Debt, Money, and Stewardship

Where We Are & How We Got Here # 9 of 14

Transcript: AI Transcript

Professor: John Weaver

Subject: Economics and Stewardship

Genre: Sermon

Dictation Name:

Date: 1998-08-23

Synopsis: John Weaver argues that the War Between the States was started by the North, not the South, by examining the historical record of peace overtures made by the Confederate States and the deceptive, hostile response of the Lincoln administration. He applies the biblical principle of judging righteous judgment—based on facts and God's Word—to challenge the common narrative that the South fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, asserting that the North rendered force necessary and thus was the true aggressor.

[John Weaver] Matthew chapter 7 and John chapter 7. Matthew 7, John chapter 7. And in Matthew chapter 7, let's read the first five verses. Matthew 7, verse 1, Our Lord says, Judge not that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged. And with what measure you meet, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye, and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou seek clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Now, if you would hold that passage and look in your Bibles to John chapter 7 and verse 24. John 7 verse 24. Here, our Lord says this, judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

[John Weaver] Now, I think that's very interesting that so many people today will come along and they'll say. In Matthew, seven, verse one, our Lord says, judge not that you be not judged, and they never read the context and what they are implying is this. that we should never make any judgments about anyone or about anything. But if you will look at the context in Matthew chapter seven. What our Lord is forbidding you and I to do, number one would be to judge a motive in verses one and two and then verses three through five to judge a judge wickedly when we are as bad as or worse than the person than we're trying to judge.

[John Weaver] You see in the Bible, and even in our own judicial system, we have what is known as the clean hands doctrine. Which means if I'm going to accuse Chester of a crime, my hands must be clean of that crime myself. In other words, if I accuse him at the same time while I'm guilty of doing the same thing that he's doing, then I'm condemning myself as well. So we have what is known as the clean hands doctrine.

[John Weaver] Now, the Word of God is not forbidding us to judge all of the time. What our Lord is forbidding us to do is, number one, to judge motives.

[John Weaver] Now, let me just give you an illustration of that. Suppose Don came up to me and said, Brother Weaver, I'd like to help you. I'd like to do this and do that. And then everything that Don did, instead of working for my good, worked for my evil. And then I looked at maybe Russ and I said, that's sorry, lowdown Don. He planned that all along. He meant to ruin me.

[John Weaver] Well, what am I doing? I'm judging his motive, when in reality, He may have meant to help me and not to hurt me. In other words, we are not in control. God is in control. Things do not work out the way we always plan them or the way we intend them. And we can have the best intentions and things still turn out wrong. So we're not to judge a motive unless unless I go back to Don and say, Don, did you mean to hurt me?

[John Weaver] If he said, yes, I did. Then I've got ground to say, well, that's wicked and that's wrong. But if he said, no, I never intended to hurt you, then I have no grounds to condemn him because his intentions were right. The second thing God is condemning, like I pointed out earlier, is if you and I are sin bound ourselves and we're condemning that in someone else. But let me tell you, you and I judge every day.

[John Weaver] If Tony tells me something. I judge whether he's telling me the truth or not.

[John Weaver] Now, I'm not going to stand here and say, well, Tony's lying. No, but when I hear something, I have to discern in my mind, does that even sound right? Is that in accord with the facts that I know? And if you do away with all judgment, you even do away with all jury trials. You do away with. Purchasing things because you make a judgment when you purchase something, is it worth the money that I'm spending, is it going to benefit me?

[John Weaver] Now, I want to give you an illustration, I want you to turn in your Bibles to the book of Galatians chapter 2. In Galatians chapter 2, Paul jumps on Peter with both feet. And look what he says in Galatians chapter 2, beginning there with verse 11. He says, But when Peter was come to Antioch, I was stood him to the face because he was to be blamed. So Paul got right up in Peter's face and says, you are wrong.

[John Weaver] For before that serpent came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles. But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them, which were the circumcision and the other Jews that is dissembled or played the hypocrite likewise with him in as much that Barnabas, who was one of Paul's partners, also was carried away with their dissimulation or with their hypocrisy. Watch. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou being a Jew liveth after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compelest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

[John Weaver] And then he goes on. Now, here's my question. Was Paul judging Peter's motives? No. What was he judging? His actions. What he did.

[John Weaver] Now, what did our Lord say? Our Lord said, judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgments, because things are not always as they appear. That means in order to judge righteously, number one, we must have the facts. And number two, we must know what the word of God teaches. There is no way in the world that we can exercise a righteous judgment without those two things.

[John Weaver] Now, I gave that as an introduction. to begin the question this morning as to who actually started the war. Every schoolchild has been taught that the South began the war of northern aggression by firing on Fort Sumter. It is common knowledge that the South fired the first shot. But the question must be asked, why did the South fire that first shot? And were they forced to fire that first shot? Who actually started the war?

[John Weaver] Now, an interesting thing is this. You can read the history books and you always find that Southerners have been branded as fire eaters and fire breathers. In other words, Southerners are usually pictured as individuals who are always itching for a fight and ready for a fight. But you've got to ask yourself this question, who actually started that war? Let me ask you another question and I'll answer it today. Who actually believed that a little bloodletting was actually necessary?

[John Weaver] Most people like Lincoln tries to place the blame upon the South. Let me just go ahead and tell you before I go any further today that the message that I'm preaching today will not be finished until next week. Number one, there's too much material. But I want you to listen to what Abraham Lincoln said in his fourth annual message to Congress, December the 6th, 1864. Here's what he said, quote, In stating a simple condition of peace, I mean simply to say that the war will cease on the part of the government whenever it shall have ceased on the part of those who began it." What is Lincoln saying? Lincoln is saying, I'm ready to stop the war. And it will cease just as quickly as those who started it cease fighting. So what is Lincoln saying? Lincoln is saying that the South started the war. Most people, like Lincoln, have been convinced the South actually started the war.

[John Weaver] But the question is this, does history reveal that to be a fact or a fiction? Hallam, in his Constitutional History, says this, The aggressor in war is not the first that uses force, but the first who renders force necessary. Now, listen to that. The aggressor in war is not the first who uses force, but the first who uses force necessary. Let me give you an illustration. Suppose I'm walking downtown and I walk around the corner and hear a thief jumps out and threatens me with a knife and demands my money and tells me very quickly that he will either have my money or my wife.

[John Weaver] And I pretend that I reach in my coat pocket for my wallet, but I pull out a nine millimeter pistol and shoot him and kill him. Now, my question is this. Was I the one that started that action? Did I initiate that? No. What did I do? I fired in self-defense and in the protection of my property. Had that man not jumped out and pulled a knife and threatened me, I'd have never shot him.

[John Weaver] He was the aggressor, not me. He was the one that rendered force necessary. So it is not necessarily who fires the first shot that is the aggressor. but the one who renders force necessary.

[John Weaver] Now let's begin by asking what was the attitude of the South. Now most of you know, at least I hope you know, that to begin with there were six southern states that seceded. Later on there were eleven. And of course the first Confederate capital was at Montgomery, Alabama. Do you realize that the legislation of the Confederate Congress meant And part of their very first enactment on the 9th of February 1861 made this law listen carefully that all the laws of the United States of America in force. and any use of the confederate states of america on the first day of november last and not inconsistent with the constitution of the confederate states be and the same are hereby continued in force until they are altered or repealed by congress now i don't have time to go into this today but if you were to look at the confederate constitution united states constitution you're going to find that they're basically the same with several exceptions, and the very first act was this. We're not trying to overthrow the United States Constitution.

[John Weaver] We're saying that those laws that are not inconsistent with the Constitution that we have enacted are going to be enforced until they are altered or appealed by the Confederate Congress. The provisional Congress went ahead in the second section of the sixth article and ordained this. Listen carefully. The government hereby instituted that is the Confederate government. The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the states forming it. and their other late Confederates of the United States in relation to the public property and the public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them. These states hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that union upon the principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith.

[John Weaver] Now let me just stop and ask you a question. Was the South willing then to confiscate public property without remuneration? And the answer is no. No. What did the Confederate States say? Look, what we want to do is this. We want to appoint these commissioners. And we're going to send them to Washington, D.C. And we're going to make sure that everything is done right. And everything is done in a just manner and in an equitable manner. In other words, the public force that was upon southern property, such as Pickens in Florida and Supter in South Carolina, which by the way were owned state property and had been built for the protection of those states, were still to be purchased from the United States and not stolen or confiscated by the southern states. So the confederate states were even willing to pay their share of what they would call the public obligations or the public debt.

[John Weaver] They said, when we withdrew, we were part of that union. Part of that public debt was ours. And we're willing to settle up and make it right.

[John Weaver] Now, does that sound to you like someone saying, Hey, this is it, fellas, we're withdrawn. You do your thing. We do our thing. And if you don't like it, we'll fight. No, that's not at all. So in accordance then with this law on February the 15th, a resolution was passed. And here it is that it is in the sense of this Congress. that a commission of three persons be appointed by the President-elect, that would be by Jefferson Davis, as early as may be convenient after his inauguration, and sent to the government of the United States of America for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between the government and the Confederate States of America, and for

[John Weaver] the settlement of all questions of disagreements between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, and good faith. So, the Confederate Congress said, we're going to pass a law that everything's going to be done rightly. And we're going to appoint three commissioners, and these peace commissioners are going to travel to Washington, D.C., and they're going to settle everything peaceably upon rightness and justice and equity. Do you realize that during this time, some in the North even tried to stir up resentment against the South by saying what the South was going to do was to lock up the Mississippi River and not let any northern states use the Mississippi River? To avoid that controversy, on the 25th of February, 1861, the Confederate Congress passed an act that declared and established the free navigation of the Mississippi River. And here's what the act said. The peaceable navigation of the Mississippi River is hereby declared free to the citizens of any of the states upon its borders that would include northern states or upon the borders of its navigable tributaries and its provision secure that freedom for all ships boats or vessels with their cargoes without any duty or hindrance

[John Weaver] except light money, pilotage, or other light charges. In other words, if you came down to New Orleans and you used their port, well, you're going to have to pay some money. But other than that, you could travel up and down the Mississippi River as long as you wanted. Didn't matter if you were northern, didn't matter if you were southern. So here the southern states were saying, look, we're going to get rid of that rumor that we're not going to let the northern states use the Mississippi River. So on February the 5th, 1861, three men were appointed as peace commissioners to travel to Washington, D.C.

[John Weaver] They were Mr. A.B. Roman from Louisiana, Martin J. Crawford of Georgia and John Forsyth of Alabama. These men were chosen and authorized and commissioned. Here's their commission. They were sent, quote, in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the government of the United States, being furnished with like power and authority, and with him or them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate concerning all matters in which the parties were both interested." So those peace commissioners then had full authority to enter into treaties, to enter into settlements. Now the question has got to be asked, What happened to these peace commissioners?

[John Weaver] Now, I'm going to come back to that just a little bit later. But let me go ahead and tell you, these peace commissioners were lied to. They were kept waiting. They were overall dealt with deceitfully, not only by President Buchanan, but also by President Lincoln, because they arrived in Washington two or three days before Buchanan's term ended.

[John Weaver] Now, there were rumblings of war in the air, and that rumbling was mainly in the north. The south did not want war. So Virginia, a southern state, led the way in initiating what is known as a peace conference, or if you look it up in the history books, it's called the Peace Congress. Now, this Congress was attended by 21 states. Fourteen of those states were northern and seven of them were southern, which meant you had fourteen non-slavery states and seven slavery states. None of the already six seceded southern states attended this conference. Because Virginia had not yet seceded and what Virginia was trying to do was act as a negotiator and get a compromise and bring those six states back into the Union. Now the Congress began on the fourth day of February and it ran until the 27th day of February 1861. The Peace Congress was presided over by nonetheless personage as ex-president John Tyler. John Tyler, it might be said to his commendation, was ardent and arduous in doing everything he could to bring about a conciliation and peace between the North and the South.

[John Weaver] But I want you to see that while the South wanted peace, it was the North that wanted war. There were two Senators from Michigan. And, of course, these two senators at first opposed any participation in the Peace Congress. Here is what one of them said. Here is the reason that he gave for not wanting to participate. He regarded the Peace Congress as, quote, a step toward obtaining that concession which the imperious slave power so insolently demands, end quote.

[John Weaver] Now, let's break that down for a moment. First of all, what he is saying is basically this. I object to the Peace Congress because it might actually work. We might end up with peace rather than war. But notice what he said. And I want you to note the language of detestation for the South in his words. He said, a step toward obtaining that concession which the imperious slave power. Imperious. You get the word imperious from imperial. Regal, kingly authority. May I remind you, and I'm not going to take time to re-preach it, but may I remind you the third message that I brought in this series in dealing with the political and the economic differences between the North and the South, and I showed you historically where the South held a great deal of political power and clout. And the North wanted to break that power. And thus, here this Michigan Senator is referring to the South as the imperious slave power.

[John Weaver] And then he goes on to say this, that so insolently demands. Now let me ask you a question. Is it not A statement of humility and conciliation to desire peace? And the answer is yes. In other words, it is not an insult, nor is it a display of arrogance to want peace. It is just the opposite. Nor is it a display of arrogance or an insult to want affected brethren to get together and to work things out. Listen, if Chester and Tom have a spat And I go to them and say, look, let's work these things out biblically. That's not an attitude of arrogance on my part. That's a desire to follow God's orderly way and to want peace. And so this Michigan senator says it is the imperious slave power insolently demanding that we get together for a peace Congress. So at first, these Michigan senators were saying we don't have anything to do with it.

