Introduction and Review of Series

Weaver reviews the series theme 'Where we are and how we got here' and recaps previous messages on the abolitionist revolution, theological revolution, and political/economic issues.

Leviticus 25, and we'll read verses 44 through 46, and then begin. Leviticus 25, beginning there with verse 44. Look carefully at what God says:

Now, for some time I've been dealing with the general theme, and I want you to remember this theme: "Where we are and how we got here." You and I cannot find our way out of the predicament that we are in unless we do know where we are and how we got where we are. May I remind you, first of all, I brought a message on the abolitionist revolution. May I remind you that the general thrust of that message was here were six men that entered into a conspiracy literally to take over our government. They began to start a war in order that they might literally gain control. I have not even dealt with Reconstruction yet, which is the fruit and the evidence of that statement. But the truth of the matter is here was a certain handful of people that wanted absolute control. There have been people like that down through the ages. There are still people like that today. So there was an abolitionist revolution where they were fomenting a war or trying to start an insurrection in order that they might grab control of the government, which, by the way, worked. For the longest time afterwards, they have been in control. And then secondly, I showed you the theological revolution. I showed you how that there had to be a break in the faith and a break in the churches in order for there to be a break in the nation. So first there was a theological division and then there was the political division.

Remember what I told you. You cannot have a shift in culture without having a shift in theology. So your theology breaks down and then your culture breaks down. The third message I dealt with the political and the economic issues and I showed you where the purpose of the North was literally to break the backbone of the South and it did so economically. I'm going to show you another little bit of that picture today as well. And then of course I began to deal with the biblical view of slavery. And I've shown you from the Bible where slavery is not wrong in and of itself. I'm not going to go back and review all the ways that an individual could become a slave, but I just read a passage which I'm going to emphasize in just a moment that slavery is not inherently evil or wicked or sinful in and of itself. So after having dealt two messages with the biblical view of slavery, I now begin to show the southern view of slavery.

Biblical Foundation for Slavery

Reading Leviticus 25:44-46, Weaver argues that slavery is not inherently sinful and that God permitted permanent slavery of heathens.

And what I want to demonstrate is this. I want you to understand that our forefathers were not wicked and evil in and of themselves just simply because they had slaves. We do not look back on our history and say, "Well, boy, we were all wrong. Our forefathers were all wrong." Listen, most people don't even know why our forefathers fought. They were not fighting to preserve slavery. Slavery was not the issue. Slavery may have been used, but slavery was not the issue. Now, I want you to look before you begin today at Leviticus 25. Look at what God says.

Now, it cannot be any plainer. It cannot be any clearer. After having forbidden the children of Israel from making bondmen and bondwomen over their brethren—and remember, an Israelite could be a slave for six years, and then he had to be freed on the seventh year, and then, of course, he could not go out empty—but look what he says in verse 44: "Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shalt thou buy bondmen and bondmaids." Now, remember, I told you that the reason the heathen could be made bondmen and bondwomen was because the heathen are slaves by nature. And slavery, by the way, is a form of welfare. It is. But here the individual or the family is taking care of the slaves and not the state. So God says you may buy them of the heathen. Watch verse 45: "Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall you buy, of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession." So once again, God says you may buy them. Watch. It is permanent slavery that it has in mind. Verse 46 says: "And you shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you." So the slave could be literally passed on down for the children after them. So it was indeed a permanent servitude or a permanent slavery.

You know, we think, "Well, slavery was ended with the Emancipation Proclamation," which is a lie, which I'll probably cover that as well. The Emancipation Proclamation never freed one slave. That had nothing to do with slavery. It was a military measure. The fact of the matter is this. The 14th Amendment did not free the African people or the black people, the Negroes, whatever you want to call them. It did not free them.

What it did was enslave everybody. It literally enslaved them. You see what I'm saying? You either have to work to pay off the bank note, or your mortgage, or your car, or your kids, or your husband, or your wife, or your kids, or the barter, or your son, or your wife, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter. Some—

—of those black children I grew up with, one of them particularly, he was still a good friend of mine, one of them, my daddy called him son half the time. He got all of my clothes, he got all of my toys, he was four or five months younger than I am. Do you know even after he was grown, he and his family still lived on our farms.

