. Freed, it appeared, the Negro was more of a political threat than enslaved. So they did not want the slaves to be freed, they just did not want that three-fifths clause to count any longer. So if that three-fifths clause did not count, that means the South has less and less power and the North has more and more power. Well here, when Missouri then in 1819 wanted to be admitted as a state, trouble broke out. So finally what happened was this, the Missouri Compromise was reached in 1820, and Missouri then was admitted as a slave state, but Maine was also admitted as a free state, once again giving us a balance of power. Now the big deadlock really came between the North and the South over the extension of slavery into the new territories. I want you to stop and think with me just for a moment.
#35 | 26:47 to 27:57 | cleaned
The extension of slavery into the new territories. While none of the territories were yet states, yet the North did not want the South to even carry their slaves into those territories. The North not only wanted them to be absolutely slave free, they said to the South, you cannot even carry your slaves over there. Keeping the slaves out of the territories was a good way of keeping blacks out altogether. Now watch this carefully. Blocking the spread of slavery was an easy way to block and contain the South's political influence.
#36 | 27:57 to 28:43 | cleaned
Now, let's suppose for a moment that you're a Southerner and you just happen to have two slaves or three slaves. Or maybe you have a hundred. And all of a sudden, all this vast territory is opened up out west because of the Mexican War, 1846. All these territories are opened up. And you're thinking that you might like to migrate out there and just settle down. It's not necessarily a slave territory. Slaves may or may not be permitted once the territory becomes a state. But you want to go out there as a southerner and carry your slaves with you. Well, if you cannot carry your slaves with you, in all probability, you would not go. So watch carefully. Denying the access of those territories to the slaves would be an equal way of denying those territories to the southerners. So the southerners then, nor the blacks, would be in the territories, and that means the North would control them all.
#37 | 28:45 to 29:56 | cleaned
Now the slavery question that had lain dormant for about 25 years after the Missouri Compromise, all of a sudden came back into existence. Not only because of the annexation of Texas, but because of the Mexican War. Now the annexation of Texas, President Polk worked that out. Because he said, all right, boys, we can understand Texas. It's in the south. It's in the southern region. And slaves are going to be there.
#38 | 29:57 to 30:27 | cleaned
And what we will do is we will admit Oregon in the northwest. And we'll have it balanced out once again. But in 1846, when the Mexican War was in full swing, and it looked as if, of course, we were going to win those territories. And by the way, let me give you a quote. I just thought about it. I read this to my wife the other day. I was reading. I thought it was really enlightening.
#39 | 30:27 to 31:00 | cleaned
Now, I do not like Henry David Thoreau at all. Thoreau was a communist, a utopian, a socialist. But Thoreau said something that is so astounding, it is unbelievable. Talking about the war on Mexico, he said, the United States will win the war with Mexico. But it will be as a man who swallows the arsenic. In swallowing Mexico, they will kill us. Would you like to tell me who the fastest growing ethnic group in this country is?
#40 | 31:00 to 31:48 | cleaned
You understand what I'm saying? He was right on that. He said in winning Mexico, the Mexican war, it will be, as a man who swallows for arsenic, he'll kill his own self in doing so. But anyhow, the war was going on. So on August 8, 1846, Congressman David Wilmot from northern Pennsylvania proposed a rider to a war appropriations bill. Here's what the rider said: "as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall have been first duly convicted." So this provision became known as the Wilmot Proviso. So here then is a war appropriations bill and he sneaks this little provision in saying, alright, we're going to give this money to the war against Mexico, but it's with this provision that slavery can never ever exist in any of the territories that are acquired from Mexico.
#41 | 31:50 to 33:05 | cleaned
Hence what you have now once again is a power struggle and a struggle for control. Now, northerners were incensed that the United States might have a victory against Mexico and that those territories would now be open to slave states. Slavery might go there. And the North was incensed that here slavery might be going into an area where the United States military had, quote-unquote, conquered those territories.
#42 | 33:06 to 33:41 | cleaned
On the other hand, the Southerners were incensed at being denied equal access to an area that their money and their lives were given in helping to conquer. And may I remind you of a simple fact? More Southerners fell in the war against Mexico than did Northerners. And if you will study, you will find that in every war that has ever existed since the founding of this country, it has been Southerners who have done most of the fighting. In every war. World War I, World War II, it doesn't matter. It's been Southerners. So, the Southerner was incensed at the fact that, look, it is our money. It is our men who are dying to conquer these territories and now you're telling us we can't even go there and we can't carry our slaves there? So Southern honor as well as justice was at stake. Now John C.
#43 | 33:41 to 34:43 | cleaned
Calhoun is known as that ironclad Southerner. He led the charge against such Northern reasoning arguing that Congress should not exclude slavery from those territories, and also arguing that Congress did not have the authority to do so. Listen to what he said. I'm going to give you a quote. He said, "Sir, these territories are the property of the states united, held jointly for their common use. Under the Constitution, citizens of any state must be free to migrate there with their possessions, including slaves."
#44 | 34:43 to 35:19 | cleaned