[John Weaver] But a little bit later, they changed their minds. But may I remind you or tell you that the change of mind was not for the good of the peace conference. In other words, if they attended, it was only going to be to thwart things and not to help things. I want you to listen to a letter written by Senator Chandler, who was one of the Michigan senators, to a northern governor.

[John Weaver] And this is representative of the attitude of the Republicans of that period. Here's the letter. Listen carefully. My dear Governor, Governor Bingham and myself telegraphed you on Saturday at the request of Massachusetts and New York to send delegates to the Peace or the Compromise Congress. They admit that we were right, in other words, we shouldn't have attended at all, and that they were wrong. That no Republican states should have sent delegates, but they are here and cannot get away.

[John Weaver] Ohio, Indiana, and Rhode Island are caving in. That is, they're looking toward peace, are caving in, and there is danger of Illinois. And now they beg us, for God's sake, to come to their rescue and save the Republican Party from rupture. In other words, if you don't do something, our Republican Party is going to be split. Some are going to want peace and some are going to want war.

[John Weaver] Listen, I hope you will send stiff-backed men or none. This whole thing was gotten up against my judgment and advice and will end and then smoke. Still, I hope as a matter of courtesy to some of our erring brethren that you will send the delegates. Truly your friend, Senator Chandler. P.S. Some of the manufacturing states think that a fight would be awful. Without a little bloodletting, this union will not, in my estimation, be worth a rush." So what's Senator Chandler saying? You send men, but you send stiff-backed men, men that will not compromise in any way whatsoever, men that will not allow the South to go in peace. You save the Republican Party from rupture, and if there's a little bloodletting, fine. Senator Chandler from Michigan. Thus, when a plan was finally agreed on by the peace conference, and even though that plan was less favorable to the South, it was soundly outvoted by the Republicans of that time. Even Mr. Crittenden, many of you who have studied history have heard about the Crittenden Compromise, the Crittenden Resolutions.

[John Weaver] Even Mr. Crittenden personally expressed his willingness to accept this plan as a substitute for his own, and even he urged its adoption, and yet still it was outvoted by the Radical Republicans. Now, there was, in the Senate, A senator from Oregon by the name of Joseph Lane and on the second of March 1861. He was making a speech. Against. Andrew Johnson's speech. Let me tell you something about Joseph Lane Joseph Lane.

[John Weaver] was a member of the Democratic States Rights Party. He also ran for Vice President of the United States under the canvass of 1860. And so here he is now responding to a speech by Andrew Johnson. I hope you know who Andrew Johnson was. He was Lincoln's vice president, who later became president after Lincoln was shot. And so here is Senator Lane's speech before Congress. Listen carefully. Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee complains of my remarks on his speech. He complains of the tone and temper of what I said. He complains that I replied at all as I was a Northern Senator. Mr. President, I'm a Senate citizen of this Union and a Senator of the United States.

[John Weaver] My residence is in the North, but I have never seen the day, and I never shall, when I will refuse justice as readily to the South as to the North. I know nothing but my country, the whole country, the Constitution, and the equality of the states, the equal right of every man in the common territory of the whole country, and by that I shall stand." The Senator complains that I replied at all as I was a Northern Senator and a Democrat whom he had supported at the last election for Ohio office.

[John Weaver] Now I was, as I stated at the time, surprised at the Senator's speech. Because I understood it to be for coercion, that is war. For I understood it to be for coercion as I think it was understood by almost everybody else, except we're now told by the Senator himself.

[John Weaver] Now I still think it amounted to a coercion speech, notwithstanding the soft and plausible phrases by which he described it, a speech for the execution of the laws and the protection of the federal property. Listen, sir, if there is, as I contend, the right of secession then, whenever a state exercises that right, this government has no laws in that state to execute, nor has it any property in any such state that can be protected by the power of this government. In attempting, however, to substitute the smooth phrases, executing the laws and protecting public property for coercion, for civil war, we have an important concession, that is, that this government dare not go before the people with a plain avowal of its real purposes and of their consequences. No, sir, this policy is to embaggle the people of the North into civil war by matching the design in smooth and ambiguous terms."

[John Weaver] What did Senator Lane say? The North is trying to start a war. And what this government is doing is, it is deceiving the people of the North. Listen to what he says, when a state deceives, then the United States government has no laws to execute in it. It has no property to protect in it. Why? Because the property belongs to the state. Even Senator Lane saw through the charade of the Radical Republicans. They wanted war.

[John Weaver] And they would not have it any other way. Someone has rightly said that war is the furtherance of political goals by other means. War is the furtherance of political goals by other means. Using war, referring to it as other means, is oftentimes a quicker way to accomplish political goals and to further an agenda. And I might add, if you were also an industrialist, it is a quick way to make a million bucks. The reason war is so popular is there is money to be made in war.

[John Weaver] Now, let me just try to demonstrate to you the general tenor of the North. Let's go back to those peace commissioners sent by the Confederate government to Washington, D.C. These Confederate commissioners were sent there to work out an amiable, just, right, and equitable solution to all of the conflicts. Now, Mr. Martin Crawford of Georgia arrived in Washington, D.C. first. And he arrived there two or three days before President Buchanan's term expired. Mr. Crawford had received word from Senator Hunter of Virginia that President Buchanan would be delighted to receive Mr. Crawford and listen to his communications and then refer them on to the United States Senate. Now let me tell you something about Mr. Crawford. Mr. Crawford was no political dummy. He was a judge of the Supreme Court of Georgia. He had also been in Congress prior to President Buchanan's term and even during President Buchanan's term.

[John Weaver] So here was a man that knew what was going on. Mr. Crawford carried with him this authorization from Jefferson Davis. Let me read it to you. To the President of the United States, sir. Being animated by an earnest desire to unite and bind together our respective countries by friendly ties, I've appointed Martin J. Crawford, one of our most esteemed and trustworthy citizens, as Special Commissioner of the Confederate States to the government of the United States, and I now have the honor to introduce him to you and ask for him a reception and treatment corresponding to his station and to the purpose for which he is sent.

[John Weaver] Those purposes he will more particularly explain to you. hoping through his agency these may be accomplished I avail myself of this occasion to offer you the same assurance of my distinguished consideration Jefferson Davis Montgomery Alabama February 27 1861 now what happened to judge Crawford what happened to the other commissioners I want you to listen to judge Crawford's Report of his reception, or I might say his lack of reception in Washington, D.C.

[John Weaver] Remember now, President Buchanan had already said that he would receive him. President Buchanan had already said that he would communicate with the Senate concerning him.

[John Weaver] Finally, Judge Crawford has to say this quote. The feverish and emotional condition of affairs soon made the presence of the special commissioner at Washington known throughout the city. Congress was still, of course, in session. Senators and members of the House of Representatives, excepting those of the Confederate states who had withdrawn, were in their seats, and the manifestations of anxious care and gloomy forebodings were plainly to be seen on all sides.

[John Weaver] This was not confined to sections, but existed among the men of the North and West as well as those of the South. Now listen, Mr. Buchanan, the President, was in a state of most thorough alarm, not only for his home at Wheatland, but for his personal safety. Now wait a minute. The President was in a state of most thorough alarm, not only for his home at Wheatland, but for his personal safety.

[John Weaver] Let me spell it out to you. President Buchanan was so scared, and so gutless, and so cowardly, he would not even receive the Confederate commissioner after he had given his word that he would. Nor would he give any of the communications to the Senate. Why? Here is why. This is made on the statement of President Buchanan himself. He refused with regard to the violence of Northern sentiment, then lately indicated that he thought it not impossible that his homeward route would be lighted by burning effigies of himself and that on reaching his home he would find it a heap of ashes. What's the President of the United States saying? I'm not going to fulfill my duties because I'm afraid that somebody's going to burn down my home. Where would the violence come from? Help me out?

[John Weaver] Not from the south, but from the north. He's saying I'm afraid because of northern sentiment. I'm concerned for my own life and my own home, and thus I'll have nothing to do with these peace commissioners." A little bit later, John Forsyth of Alabama joined Judge Crawford, and they immediately sent a letter to William Seward, who was Secretary of State, and they were requesting a meeting with President Lincoln.

[John Weaver] in order that they could resolve some of these conflicts. Their letter was written on March the 12th, 1861. Remember they were in Washington. The letter was sent to William Seward, the Secretary of State. The peace commissioners did not get an answer to their letter for 27 days later on April the 8th. Now, supposedly an answer was filed with the State Department on March the 15th, but it was undated and unsigned. And of course, The commissioners had no idea that a letter had been filed with the State Department.

[John Weaver] And even if they had known, there was no signature, there was no date. How would they know anything? So during this 27 days, the peace commissioners are pushing William Seward to arrange a meeting with the President of the United States. Seward does not want to do that because of the northern Senate. And what he is saying is I'm in a bind.

[John Weaver] Now there were two United States Supreme Court justices, one by the name of Nelson from New York and one by the name of Campbell from Alabama. Now Justice Nelson had studied the existing laws as well as the Constitution and his opinion was this, that coercion of the southern states could not be used without a clear violation of the existing laws of the land and of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, the Supreme Court had already ruled that Lincoln nor Congress had any right or any power to coerce a state. Judge Campbell agreed with this. Well, Judge Nelson, being a Northerner, thought since Judge Campbell being a Southerner, might be a kind of go-between, and between them could work something out between Seward and Lincoln and these peace commissioners. So it was Judge Nelson then that suggested that Judge Campbell, since he was a Southerner, might be of service in working this interview out. So let me read to you what Judge Campbell says. The result of the interview between these two distinguished gentlemen, we are informed was another visit by both of them to the State Department for the purpose of urging Mr. Seward to reply to the commissioners and assure them of the desire of the United States government for a friendly adjustment.

[John Weaver] Mr. Seward seems to have objected to an immediate recognition of the commissioners on the ground that the state of public sentiment in the North would not sustain it in connection with, listen carefully, in connection with the withdrawal of troops from Fort Sumter, which had been determined on. Now listen to what Seward said. The evacuation of Sumter is as much as the administration can bear. Now, we're going to evacuate Fort Sumter.

[John Weaver] See, that's what South Carolina was asking. Now, I'm going to get into this more next week, but all South Carolina said was, get your troops out of our state. Evacuate it. That's our property. That is our fort. Get your troops out. Judge Campbell adds, I concurred in the conclusion that the evacuation of Sumter involved responsibility and stated there could be not be too much caution in the adoption of measures so as not to shock or to irritate the public sentiment. And that the evacuation of Sumter was sufficient for the president in that direction. I stated that I would see the commissioners and would write to Mr. Davis to that effect. I asked him what I should say as to Sumter and the Pickens. Here is what Judge Campbell says. He authorized me to say that before the letter could reach him, that is Mr. Davis, President Davis, he would learn by telegraph that the order for the evacuation of Sumter had been made. Now here's the Secretary of State saying, look, You can write Jefferson Davis if you would like to, but before the letter can ever reach him, he's going to receive a telegraph and that telegraph is going to say the order has been given for Fort Sumter to be evacuated.

[John Weaver] It was pretty sharp. Judge Crawford said this, I want Mr. Seward's pledge. And I want it reduced to writing, and I want Judge Nelson and Judge Campbell's personal assurance as to its accuracy and its genuineness. So it was reduced to writing.

[John Weaver] Now I want you to remember Jefferson Davis was to receive a telegraph before a letter could ever reach him that Fort Sumter was to be evacuated. The written statement was exhibited to Judge Nelson before its delivery and approved by him and the fact that the pledge had been given in the name and in behalf of William Seward was communicated to Mr. Seward the same evening by letter.

[John Weaver] Now, what do we have? We have an oral communication and we have a written communication to the three commissioners from the Confederate government, that Fort Sumter would be evacuated shortly. And if they were to write Jefferson Davis before he could ever get a letter, a telegraph would be there that the fort had been evacuated.

[John Weaver] Now, may I remind you that this assurance was given upon the highest authority, that of the Secretary of State of the United States. However, and we're going to be picking up here next week, on April the 7th of 1861, a relief squadron ordered by Lincoln had left New York to go and to refurbish and refurnish Fort Sumter. When this was noised abroad, Judge Campbell, remember now, this is a Supreme Court justice. He's in the United States Supreme Court. Judge Campbell addressed a letter to Mr. Stewart and asked if the assurances he had given were well or ill founded.

[John Weaver] Here was the reply he received. Faith as to sumpter fully kept. Wait and see. This was after the fleet had been put to sea. And this was when Lincoln sent word to Governor Pickens of South Carolina that Fort Sumter would be enforced peaceably if permitted by force, if necessary. So these peace commissioners had been delayed and deceived. I want to read to you, in closing, the letter that the peace commissioners wrote to William Seward.

[John Weaver] You talk about saying it straight, here it is. They addressed Mr. Seward on the 9th of April, and they say this, your government has not chosen to meet the undersigned in the conciliatory and peaceful spirit in which they are commissioned. Persistently wedded to those fatal theories of construction of the Federal Constitution, always rejected by the statesmen of the South and adhered to by those of the administration school until they have produced their natural and often predicted result of the destruction of the Union under which we have continued to live happily and gloriously together. Had the spirit of the ancestry who framed the common constitution animated the hearts of all their sons? Had you met these issues with frankness and manliness with which the undersigned were instructed to present them to you and treat them?