Personal Anecdote on Southern Paternalism

Weaver shares a personal story about a black family that worked on his father's farm, illustrating a form of welfare where the master provided housing, food, and wages.

What it did was enslave everybody. It literally enslaved them. You see what I'm saying? You either have to work to pay off the bank note, or your mortgage, or your car, or your kids, or your husband, or your wife, or your kids, or the barter, or your son, or your wife, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter, or your son, or your daughter. Some—

—of those black children I grew up with, one of them particularly, he was still a good friend of mine, one of them, my daddy called him son half the time. He got all of my clothes, he got all of my toys, he was four or five months younger than I am. Do you know even after he was grown, he and his family still lived on our farms. Now I want you to think about something. And I thought about this the other day. And, by the way, this black boy helped save my life. He said, you know, a black boy pulled a knife on me, and before I could ever move, this black boy jumped into him, took the knife away from him, knocked him up against the wall and said, "Have you ever pulled a knife on me?"

And he said, "I'll kill you." Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. This family, my father paid them 30 bucks a week. He said, "Dad, how can you live on 30 bucks a week?" I want you to stop and think about something. Of course, when I was a boy, thirty bucks a week was a whole lot more than it is now. But my father provided all the food. Every time an animal was killed, they got part of the meat. They had some garden that we ate out of. My father provided all the housing, all the electricity. He gave them not only wages, the $30 a week, which most folks think is poverty wages, but he also gave them a little share in property tax. They would end up with $1,000 or $2,000, whatever came out of that crop. Part of it was theirs, or half of it was theirs.

They could literally throw away what they wanted to throw away. Why? They needed to live. They had a house. They had electricity. They had food. They had clothing. They had everything for them. If you wanted to put it like this, in reality, they would have been our slave farmers. Were they free to leave? Yeah, they were free to leave. But they would not leave, did not leave till way later on, until farming changed and everything got mechanized to the point that you did not need 200 people on your farms in one day.

I don't care if you're talking about cotton. Back when I was a young man, like I said, when I was in my early teens, we drove a cotton picker and that cotton picker picked five or six bales a day for the 200. So the point I'm trying to get is that slavery basically, in one form or another, is still around today.

Propaganda and the Need for Truth

Weaver asserts that people have been brainwashed by propaganda, particularly the lie that the North was always anti-slavery and the South pro-slavery.

Now, God said that you may have slaves. Nothing sinful and evil about that. The point that I want to clear up today is this. You see, our Lord said in John 8:32,

And that is true in every area. Because all truth is God's truth. I don't care if you're on the economic truth, historical truth, theological truth, legal truth, political truth, all truth is God's truth. One of our biggest problems is propaganda has permeated every vestige of our being, even without our knowledge of it.

We have literally been propagandized. Let me use another word. We have been brainwashed. Someone has said, and it's rightly so, that a lie doesn't work twice while truth is still putting her boots on. And every one of us are familiar with this old adage, if you tell a lie often enough and long enough, people think it's the truth. Well, let me tell you, one of the reasons I'm preaching and teaching on this series is because so many people are so confused and have no knowledge of what to believe. One of the biggest lies, one of the biggest untruths, errors, most effective propaganda that has been promulgated down through the ages says that the North has always been against slavery, quote unquote. And the South has always been for slavery.

Now, let me tell you something. Again, there's nothing unbiblical about the South at the end of the year. Well, the North was righteous in the South. We were against slavery. We freed our slaves, you know, etc. The South, you're the ones that retained them, had to fight you, to force you to get rid of your slaves. Let me tell you something. If you begin to search the historical record, you will find that that is not the truth. Do you realize there are many men in the South, prominent men, who were against slavery? Now let me explain when I say against slavery. Not that they thought it was unbiblical. Not that they thought it was wicked or wrong in and of itself.

