Clean Transcript

Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation

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

• And I'm going to be sharing some things with you. Probably some of you have never heard in your entire life. We have been fed so much propaganda, been brainwashed so much, we have not even realized it. And the interesting thing is, once you begin researching and finding truth for yourself, it just staggers the mind. And the very first thing you want to do is reject what you know is the truth. But then after you think about it and reread it and think about it some more, you begin to say, well, you know, I've just been taught wrong.

  #1 | 0:00 to 0:33 | cleaned

• That's all there is to it, because here it is in black and white. Well, the Bible tells us in John 8, beginning there with verse 32, that our Lord said this: "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." They answered him, "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man. How sayest thou, You shall be made free?" Jesus answered them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house forever, but the Son abideth forever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, you shall be free indeed."

  #2 | 0:33 to 1:08 | cleaned

• Abraham Lincoln is not the great emancipator. Jesus Christ is, and Jesus Christ alone, because only Christ can free men from their sins. I hope you understand that physical freedom is not real freedom anyhow. You see, one may be free physically and yet be chained and controlled and enslaved by his own lusts and sin. That's what Jesus Christ eventually told these Pharisees in John 8 in verse 44.

  #3 | 1:09 to 1:38 | cleaned

• He said, "You are of your father, the devil, and the lust of your father you will do." They had just gotten out of their mouths, telling him, "We be Abraham's seed. We were never in bondage to any man." And he said, "You are of your father, the devil, and the lust of your father, you will do." You see, it is only Jesus Christ that enables man to be really and truly free.

  #4 | 1:38 to 2:01 | cleaned

• In fact, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, beginning there with verse 20, the Word of God says, "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called." Now listen to what our Lord says. "Art thou called being a servant?" or being a slave? "Care not for it." In other words, it doesn't matter. "Care not for it, but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant" or slave, "is the Lord's free man. And likewise, he that is called, being free, is Christ's slave." So he says it really doesn't matter whether you're a slave or whether you're free. If you are a slave and you're in Christ, you've been made free in Him. If you may get your freedom, use it rather. But he said, if you're already free and you're in Christ, then you become a slave to Jesus Christ.

  #5 | 2:01 to 2:48 | cleaned

• Now, all down through history, Abraham Lincoln has been known as the great emancipator, but he's only been known as the great emancipator to the historically ignorant and the politically correct crowd. He's always presented as a good-hearted, concerned, and gracious benefactor of black people. He is adored and practically worshipped by those who do not know the truth. However, in recent years, the veneer of his deity has begun to crack, and some have recognized Abraham Lincoln for exactly what he was. They've not only found out and discovered that he is not really a savior, but they've also discovered he was never, ever an emancipator anyhow. Now, Dr. Rood later is going to be discussing the subject "Was Abraham Lincoln a Christian," and I'm certainly not going to try to get into his talk, but let me just begin by telling you a story that happened to a friend of mine, Dr. Gary Roper. Dr. Roper has a ministry where he goes by many of these minute markets and he puts out good Christian books and historically accurate books.

  #6 | 2:48 to 3:55 | cleaned

• And he was in one minute market and he was putting out some of these books and one of them was entitled "Stonewall Jackson, the Christian." And when the lady behind the cash register saw the book, she said, "Oh, Stonewall Jackson, the Christian." She said, "I didn't know Stonewall Jackson was a Christian. I knew Abraham Lincoln was." Dr. Roper said, "Well, there's a difference between the two." She said, "What is it?" He said, "Well, Stonewall Jackson was a Christian practically all of his life. Lincoln never became one until 50 years after his death." Well, you understand what I mean when I say, when those who really do not know the facts begin to praise and recognize him as the great emancipator. But let me give you an illustration of how the veneer is really beginning to crack.

  #7 | 3:55 to 4:53 | cleaned

• In the February 2000 issue of Ebony Magazine, and Ebony Magazine is a black magazine designed for blacks. In this magazine, it carried an article by a black man, Bennett Larone, Jr. And here is what he had to say concerning the Emancipation Proclamation and Abraham Lincoln. In fact, the headline says, "New book says most famous act in American history never happened." Now, here's what Bennett Larone, Jr. wrote.