[John Weaver] The undersigned had not now had the melancholy duty to return home and tell their government and their countrymen that their earnest and ceaseless efforts in behalf of peace had been futile. and that the government of the United States meant to subjugate them by force of arms, whatever may be the result. impartial history will record the innocence of the government of the Confederate States and place the responsibility of the blood and mourning that may ensue upon those who have denied the great fundamental doctrine of American liberty, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and who have set naval and

[John Weaver] land armaments in motion to subject the people of one portion of land to the will of another portion. Your refusal to entertain these overtures for a peaceful solution, the active naval and military preparations of this government, and a formal notice to the commanding general of the Confederate forces in the harbor of Charleston that the President intends to provision Fort Sumter by forcible means if necessary, are viewed by the undersigned and can only be received by the world as a declaration of war against the Confederate States." I'm going to show you next week that it was not merely a declaration of war, it was an act of war.

[John Weaver] Now, listen to what they said. Had you with frankness and manliness dealt with these issues, they could have been resolved. The South was willing to have a peaceful solution. But the North was not. Now, I want you to listen to me. I'm not going to make my applications until next week. But I want you to remember, I've been teaching along the general theme of where we are and how we got here.

[John Weaver] How did we get to such a state where our own government deceives its own people and seeks to subjugate and destroy its own people? How did we get here? It started in 1861, and I can show you in black and white, the constitutional violations by Abraham Lincoln, not only upon the South, but upon the North. And why is it that we today are really received economically, politically, educationally, Because of the policy of deception that began in 1861. By the way, if I'm not badly mistaken, and I'm sure I'm not, executive orders began with Abraham Lincoln. No constitutional foundation. We got here. We're here today. because of biblical and constitutional violations in the 1860s. Let's pray.

[John Weaver] Father, we ask today that you help us, build us up in the most holy faith. Lord, help us to see that we are to judge righteous judgment. And that righteous judgment must be in light of your word and in light of facts, not in light of propaganda and myth. We ask You, Father, to give us holy boldness and a holy desire to serve Thee, to know the truth, to know where we are, that we might know how to get back to where we were and where we should be. In the name of Jesus Christ, we ask it. Amen.

Where We Are & How We Got Here # 9 of 14

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	2304154926
Subject	Economics and Stewardship
Course	Debt, Money, and Stewardship
Genre	Sermon
Date	1998-08-23
Dictation Name
Book	Book 119: Where We Are & How We Got Here — Chapter 9
Source Timed Segments	67

Formatted Transcript

Introduction: The Biblical Principle of Righteous Judgment

Weaver contrasts Matthew 7:1 with John 7:24 to show that Scripture forbids judging motives or hypocritically, but commands righteous judgment based on facts and God's Word.

Matthew chapter 7 and John chapter 7. Matthew 7, John chapter 7. And in Matthew chapter 7, let's read the first five verses. Matthew 7, verse 1, our Lord says,

Scripture Reading — Matthew 7:1-5

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Now, if you would hold that passage and look in your Bibles to John chapter 7 and verse 24. John 7 verse 24. Here, our Lord says this, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

Scripture Reading — John 7:24

Now, I think that's very interesting that so many people today will come along and they'll say, in Matthew 7, verse 1, our Lord says, "Judge not, that ye be not judged," and they never read the context, and what they are implying is this: that we should never make any judgments about anyone or about anything. But if you will look at the context in Matthew chapter 7, what our Lord is forbidding you and me to do, number one would be to judge a motive in verses 1 and 2, and then verses 3 through 5, to judge wickedly when we are as bad as or worse than the person we're trying to judge. You see in the Bible, and even in our own judicial system, we have what is known as the clean hands doctrine. Which means if I'm going to accuse Chester of a crime, my hands must be clean of that crime myself. In other words, if I accuse him at the same time while I'm guilty of doing the same thing that he's doing, then I'm condemning myself as well. So we have what is known as the clean hands doctrine.

Now, the Word of God is not forbidding us to judge all of the time. What our Lord is forbidding us to do is, number one, to judge motives. Now, let me just give you an illustration of that. Suppose Don came up to me and said, "Brother Weaver, I'd like to help you. I'd like to do this and do that." And then everything that Don did, instead of working for my good, worked for my evil. And then I looked at maybe Russ and I said, "That's sorry, lowdown Don. He planned that all along. He meant to ruin me."

Well, what am I doing? I'm judging his motive, when in reality, he may have meant to help me and not to hurt me. In other words, we are not in control. God is in control. Things do not work out the way we always plan them or the way we intend them. And we can have the best intentions and things still turn out wrong. So we're not to judge a motive unless I go back to Don and say, "Don, did you mean to hurt me?"

If he said, "Yes, I did," then I've got ground to say, "Well, that's wicked and that's wrong." But if he said, "No, I never intended to hurt you," then I have no grounds to condemn him because his intentions were right. The second thing God is condemning, like I pointed out earlier, is if you and I are sin-bound ourselves and we're condemning that in someone else. But let me tell you, you and I judge every day. If Tony tells me something, I judge whether he's telling me the truth or not.

Now, I'm not going to stand here and say, "Well, Tony's lying." No, but when I hear something, I have to discern in my mind, does that even sound right? Is that in accord with the facts that I know? And if you do away with all judgment, you even do away with all jury trials. You do away with purchasing things, because you make a judgment when you purchase something: is it worth the money that I'm spending? Is it going to benefit me?

Now, I want to give you an illustration. I want you to turn in your Bibles to the book of Galatians chapter 2. In Galatians chapter 2, Paul jumps on Peter with both feet. And look what he says in Galatians chapter 2, beginning there with verse 11. He says,

Scripture Reading — Galatians 2:11-14

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

So Paul got right up in Peter's face and says, "You are wrong."

Scripture Reading — Galatians 2:11-14

"For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation."

Watch.

Scripture Reading — Galatians 2:11-14

"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

And then he goes on. Now, here's my question. Was Paul judging Peter's motives? No. What was he judging? His actions. What he did.

Now, what did our Lord say? Our Lord said, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment," because things are not always as they appear. That means in order to judge righteously, number one, we must have the facts. And number two, we must know what the Word of God teaches. There is no way in the world that we can exercise a righteous judgment without those two things.

Now, I gave that as an introduction to begin the question this morning as to who actually started the war. Every schoolchild has been taught that the South began the War of Northern Aggression by firing on Fort Sumter. It is common knowledge that the South fired the first shot. But the question must be asked, why did the South fire that first shot? And were they forced to fire that first shot? Who actually started the war?

The Question of Who Started the War

Weaver introduces the central historical question: who actually started the War Between the States, challenging the common belief that the South was the aggressor by firing on Fort Sumter.

Now, an interesting thing is this. You can read the history books and you always find that Southerners have been branded as fire-eaters and fire-breathers. In other words, Southerners are usually pictured as individuals who are always itching for a fight and ready for a fight. But you've got to ask yourself this question: who actually started that war? Let me ask you another question and I'll answer it today. Who actually believed that a little bloodletting was actually necessary? Most people, like Lincoln, try to place the blame upon the South. Let me just go ahead and tell you before I go any further today that the message that I'm preaching today will not be finished until next week. Number one, there's too much material. But I want you to listen to what Abraham Lincoln said in his fourth annual message to Congress, December the 6th, 1864. Here's what he said, quote, "In stating a single condition of peace, I mean simply to say that the war will cease on the part of the government whenever it shall have ceased on the part of those who began it." What is Lincoln saying? Lincoln is saying, "I'm ready to stop the war. And it will cease just as quickly as those who started it cease fighting." So what is Lincoln saying? Lincoln is saying that the South started the war. Most people, like Lincoln, have been convinced the South actually started the war.

The Principle of Aggression: Who Renders Force Necessary?

Citing Hallam's Constitutional History, Weaver argues that the aggressor is not the one who fires first, but the one who renders force necessary, illustrated by a self-defense scenario.

But the question is this: does history reveal that to be a fact or a fiction? Hallam, in his Constitutional History, says this: "The aggressor in war is not the first that uses force, but the first who renders force necessary." Now, listen to that. The aggressor in war is not the first who uses force, but the first who renders force necessary. Let me give you an illustration. Suppose I'm walking downtown and I walk around the corner and a thief jumps out and threatens me with a knife and demands my money and tells me very quickly that he will either have my money or my life. And I pretend that I reach in my coat pocket for my wallet, but I pull out a nine millimeter pistol and shoot him and kill him. Now, my question is this. Was I the one that started that action? Did I initiate that? No. What did I do? I fired in self-defense and in the protection of my property. Had that man not jumped out and pulled a knife and threatened me, I'd have never shot him.

He was the aggressor, not me. He was the one that rendered force necessary. So it is not necessarily who fires the first shot that is the aggressor, but the one who renders force necessary.

The South's Desire for Peaceful Settlement

Weaver details the Confederate Congress's early acts to continue U.S. laws, settle debts equitably, and send peace commissioners to Washington, demonstrating the South's peaceful intentions.

Now let's begin by asking what was the attitude of the South. Now most of you know, at least I hope you know, that to begin with there were six southern states that seceded. Later on there were eleven. And of course the first Confederate capital was at Montgomery, Alabama. Do you realize that the legislation of the Confederate Congress, and part of their very first enactment on the 9th of February 1861, made this law—listen carefully—"that all the laws of the United States of America in force, and in use in the Confederate States of America on the first day of November last, and not inconsistent with the constitution of the Confederate States, be and the same are hereby continued in force until they are altered or repealed by Congress." Now I don't have time to go into this today, but if you were to look at the Confederate Constitution and the United States Constitution, you're going to find that they're basically the same with several exceptions, and the very first act was this: we're not trying to overthrow the United States Constitution.

We're saying that those laws that are not inconsistent with the Constitution that we have enacted are going to be enforced until they are altered or repealed by the Confederate Congress. The provisional Congress went ahead in the second section of the sixth article and ordained this. Listen carefully. "The government hereby instituted"—that is the Confederate government—"the government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the states forming it and their other late confederates of the United States in relation to the public property and the public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them. These states hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that union upon the principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith."

Now let me just stop and ask you a question. Was the South willing then to confiscate public property without remuneration? And the answer is no. No. What did the Confederate States say? Look, what we want to do is this. We want to appoint these commissioners. And we're going to send them to Washington, D.C. And we're going to make sure that everything is done right. And everything is done in a just manner and in an equitable manner. In other words, the public forts that were upon southern property, such as Pickens in Florida and Sumter in South Carolina, which by the way were owned state property and had been built for the protection of those states, were still to be purchased from the United States and not stolen or confiscated by the southern states. So the Confederate states were even willing to pay their share of what they would call the public obligations or the public debt.

They said, when we withdrew, we were part of that union. Part of that public debt was ours. And we're willing to settle up and make it right. Now, does that sound to you like someone saying, "Hey, this is it, fellas, we're withdrawn. You do your thing. We do our thing. And if you don't like it, we'll fight"? No, that's not at all. So in accordance then with this law on February the 15th, a resolution was passed. And here it is: "that it is the sense of this Congress that a commission of three persons be appointed by the President-elect," that would be by Jefferson Davis, "as early as may be convenient after his inauguration, and sent to the government of the United States of America for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between the government and the Confederate States of America, and for

the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, and good faith." So, the Confederate Congress said, we're going to pass a law that everything's going to be done rightly. And we're going to appoint three commissioners, and these peace commissioners are going to travel to Washington, D.C., and they're going to settle everything peaceably upon rightness and justice and equity. Do you realize that during this time, some in the North even tried to stir up resentment against the South by saying what the South was going to do was to lock up the Mississippi River and not let any northern states use the Mississippi River? To avoid that controversy, on the 25th of February, 1861, the Confederate Congress passed an act that declared and established the free navigation of the Mississippi River. And here's what the act said: "The peaceable navigation of the Mississippi River is hereby declared free to the citizens of any of the states upon its borders"—that would include northern states—"or upon the borders of its navigable tributaries, and its provision secure that freedom for all ships, boats, or vessels with their cargoes, without any duty or hindrance

except light money, pilotage, or other light charges." In other words, if you came down to New Orleans and you used their port, well, you're going to have to pay some money. But other than that, you could travel up and down the Mississippi River as long as you wanted. Didn't matter if you were northern, didn't matter if you were southern. So here the southern states were saying, look, we're going to get rid of that rumor that we're not going to let the northern states use the Mississippi River. So on February the 5th, 1861, three men were appointed as peace commissioners to travel to Washington, D.C. They were Mr. A.B. Roman from Louisiana, Martin J. Crawford of Georgia, and John Forsyth of Alabama. These men were chosen and authorized and commissioned. Here's their commission. They were sent, quote, "in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the government of the United States, being furnished with like power and authority, and with him or them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate concerning all matters in which the parties were both interested." So those peace commissioners then had full authority to enter into treaties, to enter into settlements. Now the question has got to be asked, what happened to these peace commissioners?

Northern Opposition to Peace: The Peace Congress and Senator Chandler

Weaver describes the Peace Congress led by Virginia and ex-President Tyler, and exposes Northern resistance, particularly Senator Chandler's letter advocating 'stiff-backed men' and a 'little bloodletting.'

Now, I'm going to come back to that just a little bit later. But let me go ahead and tell you, these peace commissioners were lied to. They were kept waiting. They were overall dealt with deceitfully, not only by President Buchanan, but also by President Lincoln, because they arrived in Washington two or three days before Buchanan's term ended.