Southern Opposition to the Slave Trade

Historical evidence shows that Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia passed laws to restrict or stop the importation of slaves, but were overruled by the British king and later by Northern states.

Simply because they thought that it was a blight and a social—you have been like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and although Jefferson owned slaves, by the way, he still thought it was a blight and a curse. There was James Madison, there was James Monroe, there was Henry Witt, Richard Henry Lee, John Randolph, Grayson, George Mason, all of them basically believed that slavery was a blight upon society and it ought to be done away with. Do you realize that wasn't it? It was the South tried to do away, but the South was consistently and constantly overruled, first of all by the King of England, and secondly, later on, by the northern states. Now, Virginia led off first. The first among the American states to take the step to curb slavery was Virginia.

As early as 1761, its lawmakers attacked slavery by trying to attach to it a duty. In other words, you had to pay a huge duty to import a slave. A decade later, they were—in percuting the English king, please let's stop the importation of slaves. And Virginia was saying that it was a great sin against humanity is what they were saying. Then they said that in 1699 to 1772, Virginia passed 23 legislative acts saying we don't want slaves in our state.

Now what happened? How can Virginia pass 23 legislative acts saying we don't want slaves coming in our state? And yet slaves continue to come in. I'll tell you how. Because the king was constantly overruling the Collins. Do you realize in 1760 South Carolina passed a law, no more slaves can come into this state. Guess what happened? The king said, they are coming into your state, and I am voiding your legislation. And he gave a warning to every other state who tried to block the slave trade.

I hope you will know that it was Georgia who has first rank among the states for trying to constitutionally limit or stop slavery. In fact, Doc, you ought to know this. Darien, in 1775, under James Oglethorpe, protested what they called the slave trade as an unnatural act. A little bit later on, Georgia's Congress went on and condemned the trade in Africa's slavery and in 1787 a representative from Georgia said to the house that all of his constituents were against the slave trade and they wanted the importation of blacks into Georgia stopped. Now here is Virginia, here is South Carolina, here is Georgia all saying we don't want the slaves over here, please stop. Who keeps sending the slaves over here? Well, first of all, it was King. And secondly, it was the northern states when the Constitution was being debated. And remember, I told you George Mason refused to sign the Constitution because George Mason was pushing for a law that would prohibit slaves, the importation of slaves. And so when he did not get that, of course, he refused.

Remember, George Mason, by the way, is from Virginia. At the same time, here were a group of individuals saying, "No, no, we don't want the importation of slaves, stop." Guess what group it was that lobbied for an extension of the slave trade? It was the northern states, the northeastern states particularly. They were the ones that forced it, where the Constitution then would allow slavery up until 1808. I hope most of you have heard of what is known as the Northwest Ordinance. Anybody here not heard of Northwest Ordinance? Northwest Ordinance came into existence because Virginia ceded all of those great northern lands that her sons had conquered and explored, ceded them, gave them to the United States of America. Those lands that Virginia gave to the United States of America, we have the of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Minnesota, and what else? Michigan, and Wisconsin. So Virginia gave all of that land to the United States. But there was a Northwest Ordinance and there were six articles in the Northwest Ordinance, and let me read to you the sixth article.

The Northwest Ordinance and Northern Hypocrisy

The Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery in the territory, but Northern representatives later sought to suspend the prohibition to allow slaveholders to bring their slaves into the region.

Here it is, black and white: "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." Now, when Virginia gave this land to the United States government, and by the way, our Congress adopted the Northwest Territory, the sixth article said there was to be no slavery and no involuntary servitude in any of these states or any of these lands that had been given. Guess what happened? The sixth article was asked to be legally suspended by Congress on February 14, 1806. And why was it asked to be suspended? Because the people in that territory wanted slaves in that area.