"Is it consistent with justice? Is it consistent with equality that any portion of the partners, outnumbering another portion, shall oust them from the common property of theirs? Would that be consistent? Can it be consistent with the idea of common property held jointly for the benefit of all? Would it be so considered in private life? Would it not be considered the most flagrant outrage in the world, one which any court of equity would restrain by injunction, which any court of law in the world would overrule?" He said, look, you can't keep the citizens of any state out of common property that is held in trust for every citizen. It's absolutely monstrous. And please remember that these territories that were acquired from Mexico as a whole were not suited for plantation life anyhow.
#45 | 35:20 to 36:21 | cleaned
How many plantations do you know of that now exist in the desert of Arizona or in New Mexico? There is very little farming in many of those western territories even today, even with modern day irrigation. As one southern congressman said in exasperation, that the whole controversy over the territory related to an imaginary Negro in an impossible place. Why are you fussing over something that hasn't even happened?
#46 | 36:23 to 36:58 | cleaned
Now, President Polk suggested the expansion of the Missouri Compromise line all the way to the Pacific. In other words, here's this line going all the way over to the Pacific. Anything north of that line would always be free states. Anything south of that line would always be slave states. Well, northern congressmen prevented this measure from resolving the issue.
#47 | 37:00 to 37:25 | cleaned
Now, I want you to understand, and I'm saying this emphatically, I'm saying it for emphasis, that the issue is really not slavery. The issue is not even really the extension of slavery into the territories. The issue is control. The issue is power. So here's a deadlock. The North said, we don't want anybody over there carrying slaves into those territories. The South said, you've got the list. It's our men who fought and died. It's our money that was spent conquering those territories.
#48 | 37:25 to 38:02 | cleaned
Well, Michigan Senator Lewis Cass endeavored to reach another compromise by which he called it popular sovereignty. So Senator Cass said, here's what we're going to do. We're going to let each territory decide for itself whether or not it will enter the Union as a free state or a slave state. Thus, each territory would be open to slavery initially.
#49 | 38:04 to 38:32 | cleaned
Now Cass never specified at what point, prior to statehood, the territorial government could vote on it and or prohibit slavery. His compromise not only failed, but it also failed the United Party.
#50 | 38:33 to 38:46 | cleaned
Now please keep in mind that the Free Soilers, the Free Soil Party, and I'll tell you a little bit more about their slogan in just a moment, but the Free Soilers, even the Free Soil Democrats, were really interested in one thing: in keeping all blacks out of the territories. By the way, I want you to understand that a territory was under the authority and the control of Congress.
#51 | 38:47 to 39:17 | cleaned
So here's what Congressman David Wilmot himself said. Are you listening? Quote, "the Negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent. Let us keep what remains for ourselves and our children, for the immigrant that seeks our shores, for the poor man that wealth shall oppress, for the free white laborer who shall desire to hew him out of the home of happiness and peace on the distant shores of the mighty Pacific."
#52 | 39:19 to 39:47 | cleaned
Did you hear what he said? The Negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent. We don't want them out there. We're saving this territory for white men only. So their slogan, free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men, referred only to free white men who were settling out in the territories.
#53 | 39:48 to 40:12 | cleaned
Now, President Zachary Taylor came along and he made a suggestion to some of these territories. Actually what he said is this, to the people out there, what you need to do is you actually need to become a state and bypass even the territorial stage altogether. So you just get together as a group of people. You decide you don't want to become a territory under Congress's jurisdiction. You want to go ahead and become a state. Just bypass the territorial stage altogether.
#54 | 40:13 to 40:49 | cleaned
And that's exactly what California did in 1849. And then New Mexico was about to do the same and all of a sudden you had once again an upsetting of this delicate balance of power between the states. And so even in 1850, secession then began to receive a serious hearing in the South. Listen to what Congressman Robert Toombs of Georgia said, and by the way, Toombs County is named after him. Congressman Robert Toombs of Georgia before a convention in 1850 said this, quote, "I do not then hesitate to avow before this house and the country and in the presence of the living God, that if by your legislation you seek to drive us from the territories of California and New Mexico, purchased by the common blood and treasure of the whole people, and to abolish slavery in this district, thereby attempting to fix a national degradation upon the half of the slaves of this Confederacy, I am for disunion." That was in 1850. Now, what stopped the war from happening in 1850?
#55 | 40:49 to 42:01 | cleaned
Well, once again, the Union was saved by compromise because Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun worked out what is known as the Compromise of 1850. However, it was Stephen A. Douglas who actually pushed it through the House because some of these men died shortly thereafter. In fact, John C. Calhoun died 27 days afterwards, but before he died, he went to the house, and he made this statement.
#56 | 42:03 to 42:32 | cleaned
Listen to what he said. John C. Calhoun, an ironclad southerner, said this. "The overbearing North," he warned, "was snapping the ties of the Union one after another. It cannot be saved by eulogies on the Union, however splendid or numerous. They cried, 'Union! Union! The glorious Union!' can no more prevent disunion than the cry of 'help, help, glorious help' on the part of a physician can save a patient lying seriously ill." Now listen to what he says. "Only the North, politically stronger, could save a union by agreeing to a full and final settlement on the principle of justice of all the questions at issue between the two sections. Failing that, let the states we both represent agree to separate and part in peace. And if you're unwilling that we should part in peace, tell us so, and we shall know what to do when you reduce the question to submission or resistance." So John C. Calhoun said, look, the North is politically stronger. He said, if you want to settle this issue, let's settle it.