Now, there were rumblings of war in the air, and that rumbling was mainly in the North. The South did not want war. So Virginia, a southern state, led the way in initiating what is known as a peace conference, or if you look it up in the history books, it's called the Peace Congress. Now, this Congress was attended by 21 states. Fourteen of those states were northern and seven of them were southern, which meant you had fourteen non-slavery states and seven slavery states. None of the already six seceded southern states attended this conference. Because Virginia had not yet seceded and what Virginia was trying to do was act as a negotiator and get a compromise and bring those six states back into the Union. Now the Congress began on the fourth day of February and it ran until the 27th day of February 1861. The Peace Congress was presided over by none other than ex-president John Tyler. John Tyler, it might be said to his commendation, was ardent and arduous in doing everything he could to bring about a conciliation and peace between the North and the South.

But I want you to see that while the South wanted peace, it was the North that wanted war. There were two Senators from Michigan. And, of course, these two senators at first opposed any participation in the Peace Congress. Here is what one of them said. Here is the reason that he gave for not wanting to participate. He regarded the Peace Congress as, quote, "a step toward obtaining that concession which the imperious slave power so insolently demands," end quote.

Now, let's break that down for a moment. First of all, what he is saying is basically this: I object to the Peace Congress because it might actually work. We might end up with peace rather than war. But notice what he said. And I want you to note the language of detestation for the South in his words. He said, "a step toward obtaining that concession which the imperious slave power." Imperious. You get the word imperious from imperial. Regal, kingly authority. May I remind you, and I'm not going to take time to re-preach it, but may I remind you the third message that I brought in this series in dealing with the political and the economic differences between the North and the South, and I showed you historically where the South held a great deal of political power and clout. And the North wanted to break that power. And thus, here this Michigan Senator is referring to the South as the imperious slave power.

And then he goes on to say this, "that so insolently demands." Now let me ask you a question. Is it not a statement of humility and conciliation to desire peace? And the answer is yes. In other words, it is not an insult, nor is it a display of arrogance to want peace. It is just the opposite. Nor is it a display of arrogance or an insult to want affected brethren to get together and to work things out. Listen, if Chester and Tom have a spat, and I go to them and say, "Look, let's work these things out biblically," that's not an attitude of arrogance on my part. That's a desire to follow God's orderly way and to want peace. And so this Michigan senator says it is the imperious slave power insolently demanding that we get together for a peace Congress. So at first, these Michigan senators were saying we don't have anything to do with it.

But a little bit later, they changed their minds. But may I remind you or tell you that the change of mind was not for the good of the peace conference. In other words, if they attended, it was only going to be to thwart things and not to help things. I want you to listen to a letter written by Senator Chandler, who was one of the Michigan senators, to a northern governor. And this is representative of the attitude of the Republicans of that period. Here's the letter. Listen carefully. "My dear Governor, Governor Bingham and myself telegraphed you on Saturday at the request of Massachusetts and New York to send delegates to the Peace or the Compromise Congress. They admit that we were right," in other words, we shouldn't have attended at all, "and that they were wrong. That no Republican states should have sent delegates, but they are here and cannot get away.

Ohio, Indiana, and Rhode Island are caving in." That is, they're looking toward peace, "are caving in, and there is danger of Illinois. And now they beg us, for God's sake, to come to their rescue and save the Republican Party from rupture." In other words, if you don't do something, our Republican Party is going to be split. Some are going to want peace and some are going to want war. Listen, "I hope you will send stiff-backed men or none. This whole thing was gotten up against my judgment and advice and will end in smoke. Still, I hope as a matter of courtesy to some of our erring brethren that you will send the delegates. Truly your friend, Senator Chandler. P.S. Some of the manufacturing states think that a fight would be awful. Without a little bloodletting, this union will not, in my estimation, be worth a rush." So what's Senator Chandler saying? You send men, but you send stiff-backed men, men that will not compromise in any way whatsoever, men that will not allow the South to go in peace. You save the Republican Party from rupture, and if there's a little bloodletting, fine. Senator Chandler from Michigan. Thus, when a plan was finally agreed on by the peace conference, and even though that plan was less favorable to the South, it was soundly outvoted by the Republicans of that time. Even Mr. Crittenden, many of you who have studied history have heard about the Crittenden Compromise, the Crittenden Resolutions.

Even Mr. Crittenden personally expressed his willingness to accept this plan as a substitute for his own, and even he urged its adoption, and yet still it was outvoted by the Radical Republicans. Now, there was, in the Senate, a senator from Oregon by the name of Joseph Lane, and on the second of March 1861, he was making a speech against Andrew Johnson's speech. Let me tell you something about Joseph Lane. Joseph Lane

Senator Lane's Warning: Northern Deception and Desire for War

Senator Joseph Lane's speech is cited, accusing the North of masking coercive intentions in smooth phrases and deceiving the people into civil war.

was a member of the Democratic States Rights Party. He also ran for Vice President of the United States under the canvass of 1860. And so here he is now responding to a speech by Andrew Johnson. I hope you know who Andrew Johnson was. He was Lincoln's vice president, who later became president after Lincoln was shot. And so here is Senator Lane's speech before Congress. Listen carefully. "Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee complains of my remarks on his speech. He complains of the tone and temper of what I said. He complains that I replied at all as I was a Northern Senator. Mr. President, I'm a Senate citizen of this Union and a Senator of the United States.

My residence is in the North, but I have never seen the day, and I never shall, when I will refuse justice as readily to the South as to the North. I know nothing but my country, the whole country, the Constitution, and the equality of the states, the equal right of every man in the common territory of the whole country, and by that I shall stand." The Senator complains that I replied at all as I was a Northern Senator and a Democrat whom he had supported at the last election for high office. "Now I was, as I stated at the time, surprised at the Senator's speech. Because I understood it to be for coercion," that is war. "For I understood it to be for coercion as I think it was understood by almost everybody else, except we're now told by the Senator himself."

"Now I still think it amounted to a coercion speech, notwithstanding the soft and plausible phrases by which he described it, a speech for the execution of the laws and the protection of the federal property. Listen, sir, if there is, as I contend, the right of secession then, whenever a state exercises that right, this government has no laws in that state to execute, nor has it any property in any such state that can be protected by the power of this government. In attempting, however, to substitute the smooth phrases 'executing the laws' and 'protecting public property' for coercion, for civil war, we have an important concession, that is, that this government dare not go before the people with a plain avowal of its real purposes and of their consequences. No, sir, this policy is to beguile the people of the North into civil war by masking the design in smooth and ambiguous terms."

What did Senator Lane say? The North is trying to start a war. And what this government is doing is, it is deceiving the people of the North. Listen to what he says, when a state secedes, then the United States government has no laws to execute in it. It has no property to protect in it. Why? Because the property belongs to the state. Even Senator Lane saw through the charade of the Radical Republicans. They wanted war.

The Deception of the Peace Commissioners

Weaver recounts how the Confederate peace commissioners were ignored, delayed, and deceived by President Buchanan and Secretary Seward, including a broken promise to evacuate Fort Sumter.

And they would not have it any other way. Someone has rightly said that war is the furtherance of political goals by other means. War is the furtherance of political goals by other means. Using war, referring to it as other means, is oftentimes a quicker way to accomplish political goals and to further an agenda. And I might add, if you were also an industrialist, it is a quick way to make a million bucks. The reason war is so popular is there is money to be made in war.

Now, let me just try to demonstrate to you the general tenor of the North. Let's go back to those peace commissioners sent by the Confederate government to Washington, D.C. These Confederate commissioners were sent there to work out an amiable, just, right, and equitable solution to all of the conflicts. Now, Mr. Martin Crawford of Georgia arrived in Washington, D.C. first. And he arrived there two or three days before President Buchanan's term expired. Mr. Crawford had received word from Senator Hunter of Virginia that President Buchanan would be delighted to receive Mr. Crawford and listen to his communications and then refer them on to the United States Senate. Now let me tell you something about Mr. Crawford. Mr. Crawford was no political dummy. He was a judge of the Supreme Court of Georgia. He had also been in Congress prior to President Buchanan's term and even during President Buchanan's term.

So here was a man that knew what was going on. Mr. Crawford carried with him this authorization from Jefferson Davis. Let me read it to you. "To the President of the United States, sir. Being animated by an earnest desire to unite and bind together our respective countries by friendly ties, I've appointed Martin J. Crawford, one of our most esteemed and trustworthy citizens, as Special Commissioner of the Confederate States to the government of the United States, and I now have the honor to introduce him to you and ask for him a reception and treatment corresponding to his station and to the purpose for which he is sent.

Those purposes he will more particularly explain to you. Hoping through his agency these may be accomplished, I avail myself of this occasion to offer you the same assurance of my distinguished consideration. Jefferson Davis. Montgomery, Alabama, February 27, 1861." Now what happened to Judge Crawford? What happened to the other commissioners? I want you to listen to Judge Crawford's report of his reception, or I might say his lack of reception in Washington, D.C. Remember now, President Buchanan had already said that he would receive him. President Buchanan had already said that he would communicate with the Senate concerning him.

Finally, Judge Crawford has to say this, quote: "The feverish and emotional condition of affairs soon made the presence of the special commissioner at Washington known throughout the city. Congress was still, of course, in session. Senators and members of the House of Representatives, excepting those of the Confederate states who had withdrawn, were in their seats, and the manifestations of anxious care and gloomy forebodings were plainly to be seen on all sides. This was not confined to sections, but existed among the men of the North and West as well as those of the South." Now listen, "Mr. Buchanan, the President, was in a state of most thorough alarm, not only for his home at Wheatland, but for his personal safety." Now wait a minute. The President was in a state of most thorough alarm, not only for his home at Wheatland, but for his personal safety.

Let me spell it out to you. President Buchanan was so scared, and so gutless, and so cowardly, he would not even receive the Confederate commissioner after he had given his word that he would. Nor would he give any of the communications to the Senate. Why? Here is why. This is made on the statement of President Buchanan himself. He refused with regard to the violence of Northern sentiment, then lately indicated, that he thought it not impossible that his homeward route would be lighted by burning effigies of himself and that on reaching his home he would find it a heap of ashes. What's the President of the United States saying? I'm not going to fulfill my duties because I'm afraid that somebody's going to burn down my home. Where would the violence come from? Help me out?

Not from the South, but from the North. He's saying I'm afraid because of northern sentiment. I'm concerned for my own life and my own home, and thus I'll have nothing to do with these peace commissioners." A little bit later, John Forsyth of Alabama joined Judge Crawford, and they immediately sent a letter to William Seward, who was Secretary of State, and they were requesting a meeting with President Lincoln. in order that they could resolve some of these conflicts. Their letter was written on March the 12th, 1861. Remember they were in Washington. The letter was sent to William Seward, the Secretary of State. The peace commissioners did not get an answer to their letter for 27 days later on April the 8th. Now, supposedly an answer was filed with the State Department on March the 15th, but it was undated and unsigned. And of course, the commissioners had no idea that a letter had been filed with the State Department.

And even if they had known, there was no signature, there was no date. How would they know anything? So during this 27 days, the peace commissioners are pushing William Seward to arrange a meeting with the President of the United States. Seward does not want to do that because of the northern sentiment. And what he is saying is I'm in a bind.

Now there were two United States Supreme Court justices, one by the name of Nelson from New York and one by the name of Campbell from Alabama. Now Justice Nelson had studied the existing laws as well as the Constitution and his opinion was this, that coercion of the southern states could not be used without a clear violation of the existing laws of the land and of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, the Supreme Court had already ruled that Lincoln nor Congress had any right or any power to coerce a state. Judge Campbell agreed with this. Well, Judge Nelson, being a Northerner, thought since Judge Campbell being a Southerner, might be a kind of go-between, and between them could work something out between Seward and Lincoln and these peace commissioners. So it was Judge Nelson then that suggested that Judge Campbell, since he was a Southerner, might be of service in working this interview out. So let me read to you what Judge Campbell says. "The result of the interview between these two distinguished gentlemen, we are informed, was another visit by both of them to the State Department for the purpose of urging Mr. Seward to reply to the commissioners and assure them of the desire of the United States government for a friendly adjustment.

Mr. Seward seems to have objected to an immediate recognition of the commissioners on the ground that the state of public sentiment in the North would not sustain it in connection with," listen carefully, "in connection with the withdrawal of troops from Fort Sumter, which had been determined on." Now listen to what Seward said. "The evacuation of Sumter is as much as the administration can bear." Now, we're going to evacuate Fort Sumter. See, that's what South Carolina was asking. Now, I'm going to get into this more next week, but all South Carolina said was, get your troops out of our state. Evacuate it. That's our property. That is our fort. Get your troops out. Judge Campbell adds, "I concurred in the conclusion that the evacuation of Sumter involved responsibility and stated there could not be too much caution in the adoption of measures so as not to shock or to irritate the public sentiment. And that the evacuation of Sumter was sufficient for the president in that direction. I stated that I would see the commissioners and would write to Mr. Davis to that effect. I asked him what I should say as to Sumter and the Pickens." Here is what Judge Campbell says. "He authorized me to say that before the letter could reach him," that is Mr. Davis, President Davis, "he would learn by telegraph that the order for the evacuation of Sumter had been made." Now here's the Secretary of State saying, look, you can write Jefferson Davis if you would like to, but before the letter can ever reach him, he's going to receive a telegraph and that telegraph is going to say the order has been given for Fort Sumter to be evacuated.