Now I want to read to you just a paragraph and let you hear what the representatives said. In fact, they got their wish in the sense of from the House, not from the Senate. I'll explain in just a moment. But here is what the committee said when they were asked to suspend the sixth article: "The suspension of this article is an object almost universally desired in that territory." Paraphrasing: Everybody wanted slaves. And we're talking about Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio. The first sentence: "The suspension of this article is an object almost universally desired in that territory. It appears to your committee to be a question entirely different from that between slavery and freedom inasmuch as it would merely occasion the removal of persons already slaves from one part of the country to another." So here's what they're saying: We want slaves permitted in this land. Now, the committee is saying they're not asking for a fresh importation of slaves. What they are asking is that people anywhere will be able to come into this territory and bring their slaves with them. It goes on: "The good effects of this suspension, in the present instance, would be to accelerate the population of that territory, hitherto retarded by the operation of that article of compact, as slaveholders immigrating into the western country might then indulge any preference which they might feel for a settlement in the Indiana territory."

"...instead of seeking, as they are now compelled to do, settlements in other states or countries permitting the introduction of slaves. The condition of the slaves themselves would be much ameliorated by it, as it is evident from experience, that the more they are separated and diffused, the more care and attention are bestowed on them by their masters, each for priority, having it in his own power to increase their comforts and conveniences in proportion to the smallest of their numbers." Now, here were the people in the Indiana territory saying, "We want slaves allowed up here. We want people to come into this territory and feel free to bring their slaves with them."

Now, it's very important that you understand this argument. Why is it very important? Listen to me. They're saying, "We're not asking for a fresh importation of blacks from Africa. That's not what we're asking. We're asking that anybody, anywhere, who already owns blacks, will be able to come into this territory and settle it." And here's what the committee said. The committee said that this is not an extension of slavery. It is rather allowing people who are already slaves and who are the own slaves to come into that territory and just simply settle there.

Now, the House in Congress passed this resolution. But when the bill got to the Senate, the Senate failed to pass it and it was just simply dropped. Now, the important thing I want you to understand is this. It was the North that made this argument originally and initially. It was the North who desired people down in the South, or whoever they were, to bring their slaves and come up here and help settle this territory. When you, later on, have the North fighting against the South, one of their main arguments is this, especially when you get into the Free Soilers, when you get into the Radical Republicans, they're saying, "We're not going to allow slaves over here in Kansas. No, no, this is free soil." And the Southerners are saying, "We're not trying to import slaves. We're just trying to take the slaves we have and feel free to go somewhere and saddle with them."

Anti-Slavery Societies and the Confederate Constitution

In 1827, four-fifths of anti-slavery societies were in the South. The Confederate Constitution was the first national constitution to forbid the importation of African slaves.

And they said, "No, no, that can't be done. That is an extension of slavery." In other words, what the North was condemning in the South was what the North originally and initially suggested to begin with. In other words, when it was profitable for them, it was all right. When it was profitable for the South, then it was all wrong. Now, let me just try to emphasize again, I want to dispel the propaganda that the North has always been against slavery and the South has always been for slavery. Lundy has written a book, and the book is entitled, "The Genius of Emancipation." And he records in this book a little-known fact, but I want you to listen to this. Are you seated? Hold on. Of the 130 anti-slavery societies operating in the United States in 1827, four-fifths, four-fifths of those 130 anti-slavery societies were in the South.

Now how does that grab you? You've got to remember the North had 10 million white people. The South had less than five million white people, but four-fifths of the anti-slavery society were in the South and not in the North. When William Lloyd Garrison began his fight, quote-unquote, for abolition, the South had been wanting to free the slaves for a long time.

Now, you see, the Constitution of the United States forbade Congress to interfere with the slave trade, or to use its own words, it forbade Congress to interfere with the migration or the importation of such persons as the states should think proper to admit prior to 1808. In other words, after 1808, there was a cutoff time and there were to be no more slaves imported. But prior to 1808, you could import them. Now, the interesting thing is this. Someone says, "Well, South Carolina appealed to have the slave trade stopped. But then South Carolina turned around and repealed its law that it passed and allowed slaves into South Carolina." Well, why in the world would South Carolina say, "We want a law passed saying that no slaves can come into this state," and then they turn around and repeal the law? Let me explain it to you.

