Debt, Money, and Stewardship

Where We Are & How We Got Here # 3 of 14

Transcript: AI Transcript

Professor: John Weaver

Subject: Economics and Stewardship

Genre: Sermon

Dictation Name:

Date: 1998-07-12

Synopsis: In this third message of the series, John Weaver examines the political, economic, and sectional differences that led to the War of Northern Aggression. He argues that the North's desire to break Southern power and impose high tariffs, not slavery, was the primary cause of the war. The South was systematically exploited through federal legislation, and the theological shift away from biblical foundations continues to cause cultural decay. The only remedy is repentance and obedience to God's Word.

[John Weaver] When we preach expositionally, that is, I take a passage from the Bible and I break it down and take it point by point and verse by verse. In fact, I have just finished a series of 18 messages on Romans 8, 28 through 39. So that will tell you how long I normally stay on a passage. I started a series two weeks ago, basically entitled Where We Are and How We Got Here.

[John Weaver] And I have been dealing more with our history and principles from the Word of God. And let's read Psalm 11, then I'm going to give a brief introduction and pick up from there, because this is the third message. Look in Psalm 11, verse 3. Psalm 11, verse 3. This has been our foundational verse, and I think you can see why. Scripture says, if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

[John Weaver] Now, anyone who's ever built a house or had any building experience knows the absolute importance of a foundation, because once that foundation goes, then the house that is erected on top of it is divided in rent and sunder as well. So our Lord asks, if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? I tried to show you how the foundations in our country have been rent in twain.

[John Weaver] I first showed you Number one, the abolitionist revolution. I was going back to the 1860s because that is basically when our country began to deteriorate. Actually, it began before, but that was the culmination of it. It really began in the 1830s and the 1840s because the abolitionists were those individuals who were calling for the immediate abolition or the freedom of the slaves in this country. Now, you've got to remember that, first of all, it was the northerners who sold the slaves to the southerners. Secondly, you've got to remember the people who were crying were Unitarians.

[John Weaver] They did not believe the Bible. They did not believe in Jesus Christ. They did not believe in inspiration of Scripture. They did not believe in supernaturalism at all. And so I showed historically where they hated not only the South, but they hated the slave and slavery, and they hated the Constitution as well. In fact, William Lloyd Garrison said the Constitution was an agreement with death and a covenant with hell, and of course they did not feel themselves morally bound to uphold their agreement that they had made with the other states. And, of course, they nullified the Constitution with what were known as the Fugitive Slave Laws because they refused to keep their end of the compact.

[John Weaver] I showed how these very abolitionists despised the black people and called them all kinds of names. Abraham Lincoln himself said if he could restore this country without freeing any slave, he would do it. If he could restore it by freeing all slaves, he would do it. He could care less about the blacks one way or the other. And then last week I dealt with the theological revolution, and I showed where the broken churches in this country preceded our broken nation. I showed you how the Presbyterians divided in 1837, the Methodists in 1844, and the Baptists in 1845. And I gave you numerous quotes where very clearly that everyone foresaw not only the political leaders, but the religious leaders as well. that the division in the church foreshadowed the division in the country.

[John Weaver] And basically is this, when people will not sit down and resolve their problems scripturally and biblically, there is not going to be a resolution. That's all there is to it. And when you have one group denying the veracity of the Word of God, and the inspiration of the Word of God and another group upholding the Word of God and saying we want to be biblical about it, there can be no reconciliation. The only thing there's going to be is division.

[John Weaver] For as Amos 3.3 says, can two walk together except they be agreed. So the broken churches then foreshadowed the broken nation.

[John Weaver] Now, remember, I dealt last week with the theological shift. Let me make this statement again, because this is highly important. In fact, there are two statements. I told you, first of all, that ideas have consequences. And then secondly, I told you that all cultural changes, all cultural shifts or the consequence of theological shifts. You cannot have a change in culture without having a change in theology. And the reason our culture keeps changing in America is because our theology keeps changing.

[John Weaver] That's why we keep condoning sodomy. That's why we keep condoning abortion. That's why we keep condoning socialism. Because the theology keeps shifting from the Word of God to a humanistic, or a humanistic view, I should say. So very clearly, then, you cannot have a cultural shift without having a theological shift. Now, I emphasized last week the theological shift.

[John Weaver] Now, let me make an introductory statement today. As important as the theological shift was and is, there were other issues involved. Let me make a clarification. That does not mean that these other issues do not have theological overtones. They most certainly do. Because one's worldview affects everything that he does, everything that he believes, everything that he says. Your worldview is determined by your theology. What you believe about God and what you believe about the Word of God. And thus your worldview then is going to affect your view of economics. It's going to affect your view of differences, of subjects. It's going to affect everything. So when I am isolating today two or three issues, but please do not say, well, He dealt with theological issues last week, and this week, he's going to deal with political and economical and sexual differences, and therefore, there are no theological overtones. No, there are theological overtones.

[John Weaver] For instance, the Bible says in Proverbs 22, verse 7, that the borrower is servant or slave to the lender. What does that mean? That means a man who believes the Bible is going to do everything he can to stay out of debt Because he wants to be free and the man who does not believe the Bible is going to continue to follow and to fall in debt because he has a slave mentality and he is a slave basically.

[John Weaver] So your worldview, your theology affects every area of life. So it is impossible then to escape theology. Everything that we say, do and think is affected by our theology.

[John Weaver] Now, today I want to deal with three other issues that brought about the division, or what you and I would call the War of Northern Aggression, or if you would like to say, the Second War for Southern Independence, or if you really want to call it for what it was, you could call it Lincoln's War Against All Christian Nations, or All Christian States. That is also an excellent title as well.

[John Weaver] Now, God asks, if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Let me begin today, I want to share with you three things. First of all, I want to show you the political issues. Secondly, the economic issues. And then thirdly, I want to conclude it with sectional differences.

[John Weaver] Now, although I have Given you these three ideas that I want to develop, you're going to have to understand that there is going to be an overlapping of these ideas. For instance, the economic issue at the same time is going to be a political issue. And the sectional issue, very clearly, is going to have economic and political overtones as well. So there's going to be an overlapping, but I'm trying to separate them and give them to you one at a time, just so you can see the importance of them, and allow me to place the emphasis on each point.

[John Weaver] Now, there have been a great many Southerners. In fact, I met one this week. I was so flabbergasted and so frustrated. But there have been a great many Southern Christians that have swallowed the Yankee myth, the Northern myth, that the South was and always has been backward, slothful, poor, and powerless.