  #8 | 4:54 to 5:25 | cleaned

• "The presidential campaign of 1860 was over. And the victor was stretching his legs and shaking off the cares of the world in his temporary office in the state capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Surrounded by the perks of power, at peace with the world, the president-elect was regaling old acquaintances with tall tales about his early days as a politician. One of the visitors interrupted this monologue and remarked that it was a shame that the vexatious slavery matter would be the first question of public policy the new president would have to deal with in Washington."

  #9 | 5:26 to 6:03 | cleaned

• Now please remember I'm quoting. I'm going to be giving you the exact words of what were said in the conversation. "The president-elect's eyes twinkled as he was reminded of a story. According to the eyewitness, Henry Villiard, President-elect Abraham Lincoln told the story of a Kentucky Justice of the Peace whose first case was a criminal prosecution for abuse of slaves. Unable to find any precedent, he exclaimed angrily, 'I will be damned if I don't feel almost sorry for being elected when the niggers is the first thing I have to attend to.' This story," he says, "shocking as it may sound to Lincoln admirers, was in character. For the president-elect never showed any sincere sympathy for blacks, and none of his cronies were surprised to hear him suggest that he shared the viewpoint of the reluctant and biased justice of the peace."

  #10 | 6:04 to 7:02 | cleaned

• "As for the N-word, everybody knew that old Abe used it all the time, both in public and in private. One of the supreme ironies of history, the man who told the story was forced by circumstances to attend what he called the nigger question. And within five years, he was enshrined in American mythology as the great emancipator who freed blacks with a stroke of a pen out of the goodness of his heart. Since that time, the mythology of the great emancipator has become part of the mental landscape of America."

  #11 | 7:03 to 7:37 | cleaned

• "Generations of school children have memorized its cadences. Poets, politicians, and long-suffering blacks have wept over its imagery and drama. No other story is so enduring. No other American story is so comforting. No other American story is so false. Abraham Lincoln was not the great emancipator." This is still the black man talking. "The testimony of 16,000 books and monographs to the country, contrary notwithstanding, Lincoln did not emancipate the slaves greatly or otherwise. As for the Emancipation Proclamation, it was not a real Emancipation Proclamation at all and did not liberate any African-American slaves. John F. Hume, the Missouri anti-slavery leader who heard Lincoln speak in Alton, Illinois, who looked him in the eye at the White House and said, 'The proclamation did not, whatever it may have otherwise accomplished at the time it was issued, did not liberate a single slave.'" End quote.

  #12 | 7:38 to 8:47 | cleaned

• Now that was the article in the Ebony magazine in the year 2000. Now, how in the world could a black man writing in a black magazine say that Abraham Lincoln is not the great emancipator and that he never freed any slaves? We must ask several questions. One of them is this. If Lincoln was really, genuinely interested in freeing the slaves, why did he wait until January 1, 1863 to make the proclamation effective? Did you know that the proclamation had actually been issued September the 13th, 1862? Why did he wait until January the 1st, 1863 to make it effective? And moreover, you can ask this question. If Lincoln was genuinely interested in freeing the slaves, why did he not do it the first day or the first week that he was in office? Why did he wait until three years down the line to issue an emancipation proclamation? We could further ask if Abraham Lincoln really and truly wanted freedom and equality for the slaves, why did he say the opposite?