It was pretty sharp. Judge Crawford said this, "I want Mr. Seward's pledge. And I want it reduced to writing, and I want Judge Nelson and Judge Campbell's personal assurance as to its accuracy and its genuineness." So it was reduced to writing.

Now I want you to remember Jefferson Davis was to receive a telegraph before a letter could ever reach him that Fort Sumter was to be evacuated. The written statement was exhibited to Judge Nelson before its delivery and approved by him and the fact that the pledge had been given in the name and in behalf of William Seward was communicated to Mr. Seward the same evening by letter. Now, what do we have? We have an oral communication and we have a written communication to the three commissioners from the Confederate government, that Fort Sumter would be evacuated shortly. And if they were to write Jefferson Davis before he could ever get a letter, a telegraph would be there that the fort had been evacuated.

Now, may I remind you that this assurance was given upon the highest authority, that of the Secretary of State of the United States. However, and we're going to be picking up here next week, on April the 7th of 1861, a relief squadron ordered by Lincoln had left New York to go and to refurbish and refurnish Fort Sumter. When this was noised abroad, Judge Campbell, remember now, this is a Supreme Court justice. He's in the United States Supreme Court. Judge Campbell addressed a letter to Mr. Seward and asked if the assurances he had given were well or ill founded.

The Commissioners' Final Letter: A Declaration of War

The peace commissioners' letter to Seward is read, declaring that the North's refusal to negotiate and its military preparations amounted to a declaration of war against the Confederate States.

Here was the reply he received. "Faith as to Sumter fully kept. Wait and see." This was after the fleet had been put to sea. And this was when Lincoln sent word to Governor Pickens of South Carolina that Fort Sumter would be enforced peaceably if permitted, by force if necessary. So these peace commissioners had been delayed and deceived. I want to read to you, in closing, the letter that the peace commissioners wrote to William Seward. You talk about saying it straight, here it is. They addressed Mr. Seward on the 9th of April, and they say this, "Your government has not chosen to meet the undersigned in the conciliatory and peaceful spirit in which they are commissioned. Persistently wedded to those fatal theories of construction of the Federal Constitution, always rejected by the statesmen of the South and adhered to by those of the administration school until they have produced their natural and often predicted result of the destruction of the Union under which we have continued to live happily and gloriously together. Had the spirit of the ancestry who framed the common constitution animated the hearts of all their sons? Had you met these issues with frankness and manliness with which the undersigned were instructed to present them to you and treat them?

The undersigned had not now had the melancholy duty to return home and tell their government and their countrymen that their earnest and ceaseless efforts in behalf of peace had been futile. And that the government of the United States meant to subjugate them by force of arms, whatever may be the result. Impartial history will record the innocence of the government of the Confederate States and place the responsibility of the blood and mourning that may ensue upon those who have denied the great fundamental doctrine of American liberty, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and who have set naval and land armaments in motion to subject the people of one portion of land to the will of another portion. Your refusal to entertain these overtures for a peaceful solution, the active naval and military preparations of this government, and a formal notice to the commanding general of the Confederate forces in the harbor of Charleston that the President intends to provision Fort Sumter by forcible means if necessary, are viewed by the undersigned and can only be received by the world as a declaration of war against the Confederate States." I'm going to show you next week that it was not merely a declaration of war, it was an act of war.

Study Guide

Major Themes

Righteous Judgment vs. Hypocritical Judgment

Summary: Believers must judge actions righteously based on facts and Scripture, not motives or appearances, as commanded in John 7:24.

Evidence: Weaver explains Matthew 7 forbids judging motives and hypocritical judgment, while John 7:24 commands righteous judgment. He illustrates with Paul confronting Peter's actions in Galatians 2.

The True Aggressor in War

Summary: The aggressor is not the one who fires first, but the one who renders force necessary, a principle applied to the War Between the States.

Evidence: Weaver quotes Hallam: 'The aggressor in war is not the first that uses force, but the first who renders force necessary,' and gives a self-defense illustration.

Southern Desire for Peace and Equity

Summary: The Confederate States sought peaceful separation and equitable settlement of debts and property, not war.

Evidence: Weaver cites the Confederate Congress's acts to continue U.S. laws, settle public debt, and send peace commissioners with full authority to negotiate.

Northern Deception and War-Mongering

Summary: Northern politicians, including Lincoln and Seward, deliberately deceived the South and sought war to preserve the Union and political power.

Evidence: Weaver details Senator Chandler's letter advocating 'bloodletting,' Senator Lane's accusation of deception, and the broken promise to evacuate Fort Sumter.

Constitutional Violations as the Root of Modern Problems

Summary: The constitutional violations by Lincoln and the North in the 1860s set a precedent for ongoing governmental deception and overreach.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'How did we get to such a state where our own government deceives its own people... It started in 1861... executive orders began with Abraham Lincoln. No constitutional foundation.'

Key Arguments

Scripture commands judging actions, not motives, with righteous judgment.

Summary: Matthew 7:1 is often misused to forbid all judgment, but context shows it forbids judging motives and hypocritical judgment; John 7:24 commands righteous judgment based on facts.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'What our Lord is forbidding you and me to do, number one would be to judge a motive... and then verses 3 through 5, to judge wickedly when we are as bad as or worse than the person we're trying to judge.'

The South did not start the war; the North rendered force necessary.

Summary: The South fired the first shot at Fort Sumter only after the North broke promises and sent a military expedition, making force necessary.

Evidence: Weaver argues, 'The aggressor in war is not the first that uses force, but the first who renders force necessary,' and applies this to the Fort Sumter situation.

The Confederate government actively pursued peace through official channels.

Summary: The Confederate Congress passed laws to settle debts, ensure free navigation of the Mississippi, and sent peace commissioners to Washington, all demonstrating peaceful intent.

Evidence: Weaver reads the Confederate resolution to appoint commissioners 'for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations... upon principles of right, justice, and good faith.'

Northern politicians openly expressed a desire for war and opposed compromise.

Summary: Senator Chandler's letter reveals a deliberate strategy to send 'stiff-backed men' to the Peace Congress and a belief that 'without a little bloodletting, this union will not... be worth a rush.'

Evidence: Weaver quotes Chandler: 'Without a little bloodletting, this union will not, in my estimation, be worth a rush.'

The Lincoln administration deceived the peace commissioners and broke promises.

Summary: Secretary Seward promised evacuation of Fort Sumter but instead sent a relief squadron, while the commissioners were ignored for 27 days.

Evidence: Weaver cites Judge Campbell's account: 'He authorized me to say that before the letter could reach him... he would learn by telegraph that the order for the evacuation of Sumter had been made.'

The North's actions constituted a declaration of war.

Summary: The peace commissioners' final letter states that the North's military preparations and refusal to negotiate were 'a declaration of war against the Confederate States.'

Evidence: Weaver reads the commissioners' letter: 'Your refusal to entertain these overtures... are viewed by the undersigned... as a declaration of war against the Confederate States.'

Scripture References

Matthew 7:1-5

Context: Weaver reads the passage to show that Jesus forbids judging motives and hypocritical judgment, not all judgment.

John 7:24

Context: Weaver quotes this verse to establish the command to 'judge righteous judgment' based on facts, not appearances.

Galatians 2:11-14

Context: Weaver cites Paul's public rebuke of Peter for his actions, not his motives, as an example of righteous judgment.

Historical References

Fort Sumter

Context: Weaver discusses the common belief that the South started the war by firing on Fort Sumter and argues the North provoked it.

Abraham Lincoln's fourth annual message to Congress, December 6, 1864

Context: Weaver quotes Lincoln blaming the South for starting the war: 'the war will cease on the part of the government whenever it shall have ceased on the part of those who began it.'

Hallam's Constitutional History

Context: Weaver quotes Hallam's definition of the aggressor in war as the one who renders force necessary.

Confederate Congress, February 9, 1861

Context: Weaver cites the law continuing U.S. laws in force in the Confederacy to show the South's peaceful intentions.

Peace Congress, February 4-27, 1861

Context: Weaver describes the Peace Congress presided over by John Tyler, attended by 21 states, and opposed by Northern radicals.

Senator Chandler's letter to a northern governor, 1861

Context: Weaver reads Chandler's letter advocating 'stiff-backed men' and 'a little bloodletting' to save the Republican Party.

Senator Joseph Lane's speech, March 2, 1861

Context: Weaver quotes Lane accusing the North of deceiving the people into civil war through smooth phrases.

Confederate peace commissioners (Crawford, Forsyth, Roman)

Context: Weaver details their appointment, mission, and deceptive treatment by Buchanan and Seward.

Judge John A. Campbell and Judge Nelson

Context: Weaver describes their role as intermediaries and Seward's broken promise to evacuate Fort Sumter.

Lincoln's relief squadron to Fort Sumter, April 1861

Context: Weaver notes the squadron was sent after promises of evacuation, constituting an act of war.

Important Quotes

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Significance: This is the key biblical principle Weaver uses to frame the entire lecture: judgment must be based on facts and God's Word, not superficial appearances.

The aggressor in war is not the first that uses force, but the first who renders force necessary.

Significance: This quote from Hallam provides the historical and logical framework for Weaver's argument that the North, not the South, started the war.

Without a little bloodletting, this union will not, in my estimation, be worth a rush.

Significance: Senator Chandler's words reveal the Northern desire for war and contempt for peaceful compromise, supporting Weaver's thesis.

In attempting, however, to substitute the smooth phrases 'executing the laws' and 'protecting public property' for coercion, for civil war, we have an important concession, that is, that this government dare not go before the people with a plain avowal of its real purposes and of their consequences.

Significance: Senator Lane's speech exposes the Northern strategy of deception, a key point in Weaver's argument about how the war was started.

Your refusal to entertain these overtures for a peaceful solution, the active naval and military preparations of this government, and a formal notice to the commanding general of the Confederate forces in the harbor of Charleston that the President intends to provision Fort Sumter by forcible means if necessary, are viewed by the undersigned and can only be received by the world as a declaration of war against the Confederate States.

Significance: The peace commissioners' final letter summarizes the South's perspective that the North's actions constituted a declaration of war, not the firing on Fort Sumter.

Discussion Questions

How does the distinction between judging motives and judging actions apply to our daily interactions and conflicts?

Context: Weaver explains that Matthew 7 forbids judging motives, while John 7:24 commands judging actions righteously.

In what ways might the principle 'the aggressor is the one who renders force necessary' change our understanding of modern conflicts?

Context: Weaver introduces this principle from Hallam and applies it to the War Between the States.

What can we learn from the Confederate peace commissioners' persistence and eventual frustration about dealing with deceptive authorities?

Context: Weaver details the commissioners' 27-day wait and Seward's broken promises.

How does Senator Chandler's letter reflect a political strategy that prioritizes party unity over peace and justice?

Context: Weaver reads Chandler's letter urging 'stiff-backed men' to prevent Republican rupture.

Why is it important to examine primary historical sources rather than relying on common narratives?

Context: Weaver emphasizes judging righteous judgment based on facts, not propaganda or myth.

Applications

Judge righteously by seeking facts and biblical truth.

Summary: Believers must not accept common narratives or appearances but investigate facts and apply Scripture to form righteous judgments.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'in order to judge righteously, number one, we must have the facts. And number two, we must know what the Word of God teaches.'

Recognize and reject governmental deception.

Summary: Weaver implies that understanding historical deception helps believers recognize and resist similar tactics today.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'How did we get to such a state where our own government deceives its own people... It started in 1861... executive orders began with Abraham Lincoln.'

Pursue peace and justice even when facing opposition.

Summary: The South's peace commissioners modeled persistent, principled efforts for peaceful resolution despite deceit.

Evidence: Weaver details the commissioners' repeated attempts to negotiate and their final letter holding the North accountable.