[John Weaver] Now, anyone who believes that is believing trash and it just simply has never studied history. The truth of the matter is, one of the main reasons for the War of Northern Aggression was to break the power and the influence of the South. Let me make this statement, and I've already proved it in my first message. But I will prove it also in subsequent messages. But the North was not interested in slaves or in slavery as much as they were interested in the destruction of the South. You see, the industrialists in the North, also known as the War Party, knew that Lincoln's election would end Southern political freedom and Southern economic independence and literally be the beginning of Southern subordination to the Northern industrial interest. And you could say it like this, Lincoln was nothing more than their front man. And when Lincoln's time was over, he was gotten rid of just as easily and as quickly as JFK was gotten rid of and some of the others.

[John Weaver] Now, let me tell you something. You know, everybody Everybody focuses on the fact that Lincoln was assassinated. You know, they never focus on the fact that there were two other men who were supposed to have been assassinated at the same time. One of them was William Seward, who was the Secretary of State, and he was merely just cut. just wounded, his attacker never got to kill him. And the third one, the assassin got drunk and just simply wandered around in the street and never got to his target at all. So here were three leading men who were supposed to be assassinated at the same time. They were northern men, they were men in Lincoln's cabinet, Lincoln and two other cabinet officers. Now, the point is this, who would profit by having three northerners assassinated.

[John Weaver] Well, certainly not the South. Certainly not the South. Not anyone in the South. So Lincoln was merely a front man, and when Lincoln was assassinated, they were just simply getting rid of him. Now, John S. Tilley has written a great little book. The name of it is, Facts the Historians Leave Out. And in his introductory page, he says there were five great movements that ushered in the birth of this nation.

[John Weaver] He said, first of all, there was the First Continental Congress that sent to the English king, that would be George III, our Declaration of Rights. The president of that Congress was Peyton Randolph, a Southerner. The agitation for armed resistance against a tyrannical George III, One of the main leaders was Patrick Henry, another Southerner. Thirdly, he pointed out that the Declaration of Independence was written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, another Southerner. The Revolution was fought and led by George Washington, who himself was a Southerner. The adoption of the Constitution, in fact the father of the Constitution, is James Madison, who was another southerner.

[John Weaver] In fact, if you were to stop and just do a little thinking about history, even the westward expansion, even some of the northern states were all done and accomplished by southerners. Do you realize it was Virginia who created basically the Northwest Territory. It was Virginia who gave the territory that Ohio, Indiana, and three or four other states were carved out of to the Union. Do you realize it was Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe who were responsible for the Louisiana Purchase? And may I point out that all the New England states All the northern states were against that purchase, but it was Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe who were responsible for the Louisiana purchase.

[John Weaver] It was Lewis and Clark, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark who explored it. It was James K. Polk, another southerner, who was responsible for the acquisition of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, and we'll forgive him for that, alright? It was also Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor, two more Southerners, who led the forces against Santa Ana and won the war with Mexico. It was Stephen Austin then and Sam Houston who settled Texas and who founded it. It was John Marshall, one of the first Supreme Court Justices, who also was a Southerner.

[John Weaver] May I remind you of a little-known fact. Did you realize out of the first nine presidents, six of them were Southerners. Only three were from the North, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Martin Van Buren. During the next eight presidential elections, and by this time there had been a tremendous shift in the population because a lot of the immigrants were going into the northern states. But in the next eight presidential elections, four of them went to the southerners and four went to the northerners. Out of all of the presidential elections up until 1860, Every northern president only served one term. Every southerner, with the exception of John Tyler, who took the place of William Henry Harrison, he died in office. With the exception of John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Zachary Taylor, who died in office. With those three exceptions, every other southerner served two terms, which was the constitutional limit.

[John Weaver] Now get ready for this. After the war of northern aggression, when the war was over in 1865, it would be another hundred years before a southerner was elected President of the United States. And we're ashamed of him. Because LBJ was from Texas, but he was nothing more than a reconstructed northerner who towed thy line and sought to destroy the nation just about like everyone has ever since then.

[John Weaver] Now, I want you to think about this for a moment. From 1776 to 1860, the South basically dominated our nation. And then all of a sudden, for the next hundred years, for the next 25 elections, there was not a Southerner elected. And you're trying to tell me the war was over slavery? The war was over an effort to break the back of the South, and that's exactly what happened. Let me tell you something else. You study your history. From 1860 to 1901, every northern president was a military officer.

[John Weaver] All of them were generals, except William McKinley, who had been a major. So, from 1860 to 1901, every president was a military officer.

[John Weaver] Now, the truth of the matter is this, and I'm going to prove it to you. The North basically hated the South. They despised the Southern dominance, and they resented the fact that the South would not allow them to have their high tariffs.

[John Weaver] Now, we're going to get into the economic issues in just a moment. But there were two political schools of thought. There were those individuals who wanted a central government, which is what we have today, and there were those who were interested in states' rights. It may surprise you that many of the Northerners originally wanted a king, they wanted a monarchy. In fact, some even tried to get George Washington to assume a monarchial form of government, which he refused. And so those who did not necessarily want a king, they wanted a centralized, strong government. And here the southern states were saying, no, what we want is states rights. What we want is independent. We want each state to be sovereign and independent.

[John Weaver] Now, let me just begin to show you How the hatred of the North for the South was manifested. Remember I told you in the first message that there was a secret six. In fact, there are two books written entitled The Secret Six. And here were six Unitarians, six men who conspired together to foment, to start the war in order they might assume power and control in Congress.

[John Weaver] I listed those names for you. One of them was the man by the name of Franklin Sanborn. Now, Franklin Sanborn did not necessarily agree with all the details of John Brown's raid. You see, John Brown was paid by the Secret Six to foment this war and to start a slave insurrection so that they might literally seize control of Congress. And by the way, that is exactly what happened. That is why Reconstruction followed the end of the war, because these men literally seized the power of government in Washington, D.C. While Franklin Sanborn did not necessarily like all of the details of John Brown's plan, he was attracted, and I'm using his words, to the image of an unrepentant South in flames. So he literally wanted to see the South burn down.

[John Weaver] The northern powers declared that they would turn Mississippi, and by inference all the southern states, that they would turn Mississippi into a frog pond. And they viewed the war as an opportunity to punish the South, and they said that when they won, they would treat the South as a conquered province, and they would make the South eat the foul fruit of their rebellion. I'm going to show you how that all came to pass when the war was over.

[John Weaver] Now I want you to listen to what Thaddeus Stevens said. Thaddeus Stevens was a Unitarian, he was a Radical Republican. I want to say one thing until after I give his quote to you. Here is what Thaddeus Stevens said, quote, hang the leaders, crush the South, arm the Negroes, confiscate the land. Our generals have a sword in one hand and shackles in the other. The South must be punished. Under the rules of war, its land confiscated. These offending states were out of the Union in the role of a belligerent nation and are to be dealt with by the laws of war and conquest." Now listen to what he said. Hang the leaders, crush the South, arm the Negroes, confiscate their land. The South must be punished. Thaddeus Stevens was a congressman. Congressman Joshua Giddings said, and he said this publicly, that he looked forward to the time, quote, when the torch of the incendiary shall light up the towns and cities of the South and blot out every vestige of slavery.