  #13 | 8:48 to 10:04 | cleaned

• In fact, in a debate with Senator Stephen Douglas in 1858 in Ottawa, Illinois, here is exactly what Lincoln said, quote, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality. And inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

  #14 | 10:05 to 10:40 | cleaned

• "I have never said anything to the contrary." Abraham Lincoln. By the way, I hope sometimes you will read some of the debates between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln. Now, Stephen Douglas was a little man. In fact, his nickname was the Little Giant. Although he was small in stature, he was giant in other ways. And in one debate with Abraham Lincoln, he was getting the best of Abraham Lincoln, and then Lincoln became so frustrated, he looked at little Douglas and said, "Why, I ought to reach over, just gobble you up and swallow you right down." Douglas said, "Bless God, if you did, you'd have more brains in your stomach than you got in your head." Well, and those two certainly went at each other. But Abraham Lincoln said more than just this in the debate with Stephen Douglas in Ottawa, Illinois. On September the 18th, 1858, in a speech in Charleston, Illinois, Lincoln said this: "I will say then that I am not now nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races."

  #15 | 10:40 to 11:55 | cleaned

• "That I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and the black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." Did Lincoln believe a black man was his equal?

  #16 | 11:56 to 12:43 | cleaned

• And the answer is no. Was he concerned about the slaves? And the answer is no. Do you realize in Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said this: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." So Lincoln, in his first inaugural, said, "I'm not going to mess with the slaves. I don't have any right to. I have no inclination to do so." Later on, when Abraham Lincoln wrote Horace Greeley, he said this: "My paramount object is to save the union and not either to destroy or save slavery. If I could save the union without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the union by freeing some and leaving others in slavery, I would do it. If I could save the union by freeing all, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the union."

  #17 | 12:43 to 13:52 | cleaned

• Now, those are Lincoln's own words. He said, "I have no desire to free the blacks. I have no desire necessarily to keep them in bondage. Whatever I do is not for their benefit, but it is for my benefit and what I believe will save the Union." Now, General Don Piatt, who was one of Lincoln's friends and who traveled with Lincoln a great deal, knew him intimately. And here's what General Don Piatt said: "Lincoln knew well that the North was not fighting to free the slaves, nor was the South fighting to preserve slavery. In that awful conflict, slavery went to pieces." So here General Don Piatt is saying Lincoln knew that slavery was not the issue.

  #18 | 13:53 to 14:34 | cleaned

• And let me tell you, before I get through today, I'm going to show you so much documentation, it might blow your socks off. But many people do not even know that General Ulysses S. Grant, when he was a colonel of the 21st Illinois Infantry, expressed himself rather plainly on what he called the Negro question. Listen to what General Grant, while he was a colonel, said, quote, "The sole object of this war is to restore the Union."

  #19 | 14:35 to 15:05 | cleaned

• "Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and as a soldier, I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side." That was General Ulysses S. Grant. He said, "If I am convinced that the North is fighting just to free the blacks, I will resign my commission and I'll carry my sword to the other side."

  #20 | 15:06 to 15:41 | cleaned

• So very obviously, those who were in positions of authority understood that the war was not over slavery. On another occasion, President Lincoln said this: "We didn't go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back. To act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack a bad faith." Now, those are the words of Abraham Lincoln. He said, "I didn't begin the war to end slavery. I didn't begin the war to put down slavery."

  #21 | 15:42 to 16:17 | cleaned

• Now, I could multiply quotes, but I'm sure that it should be painfully obvious that neither Lincoln nor those around him gave a hoot for the black man. Generally speaking, they were not concerned over the slavery question. So you've got to ask yourself this question. How did slavery become an issue? What in the world fomented or brought to light what Lincoln thought was necessity for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation? Now, before I answer that question for you, I want you to understand that Lincoln at one time also offered that if the seceded states would come back into the Union before a certain time, that they would be allowed to keep the slaves. And I also remind you this, that there was a proposed 13th Amendment, which Lincoln endorsed, and that proposed constitutional amendment would allow the states to keep their slaves, are you listening now, and would say that the federal government had absolutely no authority and no power to interfere in any state with the domestic

  #22 | 16:17 to 17:36 | cleaned

• institutions thereof or those held to servitude. And may I point out that proposed 13th Amendment was passed not only by the House of Representatives, but also passed by the Senate on March the 12th, 1861. So if the South had been fighting over slavery and to keep their slaves, why would they even begin the war? Why would Beauregard fire on Fort Sumter on April the 12th if the war is over slavery when it's being handed to them on a silver platter? You see, slavery was not the issue. Slavery was certainly not the problem.