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-04T18:19:10Z

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-05T20:39:24Z

Clean Transcript

Where We Are & How We Got Here # 9 of 14

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

Matthew chapter 7 and John chapter 7. Matthew 7, John chapter 7. And in Matthew chapter 7, let's read the first five verses. Matthew 7, verse 1, our Lord says, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Now, if you would hold that passage and look in your Bibles to John chapter 7 and verse 24. John 7 verse 24. Here, our Lord says this, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."
#1 | 0:00 to 1:05 | cleaned
Now, I think that's very interesting that so many people today will come along and they'll say, in Matthew 7, verse 1, our Lord says, "Judge not, that ye be not judged," and they never read the context, and what they are implying is this: that we should never make any judgments about anyone or about anything. But if you will look at the context in Matthew chapter 7, what our Lord is forbidding you and me to do, number one would be to judge a motive in verses 1 and 2, and then verses 3 through 5, to judge wickedly when we are as bad as or worse than the person we're trying to judge.
#2 | 1:06 to 1:47 | cleaned
You see in the Bible, and even in our own judicial system, we have what is known as the clean hands doctrine. Which means if I'm going to accuse Chester of a crime, my hands must be clean of that crime myself. In other words, if I accuse him at the same time while I'm guilty of doing the same thing that he's doing, then I'm condemning myself as well. So we have what is known as the clean hands doctrine.
#3 | 1:48 to 2:16 | cleaned
Now, the Word of God is not forbidding us to judge all of the time. What our Lord is forbidding us to do is, number one, to judge motives.
#4 | 2:17 to 2:26 | cleaned
Now, let me just give you an illustration of that. Suppose Don came up to me and said, "Brother Weaver, I'd like to help you. I'd like to do this and do that." And then everything that Don did, instead of working for my good, worked for my evil. And then I looked at maybe Russ and I said, "That's sorry, lowdown Don. He planned that all along. He meant to ruin me."
#5 | 2:26 to 2:53 | cleaned
Well, what am I doing? I'm judging his motive, when in reality, he may have meant to help me and not to hurt me. In other words, we are not in control. God is in control. Things do not work out the way we always plan them or the way we intend them. And we can have the best intentions and things still turn out wrong. So we're not to judge a motive unless I go back to Don and say, "Don, did you mean to hurt me?"
#6 | 2:54 to 3:22 | cleaned
If he said, "Yes, I did," then I've got ground to say, "Well, that's wicked and that's wrong." But if he said, "No, I never intended to hurt you," then I have no grounds to condemn him because his intentions were right. The second thing God is condemning, like I pointed out earlier, is if you and I are sin-bound ourselves and we're condemning that in someone else. But let me tell you, you and I judge every day.
#7 | 3:22 to 3:50 | cleaned
If Tony tells me something, I judge whether he's telling me the truth or not.
#8 | 3:52 to 3:57 | cleaned
Now, I'm not going to stand here and say, "Well, Tony's lying." No, but when I hear something, I have to discern in my mind, does that even sound right? Is that in accord with the facts that I know? And if you do away with all judgment, you even do away with all jury trials. You do away with purchasing things, because you make a judgment when you purchase something: is it worth the money that I'm spending? Is it going to benefit me?
#9 | 3:57 to 4:27 | cleaned
Now, I want to give you an illustration. I want you to turn in your Bibles to the book of Galatians chapter 2. In Galatians chapter 2, Paul jumps on Peter with both feet. And look what he says in Galatians chapter 2, beginning there with verse 11. He says, "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." So Paul got right up in Peter's face and says, "You are wrong."
#10 | 4:28 to 5:02 | cleaned
"For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." Watch. "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"
#11 | 5:02 to 5:37 | cleaned
And then he goes on. Now, here's my question. Was Paul judging Peter's motives? No. What was he judging? His actions. What he did.
#12 | 5:37 to 5:51 | cleaned
Now, what did our Lord say? Our Lord said, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment," because things are not always as they appear. That means in order to judge righteously, number one, we must have the facts. And number two, we must know what the Word of God teaches. There is no way in the world that we can exercise a righteous judgment without those two things.
#13 | 5:53 to 6:20 | cleaned
Now, I gave that as an introduction to begin the question this morning as to who actually started the war. Every schoolchild has been taught that the South began the War of Northern Aggression by firing on Fort Sumter. It is common knowledge that the South fired the first shot. But the question must be asked, why did the South fire that first shot? And were they forced to fire that first shot? Who actually started the war?
#14 | 6:20 to 7:06 | cleaned
Now, an interesting thing is this. You can read the history books and you always find that Southerners have been branded as fire-eaters and fire-breathers. In other words, Southerners are usually pictured as individuals who are always itching for a fight and ready for a fight. But you've got to ask yourself this question: who actually started that war? Let me ask you another question and I'll answer it today. Who actually believed that a little bloodletting was actually necessary?
#15 | 7:07 to 7:43 | cleaned
Most people, like Lincoln, try to place the blame upon the South. Let me just go ahead and tell you before I go any further today that the message that I'm preaching today will not be finished until next week. Number one, there's too much material. But I want you to listen to what Abraham Lincoln said in his fourth annual message to Congress, December the 6th, 1864. Here's what he said, quote, "In stating a single condition of peace, I mean simply to say that the war will cease on the part of the government whenever it shall have ceased on the part of those who began it." What is Lincoln saying? Lincoln is saying, "I'm ready to stop the war. And it will cease just as quickly as those who started it cease fighting." So what is Lincoln saying? Lincoln is saying that the South started the war. Most people, like Lincoln, have been convinced the South actually started the war.
#16 | 7:46 to 8:57 | cleaned
But the question is this: does history reveal that to be a fact or a fiction? Hallam, in his Constitutional History, says this: "The aggressor in war is not the first that uses force, but the first who renders force necessary." Now, listen to that. The aggressor in war is not the first who uses force, but the first who renders force necessary. Let me give you an illustration. Suppose I'm walking downtown and I walk around the corner and a thief jumps out and threatens me with a knife and demands my money and tells me very quickly that he will either have my money or my life.
#17 | 8:58 to 9:47 | cleaned
And I pretend that I reach in my coat pocket for my wallet, but I pull out a nine millimeter pistol and shoot him and kill him. Now, my question is this. Was I the one that started that action? Did I initiate that? No. What did I do? I fired in self-defense and in the protection of my property. Had that man not jumped out and pulled a knife and threatened me, I'd have never shot him.
#18 | 9:49 to 10:15 | cleaned
He was the aggressor, not me. He was the one that rendered force necessary. So it is not necessarily who fires the first shot that is the aggressor, but the one who renders force necessary.
#19 | 10:16 to 10:32 | cleaned
Now let's begin by asking what was the attitude of the South. Now most of you know, at least I hope you know, that to begin with there were six southern states that seceded. Later on there were eleven. And of course the first Confederate capital was at Montgomery, Alabama. Do you realize that the legislation of the Confederate Congress, and part of their very first enactment on the 9th of February 1861, made this law—listen carefully—"that all the laws of the United States of America in force, and in use in the Confederate States of America on the first day of November last, and not inconsistent with the constitution of the Confederate States, be and the same are hereby continued in force until they are altered or repealed by Congress." Now I don't have time to go into this today, but if you were to look at the Confederate Constitution and the United States Constitution, you're going to find that they're basically the same with several exceptions, and the very first act was this: we're not trying to overthrow the United States Constitution.
#20 | 10:32 to 11:48 | cleaned
We're saying that those laws that are not inconsistent with the Constitution that we have enacted are going to be enforced until they are altered or repealed by the Confederate Congress. The provisional Congress went ahead in the second section of the sixth article and ordained this. Listen carefully. "The government hereby instituted"—that is the Confederate government—"the government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the states forming it and their other late confederates of the United States in relation to the public property and the public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them. These states hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that union upon the principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith."
#21 | 11:48 to 12:49 | cleaned
Now let me just stop and ask you a question. Was the South willing then to confiscate public property without remuneration? And the answer is no. No. What did the Confederate States say? Look, what we want to do is this. We want to appoint these commissioners. And we're going to send them to Washington, D.C. And we're going to make sure that everything is done right. And everything is done in a just manner and in an equitable manner. In other words, the public forts that were upon southern property, such as Pickens in Florida and Sumter in South Carolina, which by the way were owned state property and had been built for the protection of those states, were still to be purchased from the United States and not stolen or confiscated by the southern states. So the Confederate states were even willing to pay their share of what they would call the public obligations or the public debt.
#22 | 12:50 to 13:57 | cleaned
They said, when we withdrew, we were part of that union. Part of that public debt was ours. And we're willing to settle up and make it right.
#23 | 13:58 to 14:07 | cleaned
Now, does that sound to you like someone saying, "Hey, this is it, fellas, we're withdrawn. You do your thing. We do our thing. And if you don't like it, we'll fight"? No, that's not at all. So in accordance then with this law on February the 15th, a resolution was passed. And here it is: "that it is the sense of this Congress that a commission of three persons be appointed by the President-elect," that would be by Jefferson Davis, "as early as may be convenient after his inauguration, and sent to the government of the United States of America for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between the government and the Confederate States of America, and for
#24 | 14:09 to 14:49 | cleaned
the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, and good faith." So, the Confederate Congress said, we're going to pass a law that everything's going to be done rightly. And we're going to appoint three commissioners, and these peace commissioners are going to travel to Washington, D.C., and they're going to settle everything peaceably upon rightness and justice and equity. Do you realize that during this time, some in the North even tried to stir up resentment against the South by saying what the South was going to do was to lock up the Mississippi River and not let any northern states use the Mississippi River? To avoid that controversy, on the 25th of February, 1861, the Confederate Congress passed an act that declared and established the free navigation of the Mississippi River. And here's what the act said: "The peaceable navigation of the Mississippi River is hereby declared free to the citizens of any of the states upon its borders"—that would include northern states—"or upon the borders of its navigable tributaries, and its provision secure that freedom for all ships, boats, or vessels with their cargoes, without any duty or hindrance
#25 | 14:49 to 16:14 | cleaned
except light money, pilotage, or other light charges." In other words, if you came down to New Orleans and you used their port, well, you're going to have to pay some money. But other than that, you could travel up and down the Mississippi River as long as you wanted. Didn't matter if you were northern, didn't matter if you were southern. So here the southern states were saying, look, we're going to get rid of that rumor that we're not going to let the northern states use the Mississippi River. So on February the 5th, 1861, three men were appointed as peace commissioners to travel to Washington, D.C.
#26 | 16:14 to 16:49 | cleaned
They were Mr. A.B. Roman from Louisiana, Martin J. Crawford of Georgia, and John Forsyth of Alabama. These men were chosen and authorized and commissioned. Here's their commission. They were sent, quote, "in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the government of the United States, being furnished with like power and authority, and with him or them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate concerning all matters in which the parties were both interested." So those peace commissioners then had full authority to enter into treaties, to enter into settlements. Now the question has got to be asked, what happened to these peace commissioners?
#27 | 16:50 to 17:44 | cleaned
Now, I'm going to come back to that just a little bit later. But let me go ahead and tell you, these peace commissioners were lied to. They were kept waiting. They were overall dealt with deceitfully, not only by President Buchanan, but also by President Lincoln, because they arrived in Washington two or three days before Buchanan's term ended.
#28 | 17:45 to 18:09 | cleaned
Now, there were rumblings of war in the air, and that rumbling was mainly in the North. The South did not want war. So Virginia, a southern state, led the way in initiating what is known as a peace conference, or if you look it up in the history books, it's called the Peace Congress. Now, this Congress was attended by 21 states. Fourteen of those states were northern and seven of them were southern, which meant you had fourteen non-slavery states and seven slavery states. None of the already six seceded southern states attended this conference. Because Virginia had not yet seceded and what Virginia was trying to do was act as a negotiator and get a compromise and bring those six states back into the Union. Now the Congress began on the fourth day of February and it ran until the 27th day of February 1861. The Peace Congress was presided over by none other than ex-president John Tyler. John Tyler, it might be said to his commendation, was ardent and arduous in doing everything he could to bring about a conciliation and peace between the North and the South.
#29 | 18:10 to 19:45 | cleaned
But I want you to see that while the South wanted peace, it was the North that wanted war. There were two Senators from Michigan. And, of course, these two senators at first opposed any participation in the Peace Congress. Here is what one of them said. Here is the reason that he gave for not wanting to participate. He regarded the Peace Congress as, quote, "a step toward obtaining that concession which the imperious slave power so insolently demands," end quote.
#30 | 19:46 to 20:22 | cleaned
Now, let's break that down for a moment. First of all, what he is saying is basically this: I object to the Peace Congress because it might actually work. We might end up with peace rather than war. But notice what he said. And I want you to note the language of detestation for the South in his words. He said, "a step toward obtaining that concession which the imperious slave power." Imperious. You get the word imperious from imperial. Regal, kingly authority. May I remind you, and I'm not going to take time to re-preach it, but may I remind you the third message that I brought in this series in dealing with the political and the economic differences between the North and the South, and I showed you historically where the South held a great deal of political power and clout. And the North wanted to break that power. And thus, here this Michigan Senator is referring to the South as the imperious slave power.
#31 | 20:23 to 21:37 | cleaned
And then he goes on to say this, "that so insolently demands." Now let me ask you a question. Is it not a statement of humility and conciliation to desire peace? And the answer is yes. In other words, it is not an insult, nor is it a display of arrogance to want peace. It is just the opposite. Nor is it a display of arrogance or an insult to want affected brethren to get together and to work things out. Listen, if Chester and Tom have a spat, and I go to them and say, "Look, let's work these things out biblically," that's not an attitude of arrogance on my part. That's a desire to follow God's orderly way and to want peace. And so this Michigan senator says it is the imperious slave power insolently demanding that we get together for a peace Congress. So at first, these Michigan senators were saying we don't have anything to do with it.
#32 | 21:37 to 22:52 | cleaned
But a little bit later, they changed their minds. But may I remind you or tell you that the change of mind was not for the good of the peace conference. In other words, if they attended, it was only going to be to thwart things and not to help things. I want you to listen to a letter written by Senator Chandler, who was one of the Michigan senators, to a northern governor.
#33 | 22:52 to 23:19 | cleaned
And this is representative of the attitude of the Republicans of that period. Here's the letter. Listen carefully. "My dear Governor, Governor Bingham and myself telegraphed you on Saturday at the request of Massachusetts and New York to send delegates to the Peace or the Compromise Congress. They admit that we were right," in other words, we shouldn't have attended at all, "and that they were wrong. That no Republican states should have sent delegates, but they are here and cannot get away.
#34 | 23:20 to 23:56 | cleaned
Ohio, Indiana, and Rhode Island are caving in." That is, they're looking toward peace, "are caving in, and there is danger of Illinois. And now they beg us, for God's sake, to come to their rescue and save the Republican Party from rupture." In other words, if you don't do something, our Republican Party is going to be split. Some are going to want peace and some are going to want war.
#35 | 23:57 to 24:23 | cleaned