[John Weaver] William Lloyd Garrison, who was an abolitionist leader who published the Liberator, called for a shooting of all the slaveholders and asked publicly, who will go for the arming of the slave population? What they wanted was the slaves to rise up and literally to murder all of those who were working them, who owned them.

[John Weaver] Now, it was Secretary of State William Seward who himself gave a speech on the irrepressible conflict. In other words, a war is coming and we can't stop it.

[John Weaver] Now, I want to give you some quotes just to show you how desperate the situation was. There was a book published by Hinton Helper. That was his name, Hinton Helper. It is a devastating piece of trash. But it just shows you the attitude toward the South. This book called for the murder of Southerners. And what is so revealing is that this book was promoted by Congress, by the Northerners in Congress. In fact, what many people do not know, there was almost a war began in Congress over this.

[John Weaver] I wish I brought Captain S.A. Ashe's book with me, Southern View of the Northern Invasion. But Captain Ashe pointed out the fact that when John Sherman from Ohio was supposed to be elected Speaker of the House, all the Southern delegates said, no, we're not going to have him because he was helping distribute Kenton Helper's book Against the south and Captain Ash and several other people gives us quote how that in Congress Every congressman was armed with at least one with braver and possibly two and everyone had a bully knife So it almost came to a knock down drag down shoot him up shoot out on the halls of Congress Over John Sherman being elected Speaker of the house. Well, he was not elected, but the northerner we're trying to promote him. Now let me give you some quotes out of Helper's book.

[John Weaver] I want you to listen to this. I want you to tell me if this is reconciliatory, if this is trying to get along. Addressing the slaveholders, and by the way, I told you I'm going to preach on the biblical doctrine of slavery. I'll also show you the wickedness and the evil that attends slavery. But slavery in itself is not evil. There is a biblical model of slavery. And even when you get to the New Testament, when there were pagan slavery, the Bible even speaks concerning that.

[John Weaver] But here is how Helper addresses those who own slaves. He says, quote, But sirs, knights of the bludgeon, cavaliers of the gooey knife and pistols and lords of the lash. He says to use the word gentlemen, toward the southerners, an appellation which we would no sooner think of applying to a pro-slavery slaveholder or any other pro-slavery man than we would think of applying it to a border ruffian, a thief, or a murderer. We contend, he says, that slaveholders are more cruel than the common murderers of men. On page 139 he says, we mean precisely what our words express when we say we believe thieves are, as a general rule, less amenable to the moral law than slaveholders. And then he shows how much worse a slaveholder is than a thief. He says, thieves practice deceit on the wise, but slaveholders take advantage of the ignorant. We contend, moreover, that slaveholders are more criminal than common murderers. Now listen, it gets worse. He addresses the non-slaveholders, and by the way, I think it was less than 6% of the people in the South that owned slaves.

[John Weaver] Very few. And just even a smaller percentage had a large plantation were likely to be a hundred or more. The few who did own slaves only had one or two, but he addresses the non-slaveholders and he says, farmers, mechanics, and working men, we take this occasion to assure you that slaveholders, the arrogant demagogues whom you have elected to office of honor and profit, have hoodwinked you, traveled you, and used you as

[John Weaver] mere tools for the consummation of their wicked designs. Indeed, it is our honest conviction that all the pro-slavery slaveholders deserve to be at once reduced to a parallel with the basest criminals that lie fettered within the cells of our public prisons, were it possible for the whole number to be gathered together and transformed into four equal games of licensed robbers, ruffians, thieves, and murderers, society would suffer less from their atrocities than it does now.

[John Weaver] Did you hear what he said? If you took all the slaveholders and turned them into murderers and robbers, society would suffer less. Which is hogwash. Then on page 28, here's where the rubber hits the road. He says, henceforth sirs, now listen, henceforth sirs, we are demandants, not supplicants. It is for you to decide whether we are to have justice peaceably or by violence. For whatever consequences may follow, we are determined to have it one way or another. Do you aspire to become the victims of white non-slaveholders' vengeance by day, and a barbarous massacre by Negroes at night? What is he saying?

[John Weaver] We're going to turn the whites against you, and we're going to turn the blacks against you. The whites are going to kill you by day, and the blacks are going to kill you by night. Listen, would you be instrumental in bringing upon yourselves, your wives, and your children a fate too terrible to contemplate? Shall history cease to cite as an instance of unexampled cruelty the massacres of St. Bartholomew, because the world, the South, shall have furnished a more direful scene of atrocity and carnage?

[John Weaver] We would not wantonly pluck a single hair from your heads, but we have endured long. We have endured much. Slaves only of the most despicable class would endure more. And now, sirs, you must emancipate them or we will emancipate them for you. And now, sirs, we have laid down our ultimatum. What are you going to do about it? Something dreadful as a matter of course? Perhaps you will dissolve the Union.

[John Weaver] Do it if you dare. Our motto, and we would have you to understand it, is the abolition of slavery and the perpetuation of the American Union. If by any means you do succeed in your miserable attempts to take the South out of the Union today, we will bring it back tomorrow. If she goes away with you, she will return without you.

[John Weaver] Now aren't those loving, kind, reconcilable words? What's he saying? Do what you want to do, we'll kill you, and take what we want to take. So the North's political position was to subdue and destroy the South. Why? The South was still endeavoring to uphold the Constitution. The South was still basically Christian. The South was conservative. And consequently, There was an ever-widening division then between the North and the South, because here the North is wanting centralism, they're wanting what they want now, and could care less of it.

[John Weaver] Listen, slavery was abolished in England peaceably. Slavery was abolished in Haiti peaceably. Why could it not be abolished here peaceably? Because the North did not want it abolished peaceably, and I can prove that to you a little bit later on. So here are the political issues. Secondly, here are the economic issues.

[John Weaver] Now, folks, let me tell you. I'm going to give you some statistics in just a little while that ought to literally break your heart. See, so many people try to think the South was backward and the South was poor. Do you realize that if the South had been an independent nation in 1860, listen, if the South had been an independent nation in 1860, its economy would have ranked third in the world. Its economy would have ranked third on the European and the American continents in 1860. Do you realize the South was 25% ahead of the North in the purchase of advanced farming implements? The South had 33% of the nation's railroad tracks laid down. Now, while it was behind the North, it was far ahead of all of Europe and the rest of the then-known world. According to the census in 1860, the South had a per capita income 10% higher than all the states west of New York and Pennsylvania. I can show you a little later that a lot of their wealth in the North came from selling slaves.

[John Weaver] Now, here's what the North wanted. The North wanted extremely high tariffs. Why? Well, the North was a manufacturing economy. It was a commercial economy. It was an industrial economy. The South did not want that because the South was simply agricultural and the high tariff would basically destroy the South while it was building up the North.