  #23 | 17:36 to 18:18 | cleaned

• And I want to point out the fact that Abraham Lincoln knew and others knew that when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, that he did not have the constitutional authority to do so, nor did he have any other authority to do so. The Northern Historian, Rhodes, Volume 4, page 213, says this: "There was, as everyone knows, no authority for the proclamation in the letter of the Constitution, nor was there any statute that warranted it." So Lincoln had no constitutional authority to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, nor did he have a statute to back it up. Lincoln himself, which I shall read to you in his own words, but Lincoln himself maintained that the proclamation was merely a war measure and not a real attempt at emancipation. In a letter to Secretary of the Treasury, Simon P. Chase, he admitted that the original proclamation had no legal justification except as a war measure.

  #24 | 18:19 to 19:22 | cleaned

• Here is what he said on September the 3rd, 1863: "The Emancipation Proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification except as a war measure." Those are the words of Abraham Lincoln. He said, "I didn't have the authority constitutionally. I didn't have the authority statutorily. The only possible use it could have is that as a war measure." So Lincoln knew, therefore, he did not have any constitutional authority. He knew he did not have any statutory authority to issue the proclamation. The only possible, the only possible authority that he could have happened to come from the Act of Congress, July 17, 1862, when Congress said, quote, "that the President may employ, organize, and use as many persons of African descent as he pleases to suppress the rebellion and use them as he judges for the public welfare." Now, the only possible source of legitimacy for the proclamation was the power to seize the property of the belligerents. But may I remind you of something? Congress did not have the power to give away that which they did not own.

  #25 | 19:22 to 20:48 | cleaned

• Congress does not possess the power to give away that which is not theirs. The slaves did not belong to Congress. They belong to people in the South. I want you to understand something. Just simply because Congress does not own anything or does not have any private property of its own, that does not stop them from giving away your private property. They did it back when and they still do it today. And of course, they're still trying to redistribute the wealth exactly the way they did back then.

  #26 | 20:49 to 21:28 | cleaned

• Now, let me make a statement. It may surprise you, but I'm going to document it for you. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves, not one. Not one. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves that Mrs. Lincoln owned. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves that General Grant owned. And by the way, General Robert E. Lee released his slaves before the war ever began and gave them their freedom. General Grant kept his slaves long after the war was over under the pretense that when someone asked him why he had not freed them, his answer was, "Good help is hard to find." So the Emancipation Proclamation did not free Mrs. Lincoln's slaves, nor General Grant's slaves, nor did it free any slaves in the northern states. And there were slaves there still. Nor did it free any slaves in the southern states where the Union armies were in dominance and the territory was under their control and authority. Now, unhappily, most people have never even read the Emancipation Proclamation, don't even know what it says.

  #27 | 21:28 to 22:57 | cleaned

• I want to read to you just a portion of the Emancipation Proclamation. Listen carefully. Here are the words.

  #28 | 22:58 to 23:07 | cleaned

• "Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States by virtue of the power in me vested as commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States." Let me stop right there. I'm going to come back and reread that. But I want you to note what he said. "In a time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and the government of the United States." If I were to ask you today, what is the authority of the United States?

  #29 | 23:07 to 23:48 | cleaned

• You know what it is? It's the Constitution. The Constitution is our covenantal agreement between the states and the federal government. It's that Constitution that defines and delineates the power of the federal government. Was the South fighting against the authority of the United States? And the answer is no, because you remember yesterday I told you the very first act of the Confederate Congress in the very first provisional Confederate Constitution was to adopt the Constitution of the United States in its entirety unless it was repealed or in conflict with the Confederate Constitution. The South was not fighting against the authority of the United States because the authority of the United States was the Constitution. Here's what he says: "Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said

  #30 | 23:50 to 25:04 | cleaned

• rebellion, do this first day of January in the year of our Lord 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaim for the full period of 100 days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the states and parts of states wherein the people thereof respectively are this day in rebellion against the United States," and then he starts naming places that are excepted. Do you realize the only place where Lincoln was trying to free the slaves was in the states over which he did not have power, he did not have authority, he did not have control, nor did the Union Army have control. He was not trying to free them in the north, nor in the sections in the south where his army did control. And then he goes on to say this in the Emancipation Proclamation: "and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued." What did he get through saying after he says, "Here's the parts that they're freed in," all the other parts are left as if this Emancipation Proclamation had never been issued.