In fact, instead of explaining it to you, I'm going to read you what the representative said to the House of Representatives on February the 14th, 1804. Here's what Mr. Lowndes said: "The reason assigned for this action was the impossibility of enforcing the law without the aid of the federal government, to which entire control of the revenues, the revenue of police and naval forces of the country had been surrendered by the states." Now listen to what he said: "The geographical situation of our country, South Carolina, is not unknown. With navigable rivers running into the heart of it, it was impossible with our means to prevent our Eastern brethren, our Northeastern brethren that is, engaged in this trade from introducing them, that is the Negroes, into this country. The law was completely evaded. Under these circumstances, sir, it appears to me it has been the duty of the legislature to repeal the law and remove from the eyes of the people the spectacle of the authority being daily violated." Did you hear that? Daily violated. So when they repealed the law, it was only to be repealed until 1808, when it was to be gone out anyhow, because Congress was supposed to then forbid the importation of slaves.

Now, here's what he's saying. We can't stop these slave traders. They can bring their slaves into our rivers. We don't even know they're there. Congress has the Navy. You have the power. Why don't you do it? And what is happening is this, the Northeastern people are daily unloading slaves in our state without our knowledge, without our consent, and rather than just see the law habitually violated, we'll repeal the law until 1808 until you can stop it. Well, of course, it did not stop.

By the way, let me ask this question, what was the first national constitution to forbid the importation of blacks? Are you listening? The Confederate Constitution. The Confederate Constitution, Article One, Section 9 says this: "The importation of Negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slave-holding states or territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden, and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same." So the first Constitution to forbid the importation of African slaves was the Confederate Constitution. The United States Constitution allowed it. May I ask you why it is the blacks are all upset with the South and with the Confederates? As I said last week, there was no southern ship that ever brought one black slave into this country. No black slave ever came into this country under confederate flag. They all came into this country under the stars and stripes. The confederate constitution is the first constitution that said you cannot import anymore black. That's it. Now what the constitution did allow, the confederate constitution, was those who were already slaves could freely bring their slaves in and out of whatever state they entered in the confederate nation.

But it was the Confederate Constitution that said, no more importation of slaves, that's it. Now, the South was just as interested, and probably even more so, in ending slavery than the North. But you've got to ask yourself this question. What were you going to do with all the slaves? Where in the world were they going to go? Let's ask another question and answer it first. How did the North get rid of their slaves? Maybe the South could get rid of theirs the way the North got rid of theirs, huh? How did the North get rid of their slaves? Well, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, there were slaves in every American state. Every colony had slaves. After the signing of the Declaration of Independence, not one northern state rushed to free their slaves. No, they did not.

How the North Abolished Slavery Gradually and Profitably

Northern states passed gradual emancipation laws that freed children of slaves at a future age, while selling existing slaves to the South. Massachusetts expelled free blacks by whipping.

And let me tell you something else. Not one law was ever passed in the North that granted freedom to a person already in slavery. Now let me say that again. I want you to hear it. Not one law was ever passed in the North that granted freedom to any person who was already in slavery.

Now let me make something exceedingly clear. Northern property rights were protected by Northern law. Now, there were laws passed in the North, and I'll give you an example, like in New Jersey, that said this, that children born of slave parents, after a certain age and after a certain date, would be free. But all those who were already slaves would remain so. In other words, there was no law passed that just, across the board, freed everyone instantly. So what they did when they passed laws, they said, "Look, after 1804, when a slave child reaches the age of 21, he shall be free." Now, that means this, a woman who was a slave and was 15 years old in 1804 in New Jersey would forever be a slave.

Now, let me tell you something else, you've got to understand how the mind works. Now, here's the law passed, the law passed, says in 1804. After 1804, you can be free after you reach the age of 21. Let's say, for instance, that at age 30, a black woman gives birth to a child in 1829.

Now, she's already a slave. Well, it's after 1804. That means then when the child is 21, that child will be free, right? Well, I hope you understand that 1829 plus 21 would be 1850, so there could be a slave in New Jersey up until 1850, just using that one illustration. But what most people don't realize is this. What the law allowed was this. Let's suppose that black boy was 20 years old. Zachary 1804, man, one more year and he's going to be free. He's going to be 21. But that northern master could take that 20 year old black boy since he was still a slave hadn't reached 21 yet, and sell him to a Southern master, and the boy would still be in permanent slavery. He just got sold before he reached 21.