[John Weaver] Now, what happened in 1787 When the Constitution was being written, there was a horrible, horrible and fatal mistake allowed. And that is that the Constitution allowed Congress to have control over commerce and navigation and allowed them to levy their import duties. Now, what the South was pushing for was for Congress to still have that power But they had to have it by a two-thirds majority and not just a simple majority. Well, you understand, I hope, that they just got it by a simple majority, not by two-thirds. Now, listen, a high impost or a high tariff or a high duty on manufactured goods would depress the prices for the South for what they had to sell. Now, listen to me. Here is the position the South took.

[John Weaver] We had fought one war because of taxation without representation. Okay? And the South was saying, what is the difference between taxation without representation and taxation when you're always outvoted by a northern majority? It's the same principle, it's the same thing. You know what George Mason said? Now remember George Mason helped with the Constitution, but George Mason never signed it because of this issue and because of several other issues. But George Mason said this, the effect of a provision to pass commercial laws by a simple majority would be to deliver the South bound hand and foot to the Eastern or the New England states.

[John Weaver] He saw it back then. He said, if you just have a simple majority, then the South is going to be bound hand and foot to the northern states. Now, a prominent northern congressman was asked by Mr. W.C. Fowler in 1864, what was the real reason that the North was pushing abolitionism? And his response was this. Here's what the congressman said. The real reason is that the South will not allow us to have our tariffs.

[John Weaver] And we touch them, or they will be it. We can't get our way. We can't have what we want. We will destroy the South. George Lunt, who is the author of the book, Origins of the Late War, he said this.

[John Weaver] Now this will shock you. In 1833, there was a surplus revenue of many millions in the public treasury. which, by an act of legislation unparalleled in the history of the nations, was distributed among the northern states to be used for local improvements. Legislation was passed by Congress to distribute all of these millions, not between all of the states, but just between the northern states. James Buchanan was the president before Abraham Lincoln. And President Buchanan's message to Congress said this. The South has not had her share of money from the Treasury.

[John Weaver] And unjust discrimination has been made against her. That was from the President himself. What's he saying? All the money in the Treasury is going to the northern states. It's not going to the southern states. You say, well, the South was just wanting their share. Hey, it was the South. Who was putting all the money in? I can prove that. By the way, when Abraham Lincoln was asked why the North would not allow the South to go in peace, his reply was this. Let the South go? Let the South go?

[John Weaver] Where then shall we get our revenues? He understood the money to run the country came from the South. R.L. Dabney has a little pamphlet out, and the name of his little pamphlet is The Origin and the Real Cause of the War. Now, what many people do not know, and I'll point all this out a little bit later, there were several attempts by the South to avert the war. And one of those attempts was when Colonel Baldwin was sent to Washington for an interview with Abraham Lincoln. And Colonel Baldwin had authority from the southern states.

[John Weaver] Now, the seven Gulf states had already seceded. Four others were about to join. And Colonel Baldwin assured Lincoln that all the southern states could be brought back into the Union peaceably. If, if he said, he opened the southern ports. You see, Lincoln had blockaded some of the southern ports. If, he said, the southern ports were opened with their 10% tariff. In other words, all the South wanted was a 10% tariff. And when Lincoln heard that, his exclamation was, what then would become of my tariff? In other words, he wanted a higher one. The industrialists wanted more money. Colonel Baldwin said that he asked the question with such emphasis that he realized the interview was over and immediately Lincoln had Colonel Baldwin dismissed.

[John Weaver] Patrick Henry himself had sounded the alarm. Patrick Henry did not go to the Constitutional Convention. And when asked why he did not go, here was his answer. I smelled a rat. I smelled a rat. But here's what Patrick Henry said, but I am sure that the dangers of this system, the federal government, are real when those who have no similar interest with the people of this country, that is the South, are to legislate for us when our dearest rights are to be left in the hands of

[John Weaver] those whose advantage it will be to infringe upon them. So Patrick Henry understood what was going to happen economically. You see, at first, some of the northern states were willing to allow the southern states to go in peace. But when all of a sudden they began to realize the economic loss that would accrue to the north, they changed their tunes. In fact, some writers said that if the south were allowed to go in peace, that grass would grow in the streets of New York City. while the port at New Orleans flourished. Now you see, the northerners understood something. They understood that these southern ports with their warm waters would be open year-round, while the northern ports that froze during the winter would be merely seasonable. And so they understood that with no high tariff, Then everything is going to go to the southern ports, and it's going to bypass then the northern ports.

[John Weaver] In 1786, let me show you how far this goes. In 1786, John Jay of New York.

[John Weaver] John Shea of New York caused an uproar in Congress among the Southern delegates when he attempted to give up the rights of the Mississippi River to Spain for advantages in Spanish ports. Can you imagine? A congressman willing to give up the rights to the Mississippi River, to Spain, to a foreign power? Why? Because he knew that those southern ports would eventually take the money from the North. So the great fear then of the North was economic loss.

[John Weaver] Now, let me prove that to you. The New York Times, on March 30, 1861, said this. It cannot get any plainer. Listen carefully. The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly overstood the world over. If a manufacturer at Manchester, England, can send his goods into the western states through New Orleans, At a less cost than through New York, he's a fool not to avail himself to his advantage. If the importations of the country are made through southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we receive our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets.

[John Weaver] With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works? Conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars to turn into our harbor the products of the interior. They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers.

[John Weaver] Now listen, once at New Orleans goods may be distributed over the whole country duty-free, the process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing on the question has acted upon the norm. We now see clearly whether we are tending and the policy we must adopt. Listen, here's what the New York Times said, March 30, 1861, with us It is no longer an abstract question, one of constitutional construction or of the reserved or delegated power of the state or federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad.

[John Weaver] We were divided and confused till our pocketbooks were touched. Did you hear what they said? They said in black and white, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. It doesn't matter about states' rights. It doesn't matter whether the South is right or wrong. That's immaterial. If we allow the South to go, we're going to be crushed financially. And it has nothing to do with Constitution, it has to do with money. The Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrats said this about letting the South go.

[John Weaver] The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process and we lose. No, we must not let the South go." The New York Evening Post had an article entitled, What Shall Be Done for Revenue?

[John Weaver] And here's what it said.

[John Weaver] Revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed. The sources which supply our treasury will be dried up. We shall have no money to carry on the government. The nation will become bankrupt before the next corn crop is ripe. allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with a load duty of 10%, which is all the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported to New York, the railways would be supplied from Southern ports."

[John Weaver] Did you hear what they said? You let it come in through the South, and we're gone. Senator William Grayson of Virginia, who was one of the first United States Senators, expressed his concern but the South would soon become the milk cow of the Union.