  #31 | 25:05 to 26:24 | cleaned

• And in this paragraph: "And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated states and parts of states are and henceforward shall be free; and that the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons." Now, let me ask, why in the world would Lincoln endeavor to free the slaves where he had no authority to do so? Why in the world would he seek to free slaves over which he had absolutely no control?

  #32 | 26:26 to 27:08 | cleaned

• Well, let him answer it himself. "As a fit military measure." That's what he said. "As a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing." The only reason the Emancipation Proclamation was issued was it was a war measure. It was really and truly never intended to free the slaves, except to use them against their masters inside a rebellion so that they may help the North defeat the South.

  #33 | 27:09 to 27:51 | cleaned

• Now, on several occasions, Abraham Lincoln explained his reasons for issuing the proclamation. On September the 13th, 1862, the day after or the same day as the preliminary proclamation was issued, Lincoln met with a delegation of abolitionist Christian ministers, that is, those Christians supposedly who were for abolition. And here is what he told these preachers bluntly: "Understand, I raise no objection against it," that is slavery. "Understand, I raise no objection against slavery on legal or constitutional grounds."

  #34 | 27:52 to 28:35 | cleaned

• "I view the matter," that is emancipation, "as a practical war measure to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." Did you hear what he just said? He said, "I have no objections against slavery, especially on a constitutional basis." How could he, because the Constitution sanctions slavery? He said, "The only thing that I'm issuing this proclamation for is for a war measure that I can defeat those whom I believe are my enemy." Now, why did he issue that proclamation January 1, 1863? Well, militarily speaking, the war had not been going well for the North. First Manassas was a colossal defeat for the North. When 22,000 Confederates met and defeated 33,000 Northern troops and sent them packing back to Washington, it was a colossal embarrassment. When Stonewall Jackson had taken 16,000 Confederates and defeated 45,000 Union troops in the Shenandoah Valley, winning victory after victory over numerous Union generals, it was a profound embarrassment for Lincoln and his administration. When Robert E.

  #35 | 28:36 to 30:03 | cleaned

• Lee had defeated the Union armies in the Peninsula Campaign in 1862, once again, there was trouble brewing. And then the Battle of Shiloh forced the Union to retreat away from Richmond. The Battle of Sharpsburg was a stalemate, even though it was one of the bloodiest battles fought on American soil. But when the Battle of Fredericksburg happened in December 1862, it was a stunning defeat for the North. And the Grand Army of the Republic retreated once again.

  #36 | 30:03 to 30:32 | cleaned

• Now, all I'm trying to show you is this. Battle after battle after battle had been lost by the North. Lincoln was being defeated on every hand. And it looked as if the European powers were going to recognize the Confederacy. And if the European powers stepped in and helped the Confederacy, that would certainly be not only a slap in Lincoln's face, but probably ensure his defeat as well. One British observer, Earl Russell, commented in a letter on January 17, 1863, and he had this to say about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. He says, "The proclamation of the President of the United States appears to be of a very strange nature. It professes to emancipate all slaves in places where the United States authorities cannot exercise any jurisdiction. But it does not decree emancipation in any states or parts of states occupied by federal troops and where, therefore, emancipation might have been carried into effect. There seems to be no declaration of a principle adverse to slavery in this proclamation."

  #37 | 30:33 to 31:48 | cleaned

• "It is a measure of war and a measure of war of a questionable kind." So here, Earl Russell is saying, all the Emancipation Proclamation is, is a measure of war.