Now, here's the point I'm trying to make. How did the North get rid of their slaves? I'm going to answer it in two ways. Number one, they got rid of them gradually. And number two, they got rid of them profitably. They sold them to the South. This way, the North did not have a huge increase in free blacks. In fact, I'm going to give you some census records in just a moment.

But let me tell you how Massachusetts dealt with the problem. In 1788, Massachusetts started its emancipation of the slave population. And how did it emancipate its slaves? Well, Massachusetts passed a law ordering every black, every mulatto, and every Indian out of its territory. And if they came into the state and remained for two months, they were to be publicly whipped. And if they did not leave, they were to be publicly whipped again. And if they did not leave, they were to be publicly whipped again. In other words, they were to be publicly whipped until they were run out of the state. So by 1834, Massachusetts had purged itself from the undesirables. They literally ran them out of the state.

Now, the point I'm making is this, the South was not allowed to do what the North did. It was not allowed to get rid of its slaves gradually, nor profitably, nor economically.

Economic Motivations and the Cost of Slavery

The North found industrial wage labor cheaper than slaveholding. The South had a large financial investment in slaves, with prices ranging from $1,400 to over $5,000 for skilled workers.

Now let me ask you a question. Why did the North want to get rid of their slaves to begin with? Was it because of some altruistic virtue that they had? Was it from the fact that they just believed that slavery was wrong? No. No. If you go back to the first message, the abolitionists did not like the slaves. They did not like blacks. They did not love the blacks.

They could care less about them. It is true they dispensed with their slaves profitably. And it was not just that they could make money. But I want you to remember this. There were great geographical and economical differences between the North and the South. The North did not have the plantations, it did not have the crops, it did not have the climate, nor did it have the inclination to work and produce on the scale that the South did. The North turned out to be preeminently industrial. Since it was industrial and not agricultural, it did not need slaves. Now wait. You know what the North found out? The North discovered that they could take white men and women and white children and work them in their factories 14 hours a day and pay them and forget them cheaper than they could hold slaves.

And so after they realize, "Hey, we can do this. That means we don't have to take care of the sick. We don't have to take care of the poor. We don't have to take care of the elderly." In other words, once we give them this little bit of money, then our responsibility towards them stops. If they die, they die. We haven't lost anything. We'll just hire somebody else.

So the North, then, got rid of their slaves. Why? Because they found they could work their children in their sweatshops 14 hours a day. Now, I do not want you to think that the South was not freeing its slaves. It was freeing many slaves as much as it possibly could. You know, what a lot of people do not understand is this. There was a great expense in freeing a slave. It wasn't just, "Hey, you can walk off and go free." If it was done right, there was a great deal of expense involved in freeing a slave.

Let me give you some census figures, and I can document it because I have the census figures in several books at the house. But here's the 1840 census. In 1840, there were 170,000 free blacks in all the northern states. In all the northern states, in 1840, there were 170,000 free blacks. In 1840, in the southern states, there were 198,000 free blacks.

And you've got to remember, there were 10 million whites in the North and 5 million in the South. In 1840, the South still had 28,000 more free blacks than the North did. In other words, the Southern states, with half the population, had freed 16% more of its slaves in 1840 than the North had. Moreover, by 1860, the year that South Carolina seceded, there were 257,000 free blacks in the South, which was an increase of 30% in 20 years. Now, by the way, these free slaves were not freed by law. They were not freed by edict. They were not freed by demand. They were freed by the generosity, the graciousness, of their owners. No law came along and said you must free your slave. 257,000 of them had already been freed.