#57 | 42:32 to 43:49 | cleaned
You just do what is right. You do what is just. And we can settle the issue right now. I want you to understand once again, the issue is power. The issue is control. The issue is who will rule. Will there be an elite? Will there be a sectarian? Or will there be a sectional control of the country?
#58 | 43:49 to 44:12 | cleaned
Now I'm going to give you, in just a few moments, the fullest and the most absolute proof that the war of 1861 to 1865 was not over slavery. It is true that slavery was an issue used later in the war. It is equally true that the abolitionists, who were few in number, pushed for the abolition of slavery, but the war was not over slavery at all. It was about power and control. Now let me begin to give you what I'm going to call the absolute proof that the war is not over slavery, or wasn't over slavery.
#59 | 44:15 to 45:02 | cleaned
At the opening session of the second session of the 36th Congress of December of 1860, President Buchanan recommended in his annual messages right before Lincoln took over, three explanatory amendments needed to be added to the Constitution on the subject of slavery. Here's what President Buchanan recommended. The first was an expressed recognition of the right of property in slaves. The second declared the duty of protecting this right in the territories.
#60 | 45:03 to 45:41 | cleaned
And the third recognized the validity of the Fugitive Slave Law. Now that's another issue and I'm not going to deal with that, but here the President said we need to have amendments to the Constitution that's going to deal with this issue and resolve the conflict between the North and the South. Now there were numerous resolutions offered to end the crisis, but the South preferred to secede rather than to consider anything that was not near a unanimous vote. Why? Because if something passed that was not a unanimous vote, the southern states realized it would only be a matter of time before they were facing the same exact issue again. And why keep fighting over the same thing? You're either going to resolve it or you're not going to resolve it. Well, most of the resolutions that were offered either, number one, declared that Congress should have no jurisdiction over slavery, or number two, that Congress should not interfere with slavery within the states, or number three, that Congress must recognize that the regulations of the right to labor service was exclusively the right of each
#61 | 45:42 to 46:54 | cleaned
state. Now, the Crittenden Amendment and the Peace Convention resolutions contained such articles. Let me give you, and I'm going to show it to you, a copy of Senate Resolution 54. This came from the 32nd Congress, the second session, and of course this is verified from the Library of Congress as an actual copy and also the next one that I'm going to show you. And I might add this, I received these from Roger Davenport. But Roger Davenport received these from a black man who understood what the war was all about and he was trying to prove to other black folks that the war was not over slavery but it was over control. And so he took it upon himself to write the Library of Congress and get this documentation and they sent it to him. And so Roger then got a copy of it and sent it to me. So here it is, the Joint Resolution, SR 54, known also as the Crittenden Resolutions.
#62 | 46:54 to 48:15 | cleaned
And the date of this is January the 3rd, 1861. Now remember, the war didn't break out until April the 12th. So this is January the 3rd, 1861. I'm going to read just a little bit of this. "Joint Resolutions. Proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of the United States, whereas serious and alarming dissensions have arisen between the northern and southern states concerning the rights and security of the rights of the slave-holding states, and especially their rights in the common territory of the United States, and whereas it is eminently desirable and proper that those dissensions which now threaten the very existence of this Union should be permanently quieted and settled by constitutional provisions which shall do equal justice to all sections and thereby restore to the people that peace and goodwill which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the United States. Therefore," and then we begin with the resolutions. I'm going to just read several of them briefly.
#63 | 48:16 to 49:22 | cleaned
Article 1, here's the first resolution. "In all territories of the United States, now held or hereafter acquired, situate north of latitude 36 degrees and 30 minutes, slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime, is prohibited, while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all the territories south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress, but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance."
#64 | 49:22 to 50:02 | cleaned
Now, I'm skipping on down. So here it is stating, look, we're going to recognize in the South there is going to be slavery. Here's Article 2. "Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction and situate within the limits of states that permit the holding of slaves." What? Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery. Article 3. "Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia."
#65 | 50:02 to 50:36 | cleaned
That may surprise you, but there were slave markets in Washington, D.C. Many slaves bought and sold in Washington, D.C. in the nation's capital. So Article 3 says, "Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia so long as it exists in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor without the consent of the inhabitants, nor without just compensation first made to such owners of slaves as do consent to its abolishment."
#66 | 50:36 to 51:08 | cleaned
So they said, all right. Congress cannot abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and those who do consent are going to be paid for their slaves. Listen to Article 4. "Congress shall have no power to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one state to another, or to a territory in which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by land, navigable rivers, or by sea." And then Article 5, I'm going to skip that. But listen to Article 6.