  #38 | 31:49 to 32:04 | cleaned

• Now, let me say this again. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was intended not to free the slaves per se, but only to cause the slaves to defect from the Southern armies. Because as you heard yesterday, as Dr. Rood talked about black Confederates, there were a multitude of black men who fought as soldiers for the Confederacy, who were teamsters, who were cooks, who were used to help build fortifications. Let me tell you, if these blacks defected from the Confederate Army, what a tremendous loss it would be. Moreover, do you realize if a slave rebellion had occurred in the South, the catastrophic effects it would have had upon the Confederate army.

  #39 | 32:04 to 32:59 | cleaned

• Let me put it to you like this. A thousand torches and a thousand black hands would have effectively emptied the Confederate lines. Because those Confederate soldiers would have come back home to defend their families and their property. But the very fact that there was no slave uprising, the very fact that there was no slave rebellion, speaks volumes for the relationship between the blacks and the whites in the South.

  #40 | 32:59 to 33:30 | cleaned

• As Dr. Rood pointed out yesterday, it was the blacks who were protecting the white women and children and the homes while the white men were usually away fighting. The anticipated effect of the Proclamation upon the South did not transpire, but everyone knew what Lincoln wanted. Lincoln wanted the slaves to rise up in rebellion and murder their masters. Listen to what the London Herald writes concerning the Emancipation Proclamation.

  #41 | 33:32 to 34:09 | cleaned

• "Another symptom of increasing ferocity. A new source of frightful crime on the one side and the provocation of horrible vengeance on the other is disclosed in the demand made in New York for the abolitionist proclamation. So far as the nominal purpose goes, this would be as futile as Mr. Lincoln's other edicts. Before he can emancipate the Southern Negroes, he must conquer the South. But the demand is not made with a view to the real liberation of the slaves."

  #42 | 34:11 to 34:42 | cleaned

• "It is meant to diminish the rebel army by calling away many officers and men in defense of their homes. The object is not Negro emancipation, but servile insurrection. Not the manumission of slaves, but the subornation of atrocities, such as those that Comorn and Marut against women and children of southern families. For the Negro, the Northerners care nothing except as a possible weapon in their hands, by which they may more safely and effectually wreak a cruel and cowardly vengeance upon the South. Inferior in every respect to the Sepoys, the Negro race, if once excited to rebellion, outdo them in acts of carnage, as they would fall below them in military courage. They may be useful as assassins and incendiaries; as soldiers against the dominant race."

  #43 | 34:43 to 35:37 | cleaned

• "They would be utterly worthless. Now, listen, these new abolitionists do not conceal their motives. They have not the decency to pretend conviction. They seek avowedly nothing but an instrument of vengeance on their enemy, and an instrument so dastardly, involving the commission of outrage, is so horrible that even a government which employs a Mitchell or a Butler must shrink from such a load of infamy." Those people in Europe knew the purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation.

  #44 | 35:38 to 36:12 | cleaned

• It was not to free the slaves. It was to create an insurrection and have the slaves murder their masters. Now listen. While the Emancipation Proclamation did not have its desired effect in the South, it did have an effect in the North. Most Northerners were aghast at the thought that they were fighting to emancipate the blacks in the South. In fact, they were so horrified that mobs attacked and killed blacks in many northern cities.

  #45 | 36:13 to 36:54 | cleaned

• Race riots broke out in full swing, not only in New York, but other places as well. Along with the Emancipation Proclamation was Lincoln's new conscription law. And that new conscription law infuriated northerners. They were not going to fight for the blacks. In fact, especially in New York, the New Yorkers began to randomly kill any and all blacks who got in their way. Colonel Arthur Fremantle of the British Army was an eyewitness to the riots in New York.