[John Weaver] Now, let me show you, I realize I'm taking 1860 forward. Some of these problems began before then. For instance, shortly after the Revolutionary War, the War for Independence, the northern states decided to transfer all of the state war debts to the federal treasury. So New York is saying, we won't have to pay our bill, we'll allow the federal treasury to pay the bill. Well, Virginia wouldn't have to pay her bill, we'll allow the federal treasury to pay their bill.

[John Weaver] Now, you know, that sounds pretty good, doesn't it? I mean, you know, we won't allow the states to do it, we'll just allow the federal government to do it. Well, the only way the federal government could do it would be by raising the tariffs. And of course, the Southerners understood that. You say, well, what effect does that have on the South? Let me tell you what effect it has on the South. In 1859, the South exported in cotton alone. In cotton alone. It exported $161,434,923 worth of goods. Just in cotton alone.

[John Weaver] In 1859, all of the goods of the northern states were valued at $78,217,000. Now, who's going to be paying most of those imposts? Who's going to be paying most of those tariffs? The South. In fact, if you were to combine all that the South produced and exported, even in 1859, it would go up into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

[John Weaver] Now, when this proposal was made to allow the states to transfer their war debts to the federal government, the Virginia legislation reacted almost with horror, and they said, no, we don't want that, because inevitably it will be, quote, the prostration of agriculture at the feet of commerce, or a change of the present form of federal government fatal to the existence of American liberty. But nevertheless, guess what? The North had its way, and those debts were transferred to the federal government.

[John Weaver] Now, let me give you What Senator Thomas H. Benton declared, 1828, he said, before the Revolution, the South was the seat of wealth as well as hospitality. Now listen, before the Revolution, the South was the seat of wealth as well as hospitality. Wealth has fled from the South and settled in the regions north of the Potomac. And this in the face of the fact that the South, in four staples alone, had exported produce since the Revolution to the value of 800 millions of dollars. And the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth. But what is the fact? Listen, under federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the federal revenue.

[John Weaver] Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the federal government, and of this great sum annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them in the shape of government expenditures. That expenditure flows in the opposite direction. It flows northwardly in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappeared from the South and rises in the North. Federal legislation does all this."

[John Weaver] That was Senator Thomas H. Benton. So the economic issue alone was devastating to the South. It was through the economic legislation by the Northerners that the South was systematically raped, ruined, pillaged, and plundered. The congressman himself says before the South was a seat of wealth.

[John Weaver] Now, let me give you a contrast. I want you to listen. We're not talking about the loss of human lives in that war. That was awful. But do you realize the first year after the war was over, the first year, the state of Mississippi allotted one-fifth of its revenues. That's 20%. The first year after the war was over, the state of Mississippi allotted one-fifth of its revenues to purchase artificial arms and legs. Listen, the enduring economic impact of that war upon Georgia was this. It was not until 1911 that the revenues of Georgia exceeded what they were in 1860.

[John Weaver] Louisiana lost, in slave property alone, $170 million. In Louisiana, at the beginning of the war, there were 1,200 operating sugar mills. At the end of the war, only 180 mills were left. At least half of the sheep and pigs and cattle and mules and horses had been destroyed from the state of Louisiana. In 1961, Life Magazine published a one-page overview of the economic loss of the South.

[John Weaver] Now this ought to chill your bones. After the war was over, Northern speculators chartered special trains where they came to the south and bought over 50 million acres of prime virgin timberland for as little as 50 cents an acre. The price of cotton, which was one of the major staples of the South, dropped to an all-time low, and within three years, the Northern Congress placed a high tax upon cotton and cost the South another $70 million just to produce their crop.

[John Weaver] Let me show you how devastating it was. One town, Greenville, Mississippi, at the end of the war, Sixty percent of it was sold at the sheriff's auction for delinquent taxes. Sixty percent of the entire town.

[John Weaver] Now, let me just tell you something else that will chill your bones. You say, well, Brother Weaver, the war is over, Reconstruction is over. No, it's not. I'm not just trying to stir up trouble. But may I point something out? Do you realize if you and I in the state of Georgia wish to redistrict our voting precincts, we must apply to the Justice Department for approval. And so must any southern state that was in the Confederacy. That is one Reconstruction Act that's still in the book.

[John Weaver] The northern states can do what they want to do. They don't have to submit any plans to the Justice Department. You see, Reconstruction is still going on.

[John Weaver] Now, let me give you very quickly, I told you, what I want to do is show you where we are and how we got here. Thirdly, very quickly, just sectional differences. I think it could be very easily seen why there were sectional differences. I'm not going to talk about the cultural differences just yet between the North and the South. I've already talked about the theological differences. But basically, I hope you can see that there was no justice, no equity, and no rights for the Southern states. In fact, most of the injustice, rape and pillage and plunder, was done legally to the South under the guise of federal legislation. It was government, loosed from its constitutional and biblical moorings, that helped exacerbate the sectional differences by preferring and aiding one section above the other.

[John Weaver] Let me ask you a question. Where are we today? Where are we now? Well, thanks to continuing governmental intervention, whites are now poised against blacks, and blacks against whites, and all other minority groups are against each other. Not only that, you have the worker The man who earns his labor and earns his food by the sweat of his brow in honest labor, you have him now against the welfare recipient and the food stamp recipient and all of this other thing. You have the working man that really wants to do good against all those who are in affirmative action.

[John Weaver] You have basically union against non-union. You have license against non-license. You have now children against parents. Thanks to federal government we have children's rights. You have wives against husbands because of the rise of feminism. And husbands against wives. You have men against women. What do we have in this country? We have sexual differences. Why? Because our federal government contrary to the word of God, and contrary to the Constitution, is going to aid one group above another, and prefer one group above another, and destroy one group at the other's expense. I'm going to tell you something, folks. It is galling. It is galling.

[John Weaver] And I've done it many times. It is galling to go into a grocery store and not be able to buy what you need. And you get up to the checkout counter and here's a basket full of the choicest meats and steaks, everything being paid for with food stamps. That's galling. When you're working as hard as you can and trying to manage And you can't do that.

[John Weaver] Now, what is creating that? You say, but Brother Weaver, you don't understand. If we didn't feed those folks, they'd starve. Let them starve. They will find a way to live. They will find out what work means. And by the way, there is no constitutional guarantee for welfare. That is not in the Constitution. If you will go back To the beginning of our country, it was the churches that handled biblical welfare. And the biblical principle is this, if eating will not work, neither should he eat. You say, oh, they'd have to do without. They won't do without long. They'll find that they can dig a ditch just like everybody else. You see, folks, where we are today is a result of where we've been.

[John Weaver] And when we lost our theological moorings, and when we left our constitutional moorings, we have nothing but division and confusion and chaos. And the only way we'll ever get back where we were is first of all, we must go back to the Word of God. You say, but Brother Weaver, the nation's not going to do that as a whole.