#67 | 51:08 to 51:38 | cleaned
"No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding Articles." Did you hear that? No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding Articles. I'm going to skip down. "And no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the states by whose law it is or may be allowed or permitted."
#68 | 51:38 to 52:05 | cleaned
Now, how much plainer can you get? Let me read the last resolution. "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the laws now enforced for the recovery of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and mandatory provisions of the Constitution and have been sanctioned as valid and constitutional by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States," and then goes right on. So here then was House Bill or Senate Bill 54 which says, look, we're not going to interfere with the slaves in the South. The South can have their slaves.
#69 | 52:07 to 52:50 | cleaned
Now, this was just one of numerous resolutions. Now, for some time, no agreement was reached on these resolutions.
#70 | 52:52 to 53:04 | cleaned
Finally, the House Select Committee reported on February 27, 1861, a resolution of its own. And I want you to listen to this resolution. It's very brief. The House Select Committee, February 27, 1861. Here's their resolution. "No amendment of this Constitution having for its object any interference within the States with the relation between their citizens and those described in Section 2 of the First Article of the Constitution as 'all other persons,' shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union." There. Did you understand that?
#71 | 53:06 to 53:49 | cleaned
Now, maybe this is because there's lawyers around 1861 as well. But let me tell you what it says, then I'm going to tell you what happened to it. What it said was basically this. There can be no amendment to the Constitution to interfere with slavery within the states where slavery exists. And no non-slave-holding state can interfere with a slave-holding state without the consent of every state in the union.
#72 | 53:51 to 54:26 | cleaned
Now let me ask you a question. Do you think any southern state then is going to give its consent for a northern state to interfere in its state's business? And the answer is absolutely no. Well, here's what happened. When that resolution was offered, Thomas Corwin of Ohio offered a substitute. He offered H.R. 80. What he said was, boys, what you've come up with is good, but it's just very difficult to understand.
#73 | 54:28 to 55:12 | cleaned
So let's put it in plain everyday language. This is March the 1st, 1861. Here is the Corwin Resolution. "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give 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." Isn't that simple? Congress shall not have the power. I can't believe here was a Yankee congressman putting it in black and white and yet preserving states' rights and says, Congress, you do not have the power. Now, are you ready? This amendment passed the House 133 to 65. This amendment on March 2nd passed the Senate 24 to 12. It passed in the House and in the Senate, and on the same day it received the unnecessary approval of the President. Illinois, Ohio, and Maryland ratified this amendment.
#74 | 55:14 to 56:33 | cleaned
Other states just simply did not act upon it, only because it was not regarded as a sufficient concession to hold the southern states, which had not seceded, and much less get those back that had seceded. Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. Here's a resolution that passed the House and passed the Senate that says 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. Now, if that's not sufficient, later in 1861, in a last-ditch effort, Abraham Lincoln proposed this as the 13th amendment to the Constitution. This was the only amendment proposed and signed by a sitting president. Here was the 13th amendment that President Abraham Lincoln wanted. "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," exactly the same as the Corwin Resolution.
#75 | 56:34 to 58:21 | cleaned
Now here's my question. If slavery, and only slavery, was the issue, if the North was really, truly fighting to free the slaves, why did they say otherwise? Why did a northern congressman and a northern president offer an amendment to the Constitution that would forever prohibit Congress from either abolishing or interfering with slavery? And here's my other question, folks. If the South was really and truly fighting to preserve their peculiar institution, to preserve slavery,
#76 | 58:22 to 59:05 | cleaned
why fight when someone's giving you what you want? The North said, here, you can have your slaves. Keep them. We don't want them. We won't interfere. We will never abolish slavery. But you see, folks, the issue was not over slavery. It was over power and control.
#77 | 59:06 to 59:35 | cleaned
Now, I ran across some amazing material in my studies in the last several weeks, which brought me to this real startling conclusion, which I'm going to preach on next week. The more things change, the more they remain the same. The issue, even today, is still over power and control. And when fallen men abuse and usurp and steal power that does not belong to them, it's only so that they may play God themselves and try to create their own utopia and their own little kingdom. Power belongs unto God. And when God delegates power, He does so to be exercised within certain limitations, within certain boundaries. As God said to the sea, "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further." So likewise, God says to all of His delegated authorities, "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further." Let's pray.
#78 | 59:36 to 1:00:56 | cleaned
Father, we ask in the name of Jesus Christ, for Your grace and Your mercy. We ask, Lord, that You would help us, that You would give us understanding, that You would teach us, that You would build us up in the most holy faith, and enable us, Father, to worship and serve Thee acceptably with reverence and godly fear. Give us wisdom to know what to do in this day and time. In Christ's name we pray. Amen.
#79 | 1:00:57 to 1:01:25 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-05T20:01:47Z