Now, I want you to stop and think. Although the South had voluntarily freed 237,000 blacks, most people have no idea of the economic impact that that had on the South. Not the freeing of the 237,000, but when all of the slaves were forcefully freed by the North. I got so incensed this week. Alice and I, usually if we watch TV, we will watch PBS and I'll pick some of those programs. But they had a program on about the South. I was so infuriated because they were talking about how poor, ignorant, and stupid, and they used the word stupid, that Southerners were. And they showed the scraggly farms and the scraggly dressed blacks and whites, and the guy was going on, he was saying there was no literature in the South, there was nothing. And I could not help but say out loud, "Yeah, dummy, that's because of reconstructionism. And it's because of the economic rate that the North did to the South." You say, "What are you talking about?"

Well, let me just try to give it to you. Do you understand that slaves did not come cheaply? Consequently, many Southerners did not even own slaves. Out of the 5 million whites in the South, there were only about 350,000 slave owners. 8,000 of these owned more than 50 slaves. 69,000 of these owned only one slave. That meant the rest owned somewhere between 2 and 49 slaves, and the average would have been 10. Now, let me give you a good example and a good reason as to why most Southerners did not own slaves.

It was not necessarily because they were all against slavery. Many Southerners were against slavery. But one of the main reasons there were not more whites that owned slave was because of the expense. And I'm not talking about just the initial purchase. I'm going to show you the initial purchase was far more than you can imagine. But you just stop and think about the upkeep. Let me read to you. 1860. The normal price of a slave in 1860 was from $1,400 to $2,000.

Quote, "At an auction sale in Brooks County, Georgia." Anybody know where Brooks County is? Is that Quitman? What's Brooks? That's Quitman, isn't it? Okay. Camilla? No, he says it's... Okay, so Brooks is Quitman. Okay, that's what I thought. Alright. So, at another sale in Brooks County, Georgia, that's Quitman, the average price exceeded $1,500 or $1,500 per slave. In 1859, the administrators of the Thigpen Estate in Alabama disposed of its slave holdings. The average price was $1,300, but Henry—so you got your name, brother. But Henry brought $2,400 and Stephen $2,431. The same year in Albany, Georgia, purchasers paid $1,900 for first-class field hands. $1,900 for first-class field hands.

For an exceptionally desirable one, the bids went to more than $2,800. A few years before Montgomery, Alabama, the sale of a slave carpenter realized for the seller $2,000. Now, I intended to bring a book with me this morning and walked out and left it on my desk. I want to blame it on the fact that I had grandkids there, but the truth is it's probably old age. But I brought the book and showed it to you, and the name of the book is, "When I Was Chilling on Marshall's Plantation," it is the Slave Narratives of Georgia. And in that book, one of the slaves, Willis Coper, of the Coper Plantation, who himself was an ex-slave, said this, and I quote, listen to me, "Carpenters and bricklayers and blacksmiths run fancy prices from $3,000 to $5,000 sometimes." Now, I want you to stop and think about this. It would be absolutely obvious that any plantation would have to have a blacksmith, would have to have a carpenter, would have to have a bricklayer.

I mean, you can't have a plantation without people that know how to do those things. Now, let's go back to the census. In 1860, according to the 1860 census, there were 3,502,115 black slaves in the South. 3,502,115 in the 11 southern states.

Now you begin to compute that number at a minimum of 1,000 per slave to 5,000. That is just the initial investment. That does not count the upkeep. That does not count the clothing, and the housing, and the feeding, and the doctoring, and the general upkeep. You're going to find billions of dollars. Now listen, John B. Winters in his book, "Civil War in Louisiana," on page 428 stated that Louisiana alone lost by virtue of the war, lost $170 million in slave property alone.

You combine the 11 southern states. If Louisiana lost $170 million in slave property alone, you're talking, of all the states, three to four billion dollars wiped out at one time.

Economic Devastation of the South and Modern Parallels

The forced emancipation without compensation wiped out billions in Southern capital, leading to poverty. Weaver draws a parallel to modern Christians being kept poor and politically powerless.