[John Weaver] Now are you beginning to see why the South was divided against the North? But here's the truth. Regardless of whether the nation as a whole does it or not, you are responsible. to be biblical and scriptural in every area of your life, and to bring your life into conformity to the Word of God. And I want to tell you something, folks. If nobody else does right, we must. If no one else obeys God, we must. And the only way that we will stay bound together as Christians is by obedience to the Word of God. Why is it that church after church is rent asunder and divided? And the answer is an unsubmissive spirit to the truth of God and His Word. Our hope is in repentance and obedience and nothing else. Let's pray.

[John Weaver] Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we ask for your blessing, for your help today. We pray, Father, that you would indeed heal us and enable us, Father, to see and understand our great need of Thee. We are where we are as a nation because we have forsaken Thee and forsaken Thy law Forgive us our sins, and enable us to live for Thee. In the name of Jesus Christ we pray, Amen.

Where We Are & How We Got Here # 3 of 14

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	1200417529
Subject	Economics and Stewardship
Course	Debt, Money, and Stewardship
Genre	Sermon
Date	1998-07-12
Dictation Name
Book	Book 119: Where We Are & How We Got Here — Chapter 3
Source Timed Segments	90

Formatted Transcript

Introduction and Review

Weaver reviews the foundational verse Psalm 11:3 and recaps the abolitionist and theological revolutions covered in previous messages, emphasizing that cultural shifts stem from theological shifts.

When we preach expositionally, that is, I take a passage from the Bible and I break it down and take it point by point and verse by verse. In fact, I have just finished a series of 18 messages on Romans 8:28 through 39. So that will tell you how long I normally stay on a passage. I started a series two weeks ago, basically entitled Where We Are and How We Got Here. And I have been dealing more with our history and principles from the Word of God. And let's read Psalm 11, then I'm going to give a brief introduction and pick up from there, because this is the third message. Look in Psalm 11, verse 3. Psalm 11, verse 3. This has been our foundational verse, and I think you can see why. Scripture says,

Scripture Reading — Psalm 11:3

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

Now, anyone who's ever built a house or had any building experience knows the absolute importance of a foundation, because once that foundation goes, then the house that is erected on top of it is divided and rent in twain as well. So our Lord asks, if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? I tried to show you how the foundations in our country have been rent in twain. I first showed you number one, the abolitionist revolution. I was going back to the 1860s because that is basically when our country began to deteriorate. Actually, it began before, but that was the culmination of it. It really began in the 1830s and the 1840s because the abolitionists were those individuals who were calling for the immediate abolition or the freedom of the slaves in this country. Now, you've got to remember that, first of all, it was the northerners who sold the slaves to the southerners. Secondly, you've got to remember the people who were crying were Unitarians.

They did not believe the Bible. They did not believe in Jesus Christ. They did not believe in inspiration of Scripture. They did not believe in supernaturalism at all. And so I showed historically where they hated not only the South, but they hated the slave and slavery, and they hated the Constitution as well. In fact, William Lloyd Garrison said the Constitution was an agreement with death and a covenant with hell, and of course they did not feel themselves morally bound to uphold their agreement that they had made with the other states. And, of course, they nullified the Constitution with what were known as the Fugitive Slave Laws because they refused to keep their end of the compact.

I showed how these very abolitionists despised the black people and called them all kinds of names. Abraham Lincoln himself said if he could restore this country without freeing any slave, he would do it. If he could restore it by freeing all slaves, he would do it. He could care less about the blacks one way or the other. And then last week I dealt with the theological revolution, and I showed where the broken churches in this country preceded our broken nation. I showed you how the Presbyterians divided in 1837, the Methodists in 1844, and the Baptists in 1845. And I gave you numerous quotes where very clearly that everyone foresaw not only the political leaders, but the religious leaders as well, that the division in the church foreshadowed the division in the country.

And basically is this, when people will not sit down and resolve their problems scripturally and biblically, there is not going to be a resolution. That's all there is to it. And when you have one group denying the veracity of the Word of God, and the inspiration of the Word of God and another group upholding the Word of God and saying we want to be biblical about it, there can be no reconciliation. The only thing there's going to be is division. For as Amos 3:3 says, "Can two walk together except they be agreed?" So the broken churches then foreshadowed the broken nation.

Now, remember, I dealt last week with the theological shift. Let me make this statement again, because this is highly important. In fact, there are two statements. I told you, first of all, that ideas have consequences. And then secondly, I told you that all cultural changes, all cultural shifts are the consequence of theological shifts. You cannot have a change in culture without having a change in theology. And the reason our culture keeps changing in America is because our theology keeps changing.

That's why we keep condoning sodomy. That's why we keep condoning abortion. That's why we keep condoning socialism. Because the theology keeps shifting from the Word of God to a humanistic, or a humanistic view, I should say. So very clearly, then, you cannot have a cultural shift without having a theological shift. Now, I emphasized last week the theological shift.

Theological Overtones in All Issues

Weaver clarifies that while he will discuss political, economic, and sectional issues, all have theological overtones because one's worldview, determined by theology, affects every area of life.

Now, let me make an introductory statement today. As important as the theological shift was and is, there were other issues involved. Let me make a clarification. That does not mean that these other issues do not have theological overtones. They most certainly do. Because one's worldview affects everything that he does, everything that he believes, everything that he says. Your worldview is determined by your theology. What you believe about God and what you believe about the Word of God. And thus your worldview then is going to affect your view of economics. It's going to affect your view of differences, of subjects. It's going to affect everything. So when I am isolating today two or three issues, but please do not say, well, he dealt with theological issues last week, and this week, he's going to deal with political and economical and sexual differences, and therefore, there are no theological overtones. No, there are theological overtones.

For instance, the Bible says in Proverbs 22, verse 7, that the borrower is servant or slave to the lender. What does that mean? That means a man who believes the Bible is going to do everything he can to stay out of debt because he wants to be free and the man who does not believe the Bible is going to continue to follow and to fall in debt because he has a slave mentality and he is a slave basically. So your worldview, your theology affects every area of life. So it is impossible then to escape theology. Everything that we say, do and think is affected by our theology.

Now, today I want to deal with three other issues that brought about the division, or what you and I would call the War of Northern Aggression, or if you would like to say, the Second War for Southern Independence, or if you really want to call it for what it was, you could call it Lincoln's War Against All Christian Nations, or All Christian States. That is also an excellent title as well.

Political Issues: Northern Hatred and Desire to Destroy the South

Weaver argues that the North hated Southern dominance and sought to break its power. He cites quotes from Northern leaders calling for the destruction of the South and notes that Lincoln was a front man for industrial interests.

Now, God asks, if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Let me begin today, I want to share with you three things. First of all, I want to show you the political issues. Secondly, the economic issues. And then thirdly, I want to conclude it with sectional differences.