The Desire For Power #1

John Weaver | Freedom Ministries

John Weaver argues that all power belongs to God and is only delegated to men, who often abuse it. Using Psalm 62:11 as a foundation, he contends that the root sin of power-hunger leads to conflict. The bulk of the sermon is a historical argument that the American Civil War was not primarily about slavery but about power and control between the North and South, evidenced by constitutional amendments proposed to protect slavery permanently.

Introduction: Power Belongs to God

Reading of Psalm 62, emphasizing verse 11 that power belongs to God. All human authority is delegated and accountable to God.

Alright, Psalm 62. Psalm 62. And let's read the entire Psalm. Only 12 short verses. Psalm 62, verse 1. David says,

Scripture Reading — Psalm 62:1-12

"Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. How long will ye imagine mischief against a man? ye shall be slain all of you: as a bowing wall shall ye be, and as a tottering fence. They only consult to cast him down from his excellency."

The Abuse of Delegated Authority

Fallen man corrupts delegated power, seeking to usurp God's place. The desire for power is a root sin causing conflict.

Scripture Reading — Psalm 62:3-4

"How long will ye imagine mischief against a man?" "Ye shall be slain all of you: as a bowing wall shall ye be, and as a tottering fence. They only consult to cast him down from his excellency: they delight in lies: they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly."

Turn back in your Bibles to Psalm 2. Look at Psalm 2, and let's begin reading there with verse 1. Psalm 2, verse 1. David asks a very simple question. He asks,

Scripture Reading — Psalm 2:1-3

"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?"

Remember, a vain thing is something that is useless, worthless. So why do the people imagine a vain thing? Now watch.

Scripture Reading — Psalm 2:1-3

"The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us."

Now, do you remember the temptation in Genesis chapter 3 and verse 5? Do you remember what the serpent said? He asked a simple question.