Listen, "I hope you will send stiff-backed men or none. This whole thing was gotten up against my judgment and advice and will end in smoke. Still, I hope as a matter of courtesy to some of our erring brethren that you will send the delegates. Truly your friend, Senator Chandler. P.S. Some of the manufacturing states think that a fight would be awful. Without a little bloodletting, this union will not, in my estimation, be worth a rush." So what's Senator Chandler saying? You send men, but you send stiff-backed men, men that will not compromise in any way whatsoever, men that will not allow the South to go in peace. You save the Republican Party from rupture, and if there's a little bloodletting, fine. Senator Chandler from Michigan. Thus, when a plan was finally agreed on by the peace conference, and even though that plan was less favorable to the South, it was soundly outvoted by the Republicans of that time. Even Mr. Crittenden, many of you who have studied history have heard about the Crittenden Compromise, the Crittenden Resolutions.
#36 | 24:23 to 25:49 | cleaned
Even Mr. Crittenden personally expressed his willingness to accept this plan as a substitute for his own, and even he urged its adoption, and yet still it was outvoted by the Radical Republicans. Now, there was, in the Senate, a senator from Oregon by the name of Joseph Lane, and on the second of March 1861, he was making a speech against Andrew Johnson's speech. Let me tell you something about Joseph Lane. Joseph Lane
#37 | 25:50 to 26:32 | cleaned
was a member of the Democratic States Rights Party. He also ran for Vice President of the United States under the canvass of 1860. And so here he is now responding to a speech by Andrew Johnson. I hope you know who Andrew Johnson was. He was Lincoln's vice president, who later became president after Lincoln was shot. And so here is Senator Lane's speech before Congress. Listen carefully. "Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee complains of my remarks on his speech. He complains of the tone and temper of what I said. He complains that I replied at all as I was a Northern Senator. Mr. President, I'm a Senate citizen of this Union and a Senator of the United States.
#38 | 26:34 to 27:24 | cleaned
My residence is in the North, but I have never seen the day, and I never shall, when I will refuse justice as readily to the South as to the North. I know nothing but my country, the whole country, the Constitution, and the equality of the states, the equal right of every man in the common territory of the whole country, and by that I shall stand." The Senator complains that I replied at all as I was a Northern Senator and a Democrat whom he had supported at the last election for high office.
#39 | 27:25 to 27:55 | cleaned
"Now I was, as I stated at the time, surprised at the Senator's speech. Because I understood it to be for coercion," that is war. "For I understood it to be for coercion as I think it was understood by almost everybody else, except we're now told by the Senator himself."
#40 | 27:56 to 28:13 | cleaned
"Now I still think it amounted to a coercion speech, notwithstanding the soft and plausible phrases by which he described it, a speech for the execution of the laws and the protection of the federal property. Listen, sir, if there is, as I contend, the right of secession then, whenever a state exercises that right, this government has no laws in that state to execute, nor has it any property in any such state that can be protected by the power of this government. In attempting, however, to substitute the smooth phrases 'executing the laws' and 'protecting public property' for coercion, for civil war, we have an important concession, that is, that this government dare not go before the people with a plain avowal of its real purposes and of their consequences. No, sir, this policy is to beguile the people of the North into civil war by masking the design in smooth and ambiguous terms."
#41 | 28:14 to 29:10 | cleaned
What did Senator Lane say? The North is trying to start a war. And what this government is doing is, it is deceiving the people of the North. Listen to what he says, when a state secedes, then the United States government has no laws to execute in it. It has no property to protect in it. Why? Because the property belongs to the state. Even Senator Lane saw through the charade of the Radical Republicans. They wanted war.
#42 | 29:12 to 29:52 | cleaned
And they would not have it any other way. Someone has rightly said that war is the furtherance of political goals by other means. War is the furtherance of political goals by other means. Using war, referring to it as other means, is oftentimes a quicker way to accomplish political goals and to further an agenda. And I might add, if you were also an industrialist, it is a quick way to make a million bucks. The reason war is so popular is there is money to be made in war.
#43 | 29:54 to 30:34 | cleaned
Now, let me just try to demonstrate to you the general tenor of the North. Let's go back to those peace commissioners sent by the Confederate government to Washington, D.C. These Confederate commissioners were sent there to work out an amiable, just, right, and equitable solution to all of the conflicts. Now, Mr. Martin Crawford of Georgia arrived in Washington, D.C. first. And he arrived there two or three days before President Buchanan's term expired. Mr. Crawford had received word from Senator Hunter of Virginia that President Buchanan would be delighted to receive Mr. Crawford and listen to his communications and then refer them on to the United States Senate. Now let me tell you something about Mr. Crawford. Mr. Crawford was no political dummy. He was a judge of the Supreme Court of Georgia. He had also been in Congress prior to President Buchanan's term and even during President Buchanan's term.
#44 | 30:35 to 31:52 | cleaned
So here was a man that knew what was going on. Mr. Crawford carried with him this authorization from Jefferson Davis. Let me read it to you. "To the President of the United States, sir. Being animated by an earnest desire to unite and bind together our respective countries by friendly ties, I've appointed Martin J. Crawford, one of our most esteemed and trustworthy citizens, as Special Commissioner of the Confederate States to the government of the United States, and I now have the honor to introduce him to you and ask for him a reception and treatment corresponding to his station and to the purpose for which he is sent.
#45 | 31:53 to 32:35 | cleaned
Those purposes he will more particularly explain to you. Hoping through his agency these may be accomplished, I avail myself of this occasion to offer you the same assurance of my distinguished consideration. Jefferson Davis. Montgomery, Alabama, February 27, 1861." Now what happened to Judge Crawford? What happened to the other commissioners? I want you to listen to Judge Crawford's report of his reception, or I might say his lack of reception in Washington, D.C.
#46 | 32:36 to 33:10 | cleaned
Remember now, President Buchanan had already said that he would receive him. President Buchanan had already said that he would communicate with the Senate concerning him.
#47 | 33:11 to 33:22 | cleaned
Finally, Judge Crawford has to say this, quote: "The feverish and emotional condition of affairs soon made the presence of the special commissioner at Washington known throughout the city. Congress was still, of course, in session. Senators and members of the House of Representatives, excepting those of the Confederate states who had withdrawn, were in their seats, and the manifestations of anxious care and gloomy forebodings were plainly to be seen on all sides.
#48 | 33:24 to 33:51 | cleaned
This was not confined to sections, but existed among the men of the North and West as well as those of the South." Now listen, "Mr. Buchanan, the President, was in a state of most thorough alarm, not only for his home at Wheatland, but for his personal safety." Now wait a minute. The President was in a state of most thorough alarm, not only for his home at Wheatland, but for his personal safety.
#49 | 33:52 to 34:27 | cleaned
Let me spell it out to you. President Buchanan was so scared, and so gutless, and so cowardly, he would not even receive the Confederate commissioner after he had given his word that he would. Nor would he give any of the communications to the Senate. Why? Here is why. This is made on the statement of President Buchanan himself. He refused with regard to the violence of Northern sentiment, then lately indicated, that he thought it not impossible that his homeward route would be lighted by burning effigies of himself and that on reaching his home he would find it a heap of ashes. What's the President of the United States saying? I'm not going to fulfill my duties because I'm afraid that somebody's going to burn down my home. Where would the violence come from? Help me out?
#50 | 34:28 to 35:36 | cleaned
Not from the South, but from the North. He's saying I'm afraid because of northern sentiment. I'm concerned for my own life and my own home, and thus I'll have nothing to do with these peace commissioners." A little bit later, John Forsyth of Alabama joined Judge Crawford, and they immediately sent a letter to William Seward, who was Secretary of State, and they were requesting a meeting with President Lincoln.
#51 | 35:37 to 36:18 | cleaned
in order that they could resolve some of these conflicts. Their letter was written on March the 12th, 1861. Remember they were in Washington. The letter was sent to William Seward, the Secretary of State. The peace commissioners did not get an answer to their letter for 27 days later on April the 8th. Now, supposedly an answer was filed with the State Department on March the 15th, but it was undated and unsigned. And of course, the commissioners had no idea that a letter had been filed with the State Department.
#52 | 36:19 to 37:15 | cleaned
And even if they had known, there was no signature, there was no date. How would they know anything? So during this 27 days, the peace commissioners are pushing William Seward to arrange a meeting with the President of the United States. Seward does not want to do that because of the northern sentiment. And what he is saying is I'm in a bind.
#53 | 37:15 to 37:48 | cleaned
Now there were two United States Supreme Court justices, one by the name of Nelson from New York and one by the name of Campbell from Alabama. Now Justice Nelson had studied the existing laws as well as the Constitution and his opinion was this, that coercion of the southern states could not be used without a clear violation of the existing laws of the land and of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, the Supreme Court had already ruled that Lincoln nor Congress had any right or any power to coerce a state. Judge Campbell agreed with this. Well, Judge Nelson, being a Northerner, thought since Judge Campbell being a Southerner, might be a kind of go-between, and between them could work something out between Seward and Lincoln and these peace commissioners. So it was Judge Nelson then that suggested that Judge Campbell, since he was a Southerner, might be of service in working this interview out. So let me read to you what Judge Campbell says. "The result of the interview between these two distinguished gentlemen, we are informed, was another visit by both of them to the State Department for the purpose of urging Mr. Seward to reply to the commissioners and assure them of the desire of the United States government for a friendly adjustment.
#54 | 37:49 to 39:35 | cleaned
Mr. Seward seems to have objected to an immediate recognition of the commissioners on the ground that the state of public sentiment in the North would not sustain it in connection with," listen carefully, "in connection with the withdrawal of troops from Fort Sumter, which had been determined on." Now listen to what Seward said. "The evacuation of Sumter is as much as the administration can bear." Now, we're going to evacuate Fort Sumter.
#55 | 39:36 to 40:04 | cleaned
See, that's what South Carolina was asking. Now, I'm going to get into this more next week, but all South Carolina said was, get your troops out of our state. Evacuate it. That's our property. That is our fort. Get your troops out. Judge Campbell adds, "I concurred in the conclusion that the evacuation of Sumter involved responsibility and stated there could not be too much caution in the adoption of measures so as not to shock or to irritate the public sentiment. And that the evacuation of Sumter was sufficient for the president in that direction. I stated that I would see the commissioners and would write to Mr. Davis to that effect. I asked him what I should say as to Sumter and the Pickens." Here is what Judge Campbell says. "He authorized me to say that before the letter could reach him," that is Mr. Davis, President Davis, "he would learn by telegraph that the order for the evacuation of Sumter had been made." Now here's the Secretary of State saying, look, you can write Jefferson Davis if you would like to, but before the letter can ever reach him, he's going to receive a telegraph and that telegraph is going to say the order has been given for Fort Sumter to be evacuated.
#56 | 40:04 to 41:19 | cleaned
It was pretty sharp. Judge Crawford said this, "I want Mr. Seward's pledge. And I want it reduced to writing, and I want Judge Nelson and Judge Campbell's personal assurance as to its accuracy and its genuineness." So it was reduced to writing.
#57 | 41:19 to 41:47 | cleaned
Now I want you to remember Jefferson Davis was to receive a telegraph before a letter could ever reach him that Fort Sumter was to be evacuated. The written statement was exhibited to Judge Nelson before its delivery and approved by him and the fact that the pledge had been given in the name and in behalf of William Seward was communicated to Mr. Seward the same evening by letter.
#58 | 41:50 to 42:25 | cleaned
Now, what do we have? We have an oral communication and we have a written communication to the three commissioners from the Confederate government, that Fort Sumter would be evacuated shortly. And if they were to write Jefferson Davis before he could ever get a letter, a telegraph would be there that the fort had been evacuated.
#59 | 42:25 to 42:49 | cleaned
Now, may I remind you that this assurance was given upon the highest authority, that of the Secretary of State of the United States. However, and we're going to be picking up here next week, on April the 7th of 1861, a relief squadron ordered by Lincoln had left New York to go and to refurbish and refurnish Fort Sumter. When this was noised abroad, Judge Campbell, remember now, this is a Supreme Court justice. He's in the United States Supreme Court. Judge Campbell addressed a letter to Mr. Seward and asked if the assurances he had given were well or ill founded.
#60 | 42:50 to 43:54 | cleaned
Here was the reply he received. "Faith as to Sumter fully kept. Wait and see." This was after the fleet had been put to sea. And this was when Lincoln sent word to Governor Pickens of South Carolina that Fort Sumter would be enforced peaceably if permitted, by force if necessary. So these peace commissioners had been delayed and deceived. I want to read to you, in closing, the letter that the peace commissioners wrote to William Seward.
#61 | 43:54 to 44:43 | cleaned
You talk about saying it straight, here it is. They addressed Mr. Seward on the 9th of April, and they say this, "Your government has not chosen to meet the undersigned in the conciliatory and peaceful spirit in which they are commissioned. Persistently wedded to those fatal theories of construction of the Federal Constitution, always rejected by the statesmen of the South and adhered to by those of the administration school until they have produced their natural and often predicted result of the destruction of the Union under which we have continued to live happily and gloriously together. Had the spirit of the ancestry who framed the common constitution animated the hearts of all their sons? Had you met these issues with frankness and manliness with which the undersigned were instructed to present them to you and treat them?
#62 | 44:44 to 45:42 | cleaned
The undersigned had not now had the melancholy duty to return home and tell their government and their countrymen that their earnest and ceaseless efforts in behalf of peace had been futile. And that the government of the United States meant to subjugate them by force of arms, whatever may be the result. Impartial history will record the innocence of the government of the Confederate States and place the responsibility of the blood and mourning that may ensue upon those who have denied the great fundamental doctrine of American liberty, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and who have set naval and
#63 | 45:43 to 46:22 | cleaned
land armaments in motion to subject the people of one portion of land to the will of another portion. Your refusal to entertain these overtures for a peaceful solution, the active naval and military preparations of this government, and a formal notice to the commanding general of the Confederate forces in the harbor of Charleston that the President intends to provision Fort Sumter by forcible means if necessary, are viewed by the undersigned and can only be received by the world as a declaration of war against the Confederate States." I'm going to show you next week that it was not merely a declaration of war, it was an act of war.
#64 | 46:22 to 47:07 | cleaned
Now, listen to what they said. Had you with frankness and manliness dealt with these issues, they could have been resolved. The South was willing to have a peaceful solution. But the North was not. Now, I want you to listen to me. I'm not going to make my applications until next week. But I want you to remember, I've been teaching along the general theme of where we are and how we got here.
#65 | 47:09 to 47:48 | cleaned
How did we get to such a state where our own government deceives its own people and seeks to subjugate and destroy its own people? How did we get here? It started in 1861, and I can show you in black and white, the constitutional violations by Abraham Lincoln, not only upon the South, but upon the North. And why is it that we today are really received economically, politically, educationally? Because of the policy of deception that began in 1861. By the way, if I'm not badly mistaken, and I'm sure I'm not, executive orders began with Abraham Lincoln. No constitutional foundation. We got here. We're here today because of biblical and constitutional violations in the 1860s. Let's pray.
#66 | 47:54 to 49:28 | cleaned
Father, we ask today that you help us, build us up in the most holy faith. Lord, help us to see that we are to judge righteous judgment. And that righteous judgment must be in light of your word and in light of facts, not in light of propaganda and myth. We ask You, Father, to give us holy boldness and a holy desire to serve Thee, to know the truth, to know where we are, that we might know how to get back to where we were and where we should be. In the name of Jesus Christ, we ask it. Amen.
#67 | 49:29 to 50:14 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-04T18:19:10Z