Now, although I have given you these three ideas that I want to develop, you're going to have to understand that there is going to be an overlapping of these ideas. For instance, the economic issue at the same time is going to be a political issue. And the sectional issue, very clearly, is going to have economic and political overtones as well. So there's going to be an overlapping, but I'm trying to separate them and give them to you one at a time, just so you can see the importance of them, and allow me to place the emphasis on each point.

Now, there have been a great many Southerners. In fact, I met one this week. I was so flabbergasted and so frustrated. But there have been a great many Southern Christians that have swallowed the Yankee myth, the Northern myth, that the South was and always has been backward, slothful, poor, and powerless.

Now, anyone who believes that is believing trash and it just simply has never studied history. The truth of the matter is, one of the main reasons for the War of Northern Aggression was to break the power and the influence of the South. Let me make this statement, and I've already proved it in my first message. But I will prove it also in subsequent messages. But the North was not interested in slaves or in slavery as much as they were interested in the destruction of the South. You see, the industrialists in the North, also known as the War Party, knew that Lincoln's election would end Southern political freedom and Southern economic independence and literally be the beginning of Southern subordination to the Northern industrial interest. And you could say it like this, Lincoln was nothing more than their front man. And when Lincoln's time was over, he was gotten rid of just as easily and as quickly as JFK was gotten rid of and some of the others.

Now, let me tell you something. You know, everybody focuses on the fact that Lincoln was assassinated. You know, they never focus on the fact that there were two other men who were supposed to have been assassinated at the same time. One of them was William Seward, who was the Secretary of State, and he was merely just cut, just wounded, his attacker never got to kill him. And the third one, the assassin got drunk and just simply wandered around in the street and never got to his target at all. So here were three leading men who were supposed to be assassinated at the same time. They were northern men, they were men in Lincoln's cabinet, Lincoln and two other cabinet officers. Now, the point is this, who would profit by having three northerners assassinated?

Well, certainly not the South. Certainly not the South. Not anyone in the South. So Lincoln was merely a front man, and when Lincoln was assassinated, they were just simply getting rid of him. Now, John S. Tilley has written a great little book. The name of it is, Facts the Historians Leave Out. And in his introductory page, he says there were five great movements that ushered in the birth of this nation.

He said, first of all, there was the First Continental Congress that sent to the English king, that would be George III, our Declaration of Rights. The president of that Congress was Peyton Randolph, a Southerner. The agitation for armed resistance against a tyrannical George III, one of the main leaders was Patrick Henry, another Southerner. Thirdly, he pointed out that the Declaration of Independence was written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, another Southerner. The Revolution was fought and led by George Washington, who himself was a Southerner. The adoption of the Constitution, in fact the father of the Constitution, is James Madison, who was another southerner. In fact, if you were to stop and just do a little thinking about history, even the westward expansion, even some of the northern states were all done and accomplished by southerners. Do you realize it was Virginia who created basically the Northwest Territory. It was Virginia who gave the territory that Ohio, Indiana, and three or four other states were carved out of to the Union. Do you realize it was Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe who were responsible for the Louisiana Purchase? And may I point out that all the New England states, all the northern states were against that purchase, but it was Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe who were responsible for the Louisiana purchase.

It was Lewis and Clark, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark who explored it. It was James K. Polk, another southerner, who was responsible for the acquisition of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, and we'll forgive him for that, alright? It was also Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor, two more Southerners, who led the forces against Santa Ana and won the war with Mexico. It was Stephen Austin then and Sam Houston who settled Texas and who founded it. It was John Marshall, one of the first Supreme Court Justices, who also was a Southerner. May I remind you of a little-known fact. Did you realize out of the first nine presidents, six of them were Southerners. Only three were from the North, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Martin Van Buren. During the next eight presidential elections, and by this time there had been a tremendous shift in the population because a lot of the immigrants were going into the northern states. But in the next eight presidential elections, four of them went to the southerners and four went to the northerners. Out of all of the presidential elections up until 1860, every northern president only served one term. Every southerner, with the exception of John Tyler, who took the place of William Henry Harrison, he died in office. With the exception of John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Zachary Taylor, who died in office. With those three exceptions, every other southerner served two terms, which was the constitutional limit.

Now get ready for this. After the war of northern aggression, when the war was over in 1865, it would be another hundred years before a southerner was elected President of the United States. And we're ashamed of him. Because LBJ was from Texas, but he was nothing more than a reconstructed northerner who towed the line and sought to destroy the nation just about like everyone has ever since then.

Now, I want you to think about this for a moment. From 1776 to 1860, the South basically dominated our nation. And then all of a sudden, for the next hundred years, for the next 25 elections, there was not a Southerner elected. And you're trying to tell me the war was over slavery? The war was over an effort to break the back of the South, and that's exactly what happened. Let me tell you something else. You study your history. From 1860 to 1901, every northern president was a military officer.

All of them were generals, except William McKinley, who had been a major. So, from 1860 to 1901, every president was a military officer. Now, the truth of the matter is this, and I'm going to prove it to you. The North basically hated the South. They despised the Southern dominance, and they resented the fact that the South would not allow them to have their high tariffs.

Now, we're going to get into the economic issues in just a moment. But there were two political schools of thought. There were those individuals who wanted a central government, which is what we have today, and there were those who were interested in states' rights. It may surprise you that many of the Northerners originally wanted a king, they wanted a monarchy. In fact, some even tried to get George Washington to assume a monarchial form of government, which he refused. And so those who did not necessarily want a king, they wanted a centralized, strong government. And here the southern states were saying, no, what we want is states rights. What we want is independent. We want each state to be sovereign and independent.

Now, let me just begin to show you how the hatred of the North for the South was manifested. Remember I told you in the first message that there was a secret six. In fact, there are two books written entitled The Secret Six. And here were six Unitarians, six men who conspired together to foment, to start the war in order they might assume power and control in Congress. I listed those names for you. One of them was the man by the name of Franklin Sanborn. Now, Franklin Sanborn did not necessarily agree with all the details of John Brown's raid. You see, John Brown was paid by the Secret Six to foment this war and to start a slave insurrection so that they might literally seize control of Congress. And by the way, that is exactly what happened. That is why Reconstruction followed the end of the war, because these men literally seized the power of government in Washington, D.C. While Franklin Sanborn did not necessarily like all of the details of John Brown's plan, he was attracted, and I'm using his words, to the image of an unrepentant South in flames. So he literally wanted to see the South burn down.