  #46 | 36:55 to 37:36 | cleaned

• Listen to what he wrote. He said: "The reports of outrages, hangings, and murder were now most alarming. The terror and the anxiety were universal. Now they're hanging blacks. All shops were now shut. All carriages and omnibuses had ceased running. No colored man or woman was visible or safe in the streets or even in his own dwelling. Telegraphs were cut. Railroad tracks torn up. The draft was suspended and the mob evidently had the upper hand."

  #47 | 37:36 to 38:10 | cleaned

• "The people who can't pay 300 bucks naturally hate being forced to fight in order to liberate the very race who they are most anxious should remain slaves. It is their direct interest not only that all slaves should remain slaves, but that the free northern Negroes who compete with them for labor should be sent to the South also."

  #48 | 38:11 to 38:34 | cleaned

• Now, here is a British observer, Colonel Arthur Fremantle, who is saying, look, they're randomly killing and hanging blacks everywhere in New York. They not only do not want the blacks freed, they want the free blacks there sent to the South as slaves. Listen to another report. We're talking about the riot in New York. "Violent mobs roamed the streets for days, viciously attacking police, affluent Republicans and blacks."

  #49 | 38:35 to 39:07 | cleaned

• "Rioters tore through expensive Republican homes on Lexington Avenue and took, or more often destroyed, pictures with gilt frames, elegant pier glasses, sofas, chairs, clocks, furniture of every kind. The mob set on fire to an orphanage for black children and began attacking black men and boys in the tenement district along downtown waterfront. Furthermore, anti-Republicanism remained the refrain of the violence as crowds returned to Horace Greeley's Tribune office. The building that housed Greeley's New York Tribune's office was set on fire. The mob then hanged a black man by the name of William Jones and burned his body."

  #50 | 39:08 to 39:47 | cleaned

• "Many other racially inspired and unspeakably violent murders occurred for the better part of a week." Now, you're talking about New Yorkers running crazy, murdering blacks, destroying the homes and the offices of those radical Republicans in Congress. What do you say, Brother Weaver, who stopped the riots? Well, Abraham Lincoln did. You say, well, how did he stop the riots? Well, very easily. He called five regiments of Union soldiers to New York to quell the riots, and they quelled them by shooting a thousand Northerners. Killing their own people.

  #51 | 39:48 to 40:31 | cleaned

• Let me give you something else the Emancipation Proclamation did to the North. And I'm quoting now Thomas DiLorenzo on page 45 of his book. He says, "The Emancipation Proclamation also caused a desertion crisis in the United States Army. At least 200,000 federal soldiers deserted. Another 120,000 evaded conscription, and at least 90,000 northern men fled to Canada to avoid the conscription, while thousands more hid out in the mountains of central Pennsylvania to place themselves beyond the reach of the enrollment offices."

  #52 | 40:34 to 41:12 | cleaned

• So, what were the Northerners doing? They were evading the draft. They said, "We're not going to fight to free the blacks."

  #53 | 41:14 to 41:21 | cleaned

• Now, many in the Federal Army who stayed harbored great resentment against the blacks, against Lincoln, and against the Emancipation Proclamation. Let me give you just a few quotes from some of the Union soldiers. One said this: "If emancipation is to be the policy of this war, I do not care how quickly the country goes to pot." A Massachusetts sergeant wrote in a letter that "if anyone thinks that this army is fighting to free the Negro, they're terribly mistaken."

  #54 | 41:21 to 41:54 | cleaned

• Another officer declared, "I don't want to fire another shot for the Negroes, and I wish that all the abolitionists were in hell. I do not fight, nor do I want to fight for Lincoln's Negro proclamation one day longer." So very obviously, they were quite upset at Abraham Lincoln. You see, Lincoln was dishonest. If you had heard those three lectures yesterday on who began the war, you have no question as to the dishonesty of Abraham Lincoln. He was dishonest. He was dishonorable. He was despicable.