Now you begin to compute that number at a minimum of 1,000 per slave to 5,000. That is just the initial investment. That does not count the upkeep. That does not count the clothing, and the housing, and the feeding, and the doctoring, and the general upkeep. You're going to find billions of dollars. Now listen, John B. Winters in his book, "Civil War in Louisiana," on page 428 stated that Louisiana alone lost by virtue of the war, lost $170 million in slave property alone.

You combine the 11 southern states. If Louisiana lost $170 million in slave property alone, you're talking, of all the states, three to four billion dollars wiped out at one time. Now let me ask you a question. What would it be like for Georgia if three to four billion dollars of its capital was destroyed at one time? Where would we be? In food lines, begging for bread. Then you've got to compare something else. You've got to compare the money of 1860 to the money of 1998. And by comparison, from it being three to four billion dollars, because of inflation, it's probably worth a trillion dollars in today's money. You take a trillion dollars out of a southern state or the nation, and you see where the devastation is. I mean, all at once, it's just simply all gone.

Now, may I remind you of this? That England, in all of its colonies, and I'm not talking about the thirteen original colonies, I'm talking about its worldwide holdings, England abolished slavery and compensated the owners for their slaves. The North was able to get rid of theirs gradually and profitably. But the South forcibly had theirs destroyed and taken from them. Only the South was looted and sacked and destroyed.

Now, I want you to see this. Please think with me. The war was not over slavery. The war was intended to destroy the South, to break the backbone of the South. What better way to destroy someone politically than to destroy them economically?

Now, let me ask another question. Why is it we have no political clout today? Come on. Why is it we as Christians have no political clout? One of the reasons is because we have no what? No money. No money. Because it takes money to operate. What has our government done? It has reduced us to the place where usually now both husband and wife have to work just to pay bills.

Not for the second car. Not for our college education. Just to exist! You see, the strategy that works in 1860-65 is the same strategy that has been working from 1865-1998. You keep a people poor. You keep them so occupied with making a dollar just to exist, just to buy bread, and they don't have time to think about anything else. We can't organize. Why can we not organize? Organization takes money.

In today's situation, you have to have computers, you have to have telephones, you have to have a building. You see what I'm saying? The same tactic that originally worked in the destruction of the South is normally still employed against the South, but against Christians. Alice and I were listening to the radio coming over here, I believe it was on the news, and they said the South, percentage-wise, had more people that still believe in God, still believe in the Bible, still believe in the power of God, than any other area in the country. I looked at Alice, I could have told them that without a problem.

Conclusion: The War Was About Conquest, Not Slavery

Weaver concludes that the war aimed to destroy the South economically and politically, not to free slaves. He calls for obedience to God's Word as the way out of the current mess.

In today's situation, you have to have computers, you have to have telephones, you have to have a building. You see what I'm saying? The same tactic that originally worked in the destruction of the South is normally still employed against the South, but against Christians. Alice and I were listening to the radio coming over here, I believe it was on the news, and they said the South, percentage-wise, had more people that still believe in God, still believe in the Bible, still believe in the power of God, than any other area in the country. I looked at Alice, I could have told them that without a problem.

But the question is, if we are the most, and I hate to use this word, but you'll understand it, if we're the most conservative, and if we're the most Christian, why is it we're not lifting up our voice and crying out? And why is it we're not using every tool available? And the answer is, no money, no economics. Let me tell you, the South wanted to get rid of its slaves, because slavery was basically becoming not only highly unprofitable, but unworkable in a lot of areas. But most southern slave owners were Christian enough, they weren't just going to kick the people out and say, "That's it, you're on your own." Starve, die, whatever you want to do. It was not over slavery. It was over destruction and the conquest of the South. Do you realize that every confederate state was divided into military districts and ruled over by military officers? Treated as a conquered people because that was the purpose of the war. Let's pray. Father, we ask for your help today. We ask, Father, that we can see how, Lord, we have been subdued. We have been destroyed. And Lord, it open our eyes that we may see how to bring ourselves out of the mess that we're in. And the first way out is obedience to Your Word in every area of our lives. We ask You, Father, to teach us Thy truth. Enable us to find our way back to Thee and back to Thy Word. In the name of Jesus Christ we ask and pray, Amen.