Where We Are & How We Got Here # 9 of 14

John Weaver | Freedom Ministries

John Weaver argues that the War Between the States was started by the North, not the South, by examining the historical record of peace overtures made by the Confederate States and the deceptive, hostile response of the Lincoln administration. He applies the biblical principle of judging righteous judgment—based on facts and God's Word—to challenge the common narrative that the South fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, asserting that the North rendered force necessary and thus was the true aggressor.

Introduction: The Biblical Principle of Righteous Judgment

Weaver contrasts Matthew 7:1 with John 7:24 to show that Scripture forbids judging motives or hypocritically, but commands righteous judgment based on facts and God's Word.

Matthew chapter 7 and John chapter 7. Matthew 7, John chapter 7. And in Matthew chapter 7, let's read the first five verses. Matthew 7, verse 1, our Lord says,

Scripture Reading — Matthew 7:1-5

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Scripture Reading — John 7:24

Now, I think that's very interesting that so many people today will come along and they'll say, in Matthew 7, verse 1, our Lord says, "Judge not, that ye be not judged," and they never read the context, and what they are implying is this: that we should never make any judgments about anyone or about anything. But if you will look at the context in Matthew chapter 7, what our Lord is forbidding you and me to do, number one would be to judge a motive in verses 1 and 2, and then verses 3 through 5, to judge wickedly when we are as bad as or worse than the person we're trying to judge. You see in the Bible, and even in our own judicial system, we have what is known as the clean hands doctrine. Which means if I'm going to accuse Chester of a crime, my hands must be clean of that crime myself. In other words, if I accuse him at the same time while I'm guilty of doing the same thing that he's doing, then I'm condemning myself as well. So we have what is known as the clean hands doctrine.

Scripture Reading — Galatians 2:11-14

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

So Paul got right up in Peter's face and says, "You are wrong."

Scripture Reading — Galatians 2:11-14

"For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation."

Watch.

Scripture Reading — Galatians 2:11-14

"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

And then he goes on. Now, here's my question. Was Paul judging Peter's motives? No. What was he judging? His actions. What he did.

The Question of Who Started the War

Weaver introduces the central historical question: who actually started the War Between the States, challenging the common belief that the South was the aggressor by firing on Fort Sumter.

The Principle of Aggression: Who Renders Force Necessary?

Citing Hallam's Constitutional History, Weaver argues that the aggressor is not the one who fires first, but the one who renders force necessary, illustrated by a self-defense scenario.

He was the aggressor, not me. He was the one that rendered force necessary. So it is not necessarily who fires the first shot that is the aggressor, but the one who renders force necessary.

The South's Desire for Peaceful Settlement

Weaver details the Confederate Congress's early acts to continue U.S. laws, settle debts equitably, and send peace commissioners to Washington, demonstrating the South's peaceful intentions.

Northern Opposition to Peace: The Peace Congress and Senator Chandler

Senator Lane's Warning: Northern Deception and Desire for War

Senator Joseph Lane's speech is cited, accusing the North of masking coercive intentions in smooth phrases and deceiving the people into civil war.

The Deception of the Peace Commissioners

Weaver recounts how the Confederate peace commissioners were ignored, delayed, and deceived by President Buchanan and Secretary Seward, including a broken promise to evacuate Fort Sumter.

The Commissioners' Final Letter: A Declaration of War

The peace commissioners' letter to Seward is read, declaring that the North's refusal to negotiate and its military preparations amounted to a declaration of war against the Confederate States.

Where We Are & How We Got Here # 9 of 14

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	2304154926
Subject	Economics and Stewardship
Course	Debt, Money, and Stewardship
Genre	Sermon
Date	1998-08-23
Dictation Name
Book	Book 119: Where We Are & How We Got Here — Chapter 9
Source Timed Segments	67

Lecture Guide

Outline

Introduction: The Biblical Principle of Righteous Judgment: Weaver contrasts Matthew 7:1 with John 7:24 to show that Scripture forbids judging motives or hypocritically, but commands righteous judgment based on facts and God's Word.
The Question of Who Started the War: Weaver introduces the central historical question: who actually started the War Between the States, challenging the common belief that the South was the aggressor by firing on Fort Sumter.
The Principle of Aggression: Who Renders Force Necessary?: Citing Hallam's Constitutional History, Weaver argues that the aggressor is not the one who fires first, but the one who renders force necessary, illustrated by a self-defense scenario.
The South's Desire for Peaceful Settlement: Weaver details the Confederate Congress's early acts to continue U.S. laws, settle debts equitably, and send peace commissioners to Washington, demonstrating the South's peaceful intentions.
Northern Opposition to Peace: The Peace Congress and Senator Chandler: Weaver describes the Peace Congress led by Virginia and ex-President Tyler, and exposes Northern resistance, particularly Senator Chandler's letter advocating 'stiff-backed men' and a 'little bloodletting.'
Senator Lane's Warning: Northern Deception and Desire for War: Senator Joseph Lane's speech is cited, accusing the North of masking coercive intentions in smooth phrases and deceiving the people into civil war.
The Deception of the Peace Commissioners: Weaver recounts how the Confederate peace commissioners were ignored, delayed, and deceived by President Buchanan and Secretary Seward, including a broken promise to evacuate Fort Sumter.
The Commissioners' Final Letter: A Declaration of War: The peace commissioners' letter to Seward is read, declaring that the North's refusal to negotiate and its military preparations amounted to a declaration of war against the Confederate States.

Major Themes

Key Arguments

Scripture commands judging actions, not motives, with righteous judgment.

Matthew 7:1 is often misused to forbid all judgment, but context shows it forbids judging motives and hypocritical judgment; John 7:24 commands righteous judgment based on facts.

Weaver says, 'What our Lord is forbidding you and me to do, number one would be to judge a motive... and then verses 3 through 5, to judge wickedly when we are as bad as or worse than the person we're trying to judge.'

The South did not start the war; the North rendered force necessary.

The South fired the first shot at Fort Sumter only after the North broke promises and sent a military expedition, making force necessary.

Weaver argues, 'The aggressor in war is not the first that uses force, but the first who renders force necessary,' and applies this to the Fort Sumter situation.

The Confederate government actively pursued peace through official channels.

The Confederate Congress passed laws to settle debts, ensure free navigation of the Mississippi, and sent peace commissioners to Washington, all demonstrating peaceful intent.

Weaver reads the Confederate resolution to appoint commissioners 'for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations... upon principles of right, justice, and good faith.'

Northern politicians openly expressed a desire for war and opposed compromise.

Senator Chandler's letter reveals a deliberate strategy to send 'stiff-backed men' to the Peace Congress and a belief that 'without a little bloodletting, this union will not... be worth a rush.'

Weaver quotes Chandler: 'Without a little bloodletting, this union will not, in my estimation, be worth a rush.'

The Lincoln administration deceived the peace commissioners and broke promises.

Secretary Seward promised evacuation of Fort Sumter but instead sent a relief squadron, while the commissioners were ignored for 27 days.

Weaver cites Judge Campbell's account: 'He authorized me to say that before the letter could reach him... he would learn by telegraph that the order for the evacuation of Sumter had been made.'

The North's actions constituted a declaration of war.

The peace commissioners' final letter states that the North's military preparations and refusal to negotiate were 'a declaration of war against the Confederate States.'

Weaver reads the commissioners' letter: 'Your refusal to entertain these overtures... are viewed by the undersigned... as a declaration of war against the Confederate States.'

Scripture References

Matthew 7:1-5: Weaver reads the passage to show that Jesus forbids judging motives and hypocritical judgment, not all judgment.
John 7:24: Weaver quotes this verse to establish the command to 'judge righteous judgment' based on facts, not appearances.
Galatians 2:11-14: Weaver cites Paul's public rebuke of Peter for his actions, not his motives, as an example of righteous judgment.

Historical References

Fort Sumter: Weaver discusses the common belief that the South started the war by firing on Fort Sumter and argues the North provoked it.
Abraham Lincoln's fourth annual message to Congress, December 6, 1864: Weaver quotes Lincoln blaming the South for starting the war: 'the war will cease on the part of the government whenever it shall have ceased on the part of those who began it.'
Hallam's Constitutional History: Weaver quotes Hallam's definition of the aggressor in war as the one who renders force necessary.
Confederate Congress, February 9, 1861: Weaver cites the law continuing U.S. laws in force in the Confederacy to show the South's peaceful intentions.
Peace Congress, February 4-27, 1861: Weaver describes the Peace Congress presided over by John Tyler, attended by 21 states, and opposed by Northern radicals.
Senator Chandler's letter to a northern governor, 1861: Weaver reads Chandler's letter advocating 'stiff-backed men' and 'a little bloodletting' to save the Republican Party.
Senator Joseph Lane's speech, March 2, 1861: Weaver quotes Lane accusing the North of deceiving the people into civil war through smooth phrases.
Confederate peace commissioners (Crawford, Forsyth, Roman): Weaver details their appointment, mission, and deceptive treatment by Buchanan and Seward.
Judge John A. Campbell and Judge Nelson: Weaver describes their role as intermediaries and Seward's broken promise to evacuate Fort Sumter.
Lincoln's relief squadron to Fort Sumter, April 1861: Weaver notes the squadron was sent after promises of evacuation, constituting an act of war.

Important Quotes

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

This is the key biblical principle Weaver uses to frame the entire lecture: judgment must be based on facts and God's Word, not superficial appearances.

The aggressor in war is not the first that uses force, but the first who renders force necessary.

This quote from Hallam provides the historical and logical framework for Weaver's argument that the North, not the South, started the war.

Without a little bloodletting, this union will not, in my estimation, be worth a rush.

Senator Chandler's words reveal the Northern desire for war and contempt for peaceful compromise, supporting Weaver's thesis.

In attempting, however, to substitute the smooth phrases 'executing the laws' and 'protecting public property' for coercion, for civil war, we have an important concession, that is, that this government dare not go before the people with a plain avowal of its real purposes and of their consequences.

Senator Lane's speech exposes the Northern strategy of deception, a key point in Weaver's argument about how the war was started.

Your refusal to entertain these overtures for a peaceful solution, the active naval and military preparations of this government, and a formal notice to the commanding general of the Confederate forces in the harbor of Charleston that the President intends to provision Fort Sumter by forcible means if necessary, are viewed by the undersigned and can only be received by the world as a declaration of war against the Confederate States.

The peace commissioners' final letter summarizes the South's perspective that the North's actions constituted a declaration of war, not the firing on Fort Sumter.

Discussion Questions

[Question]

How does the distinction between judging motives and judging actions apply to our daily interactions and conflicts?

[Context]

Weaver explains that Matthew 7 forbids judging motives, while John 7:24 commands judging actions righteously.

[Question]

In what ways might the principle 'the aggressor is the one who renders force necessary' change our understanding of modern conflicts?

[Context]

Weaver introduces this principle from Hallam and applies it to the War Between the States.

[Question]

What can we learn from the Confederate peace commissioners' persistence and eventual frustration about dealing with deceptive authorities?

[Context]

Weaver details the commissioners' 27-day wait and Seward's broken promises.

[Question]

How does Senator Chandler's letter reflect a political strategy that prioritizes party unity over peace and justice?

[Context]

Weaver reads Chandler's letter urging 'stiff-backed men' to prevent Republican rupture.

[Question]

Why is it important to examine primary historical sources rather than relying on common narratives?

[Context]

Weaver emphasizes judging righteous judgment based on facts, not propaganda or myth.

Applications

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

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-05T20:39:24Z