  #55 | 41:55 to 42:31 | cleaned

• He was not interested in blacks. He was not interested in whites. He was not interested in the Constitution. He was only interested in the Whig program and establishing his own centralized program in Washington, D.C. He effectively destroyed our Republican form of government. He wanted to have a centralized bureaucracy like his idol, Henry Clay. Lincoln, however, condemned his own self in a lecture delivered at Springfield, Illinois, in 1837. The lecture is entitled "The Perpetuation of Our Free Institutions," and I want you to listen very carefully to about two paragraphs. It will astound you as to what Abraham Lincoln said.

  #56 | 42:31 to 43:25 | cleaned

• He begins: "If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and its finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all time or die by suicide. That will be the time when the usurper will put down his heel on the neck of the people and batter down the fair fabric of our institutions. Many great and good men may be found whose ambitions aspire no higher than a seat in Congress or a presidential chair."

  #57 | 43:26 to 43:55 | cleaned

• "But such belong not to the family of the lion or the tribe of the eagle. What? Think you that such places would satisfy an Alexander, a Caesar or Napoleon? Never."

  #58 | 43:56 to 44:08 | cleaned

• Now, listen to what he just said. If you're of the family of the lion, if you're the family of the eagle, a chair in Congress will not satisfy you. A presidential chair will not satisfy you. Never. "Towering ambition disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions unexplored. It seeks no grandeur in adding story to story upon the monuments already erected to the memory of others. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious."

  #59 | 44:08 to 44:40 | cleaned

• "It thirsts, it burns for distinction, and if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving free men." Did you hear what Lincoln said? Lincoln said, if you've got the thirst for power, you will never be satisfied with a presidential chair. You will have your power. You will have your way, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving free men. Lincoln did not emancipate the slaves, folks. He enslaved free men with his centralized, socialized, protectionist, and mercantilistic form of government. Abraham Lincoln did not free the slaves.

  #60 | 44:40 to 45:34 | cleaned

• He merely enlarged the plantation. We are now all slaves. Why? Because we no longer have our constitutional republic. We now have a centralized, bureaucratic, power-hungry, dictatorial democracy that steals from the working man and gives to the indolent, the criminal, the pervert and the enemies of liberty, freedom and righteousness.

  #61 | 45:34 to 46:00 | cleaned

• You see, folks, we are where we are today because of the policies of Abraham Lincoln. Let me close with one thought. One of my favorite texts of Scripture is found in the book of Proverbs, chapter 8. Our Lord says in verse 36, "All they that hate me love death." Do you realize, folks, any society, any culture, any government that is built on anything other than purity and truth and righteousness of the Word of God is nothing but a society and a culture and a government of death.

  #62 | 46:08 to 47:00 | cleaned

• That's all a fallen man can do. All he can do is give death. He cannot give life. One of my favorite words in the Greek language is to me absolutely hilarious. Everyone has heard of the communistic utopia or the socialistic utopia. You know, you hear that term utopia and you think of perfection and peace and liberty and tranquility and all this kind of stuff. I had three years of Greek. My first year of Greek, I ran across the word for utopia. I've never forgotten it. I've laughed over and over. Our English word utopia is made up of two Greek words. "Ou topos." "Topos" is the Greek word for place.

  #63 | 47:02 to 48:10 | cleaned

• "Ou" is a negative, which means no. The word utopia literally means no place. In other words, the communistic, the socialist, the bureaucratic utopia doesn't exist. It's a figment of the imagination. There is no reality to it. The only reality we have is the reality of God's Word and God's truth and God's righteousness. That is reality. And when you start building your society and your culture and your government on a utopia, it doesn't exist. It's not real. And all you're creating is a society and culture and government of death, one that enslaves free men.

  #64 | 48:12 to 49:04 | cleaned

• I've often asked the question, what do you think George Washington, Patrick Henry, Sam Adams would do if they were in America today. What do you think Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson would do? No, Lincoln did not free the slaves. He enlarged the plantation. That's right. Father, thank You for Your Word. Thank You for Your truth. Give us grace to serve Thee effectively with reverence and godly fear.

  #65 | 49:05 to 49:45 | cleaned

• In Thy name we pray, Amen.

  #66 | 49:45 to 49:47 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-04T18:33:18Z