Scripture Reading — Genesis 3:5

"Doth thou not know? Doth thou not know that the day that you eat this fruit, you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Historical Myth: The Civil War and Slavery

Challenges the politically correct view that the Civil War was fought over slavery, asserting it was about power and control.

Power and the Constitutional Convention

The Constitution was designed to balance power between large and small states, including compromises on slavery for political balance.

The Three-Fifths Clause and Political Balance

The Three-Fifths Clause was a power-balancing measure, not a moral statement on slavery. Northern opposition was about political control.

Territorial Expansion and the Power Struggle

The Missouri Compromise, Wilmot Proviso, and debates over new territories were about containing Southern political influence, not slavery.

Secession Threats and Compromise of 1850

Southern leaders threatened disunion over denial of equal access to territories, leading to the Compromise of 1850.

Absolute Proof: Proposed Constitutional Amendments

The Crittenden Resolutions and Corwin Amendment, which would have permanently protected slavery, prove the war was not about slavery.

Conclusion: The Ongoing Issue of Power

The issue remains power and control. Fallen men abuse delegated authority to play God. Power belongs to God and must be exercised within His limits.

The Desire For Power #1

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	112502142844
Subject	Civil Government
Course	Civil Government: Power, Nations, and Constitutional Order: Where We Are & How We Got Here
Genre	Sermon
Date	2002-07-21
Dictation Name
Book	Book 021: The Desire For Power — Chapter 1
Source Timed Segments	79

Lecture Guide

Outline

Introduction: Power Belongs to God: Reading of Psalm 62, emphasizing verse 11 that power belongs to God. All human authority is delegated and accountable to God.
The Abuse of Delegated Authority: Fallen man corrupts delegated power, seeking to usurp God's place. The desire for power is a root sin causing conflict.
Historical Myth: The Civil War and Slavery: Challenges the politically correct view that the Civil War was fought over slavery, asserting it was about power and control.
Power and the Constitutional Convention: The Constitution was designed to balance power between large and small states, including compromises on slavery for political balance.
The Three-Fifths Clause and Political Balance: The Three-Fifths Clause was a power-balancing measure, not a moral statement on slavery. Northern opposition was about political control.
Territorial Expansion and the Power Struggle: The Missouri Compromise, Wilmot Proviso, and debates over new territories were about containing Southern political influence, not slavery.
Secession Threats and Compromise of 1850: Southern leaders threatened disunion over denial of equal access to territories, leading to the Compromise of 1850.
Absolute Proof: Proposed Constitutional Amendments: The Crittenden Resolutions and Corwin Amendment, which would have permanently protected slavery, prove the war was not about slavery.
Conclusion: The Ongoing Issue of Power: The issue remains power and control. Fallen men abuse delegated authority to play God. Power belongs to God and must be exercised within His limits.

Major Themes

Key Arguments

All power is delegated by God

Human authority is not inherent but given by God, and those who hold it are accountable to Him.

Psalm 62:11; Romans 13:1; Daniel 2:21, 37. 'Promotion cometh neither from the east... but God is the judge.'

Fallen man inevitably abuses power

Sinful humans are power-hungry and seek to control others, ultimately trying to replace God.

Psalm 62:3-4; Psalm 2:1-3; Genesis 3:5. 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely' applies to sinners.

The Civil War was a power struggle, not a moral crusade

The North's actions, including proposed constitutional amendments to protect slavery, prove the war was about control, not emancipation.

Lincoln's initial war aim was preserving the Union. The Corwin Amendment would have forbidden Congress from abolishing slavery.

The Three-Fifths Clause was a political compromise

The clause was designed to balance representation between North and South, not to dehumanize slaves.

It counted slaves for population to give the South more House seats, offsetting Northern population advantage.

Northern opposition to slavery expansion was racially motivated

Northern politicians sought to keep blacks out of territories to preserve them for white settlers, not to end slavery.

Congressman David Wilmot: 'The Negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent... keep what remains for ourselves.'

The South seceded over loss of political power

Southern leaders threatened disunion when they perceived an irreversible loss of influence in the federal government.

Robert Toombs in 1850: 'if by your legislation you seek to drive us from the territories... I am for disunion.'

Constitutional amendments offered to protect slavery were rejected

The South rejected permanent constitutional guarantees for slavery because the real issue was political control, not slavery itself.

Crittenden Resolutions and Corwin Amendment passed Congress but were not ratified by enough states; South had already seceded.

The abuse of delegated authority continues today

Modern political struggles are still about power and control, as fallen men seek to usurp God's authority.

The more things change, the more they remain the same. Power belongs to God and must be exercised within His limits.

Scripture References

Psalm 62:1-12: The entire Psalm is read, emphasizing God as the source of salvation and power.
Psalm 62:11: Key verse: 'God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God.'
Psalm 75:6-7: Promotion comes from God; He puts down one and sets up another.
Romans 13:1: The powers that be are ordained of God.
Daniel 2:21: God changes times and seasons, removes kings and sets up kings.
Daniel 2:37: God gave Nebuchadnezzar his kingdom, power, strength, and glory.
Psalm 62:3-4: Describes the abuse of power: imagining mischief, delighting in lies, blessing with mouth but cursing inwardly.
Psalm 37:35: David saw the wicked in great power, spreading like a green bay tree.
Psalm 2:1-3: Kings and rulers take counsel against the Lord and His anointed, seeking to break their bands.
Genesis 3:5: The serpent's temptation: 'ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.'
1 Timothy 6:10: The love of money is the root of all evil; money represents power.

Historical References

American Civil War (1861-1865): Argued to be a war over power and control, not slavery. Lincoln's initial aim was preserving the Union.
Emancipation Proclamation: Issued by Lincoln as a political expedient after battlefield losses; did not free a single slave.
Constitutional Convention of 1787: Delegates met to overhaul Articles of Confederation but created the Constitution, focusing on power balance.
Three-Fifths Clause: Constitutional compromise counting slaves as three-fifths of a person for representation, balancing North-South power.
Missouri Compromise (1820): Admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state to maintain Senate balance.
Wilmot Proviso (1846): Proposed banning slavery in territories acquired from Mexico, seen as a Northern power play.
Compromise of 1850: Series of bills brokered by Clay, Webster, and Calhoun to resolve territorial and slavery disputes.
Crittenden Resolutions (1861): Proposed constitutional amendments to protect slavery permanently; passed Congress but not ratified.
Corwin Amendment (1861): Proposed 13th Amendment forbidding Congress from abolishing slavery; passed Congress, endorsed by Lincoln.
Mexican-American War (1846-1848): Acquisition of new territories intensified the power struggle over slavery's expansion.

Important Quotes

Power belongeth unto God.

The foundational scripture for the sermon, establishing God's sole ownership of power.

Promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.

Reinforces that all authority is delegated by God.

How long will ye imagine mischief against a man? ye shall be slain all of you: as a bowing wall shall ye be, and as a tottering fence.

Illustrates the abuse and corruption of delegated power.

They only consult to cast him down from his excellency: they delight in lies: they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly.

Shows the deceitful nature of power-hungry rulers.

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.

The Corwin Amendment text, proving the North was willing to permanently protect slavery to preserve the Union.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Concluding observation that the struggle for power is timeless.

Discussion Questions

[Question]

How does understanding that all power belongs to God change the way we view human authority?

[Context]

Based on Psalm 62:11 and the concept of delegated authority.

[Question]

In what ways do we see the abuse of delegated authority in our own lives or society?

[Context]

From the description of fallen man's corruption of power in Psalm 62:3-4.

[Question]

Why is the desire for power considered a root sin, and how does it manifest today?

[Context]

Connection to Genesis 3:5 and the temptation to be like God.

[Question]

How does the historical evidence presented challenge the common narrative about the Civil War?

[Context]

The argument that the war was about power, not slavery, supported by the Corwin Amendment.

[Question]

What can we learn from the constitutional compromises about balancing power in a fallen world?

[Context]

The design of the Bicameral Congress and Three-Fifths Clause as power-balancing measures.

[Question]

How should Christians respond when they see power being abused or usurped?

[Context]

Application of the principle that power belongs to God and must be exercised within His limits.

[Question]

What does it mean to 'play God' in our personal lives, and how can we guard against it?

[Context]

The tendency of fallen man to seek to determine good and evil for himself.

[Question]

How does the love of money relate to the desire for power, according to 1 Timothy 6:10?

[Context]

Money as a means to gain power, control, and manipulation.

Applications

Format deepseek deepseek-v4-pro structured study JSON | Source Commentary.net transcript enrichment

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T12:42:38Z