The northern powers declared that they would turn Mississippi, and by inference all the southern states, that they would turn Mississippi into a frog pond. And they viewed the war as an opportunity to punish the South, and they said that when they won, they would treat the South as a conquered province, and they would make the South eat the foul fruit of their rebellion. I'm going to show you how that all came to pass when the war was over. Now I want you to listen to what Thaddeus Stevens said. Thaddeus Stevens was a Unitarian, he was a Radical Republican. I want to say one thing until after I give his quote to you. Here is what Thaddeus Stevens said, quote, "Hang the leaders, crush the South, arm the Negroes, confiscate the land. Our generals have a sword in one hand and shackles in the other. The South must be punished. Under the rules of war, its land confiscated. These offending states were out of the Union in the role of a belligerent nation and are to be dealt with by the laws of war and conquest." Now listen to what he said. Hang the leaders, crush the South, arm the Negroes, confiscate their land. The South must be punished. Thaddeus Stevens was a congressman. Congressman Joshua Giddings said, and he said this publicly, that he looked forward to the time, quote, "when the torch of the incendiary shall light up the towns and cities of the South and blot out every vestige of slavery."

William Lloyd Garrison, who was an abolitionist leader who published the Liberator, called for a shooting of all the slaveholders and asked publicly, "Who will go for the arming of the slave population?" What they wanted was the slaves to rise up and literally to murder all of those who were working them, who owned them. Now, it was Secretary of State William Seward who himself gave a speech on the irrepressible conflict. In other words, a war is coming and we can't stop it. Now, I want to give you some quotes just to show you how desperate the situation was. There was a book published by Hinton Helper. That was his name, Hinton Helper. It is a devastating piece of trash. But it just shows you the attitude toward the South. This book called for the murder of Southerners. And what is so revealing is that this book was promoted by Congress, by the Northerners in Congress. In fact, what many people do not know, there was almost a war began in Congress over this.

I wish I brought Captain S.A. Ashe's book with me, Southern View of the Northern Invasion. But Captain Ashe pointed out the fact that when John Sherman from Ohio was supposed to be elected Speaker of the House, all the Southern delegates said, no, we're not going to have him because he was helping distribute Hinton Helper's book against the South. And Captain Ashe and several other people give us quotes how that in Congress every congressman was armed with at least one revolver and possibly two and everyone had a Bowie knife. So it almost came to a knock-down, drag-down, shoot-'em-up, shoot-out on the halls of Congress over John Sherman being elected Speaker of the House. Well, he was not elected, but the northerners were trying to promote him. Now let me give you some quotes out of Helper's book.

I want you to listen to this. I want you to tell me if this is reconciliatory, if this is trying to get along. Addressing the slaveholders, and by the way, I told you I'm going to preach on the biblical doctrine of slavery. I'll also show you the wickedness and the evil that attends slavery. But slavery in itself is not evil. There is a biblical model of slavery. And even when you get to the New Testament, when there were pagan slavery, the Bible even speaks concerning that.

But here is how Helper addresses those who own slaves. He says, quote, "But sirs, knights of the bludgeon, cavaliers of the Bowie knife and pistols and lords of the lash." He says to use the word gentlemen, toward the southerners, "an appellation which we would no sooner think of applying to a pro-slavery slaveholder or any other pro-slavery man than we would think of applying it to a border ruffian, a thief, or a murderer. We contend," he says, "that slaveholders are more cruel than the common murderers of men." On page 139 he says, "We mean precisely what our words express when we say we believe thieves are, as a general rule, less amenable to the moral law than slaveholders." And then he shows how much worse a slaveholder is than a thief. He says, "Thieves practice deceit on the wise, but slaveholders take advantage of the ignorant. We contend, moreover, that slaveholders are more criminal than common murderers." Now listen, it gets worse. He addresses the non-slaveholders, and by the way, I think it was less than 6% of the people in the South that owned slaves.

Very few. And just even a smaller percentage had a large plantation where likely to be a hundred or more. The few who did own slaves only had one or two, but he addresses the non-slaveholders and he says, "Farmers, mechanics, and working men, we take this occasion to assure you that slaveholders, the arrogant demagogues whom you have elected to office of honor and profit, have hoodwinked you, traveled you, and used you as mere tools for the consummation of their wicked designs. Indeed, it is our honest conviction that all the pro-slavery slaveholders deserve to be at once reduced to a parallel with the basest criminals that lie fettered within the cells of our public prisons, were it possible for the whole number to be gathered together and transformed into four equal games of licensed robbers, ruffians, thieves, and murderers, society would suffer less from their atrocities than it does now."

Did you hear what he said? If you took all the slaveholders and turned them into murderers and robbers, society would suffer less. Which is hogwash. Then on page 28, here's where the rubber hits the road. He says, "Henceforth sirs," now listen, "henceforth sirs, we are demandants, not supplicants. It is for you to decide whether we are to have justice peaceably or by violence. For whatever consequences may follow, we are determined to have it one way or another. Do you aspire to become the victims of white non-slaveholders' vengeance by day, and a barbarous massacre by Negroes at night?" What is he saying?

We're going to turn the whites against you, and we're going to turn the blacks against you. The whites are going to kill you by day, and the blacks are going to kill you by night. Listen, "Would you be instrumental in bringing upon yourselves, your wives, and your children a fate too terrible to contemplate? Shall history cease to cite as an instance of unexampled cruelty the massacres of St. Bartholomew, because the world, the South, shall have furnished a more direful scene of atrocity and carnage?" "We would not wantonly pluck a single hair from your heads, but we have endured long. We have endured much. Slaves only of the most despicable class would endure more. And now, sirs, you must emancipate them or we will emancipate them for you. And now, sirs, we have laid down our ultimatum. What are you going to do about it? Something dreadful as a matter of course? Perhaps you will dissolve the Union."

"Do it if you dare. Our motto, and we would have you to understand it, is the abolition of slavery and the perpetuation of the American Union. If by any means you do succeed in your miserable attempts to take the South out of the Union today, we will bring it back tomorrow. If she goes away with you, she will return without you."

Now aren't those loving, kind, reconcilable words? What's he saying? Do what you want to do, we'll kill you, and take what we want to take. So the North's political position was to subdue and destroy the South. Why? The South was still endeavoring to uphold the Constitution. The South was still basically Christian. The South was conservative. And consequently, there was an ever-widening division then between the North and the South, because here the North is wanting centralism, they're wanting what they want now, and could care less of it.

Listen, slavery was abolished in England peaceably. Slavery was abolished in Haiti peaceably. Why could it not be abolished here peaceably? Because the North did not want it abolished peaceably, and I can prove that to you a little bit later on. So here are the political issues. Secondly, here are the economic issues.

Economic Issues: Tariffs and Exploitation

Weaver details how high tariffs favored Northern industry at the South's expense, and how federal legislation systematically transferred wealth from the South to the North. He provides statistics showing the South's economic strength before the war and its devastation afterward.

Now, folks, let me tell you. I'm going to give you some statistics in just a little while that ought to literally break your heart. See, so many people try to think the South was backward and the South was poor. Do you realize that if the South had been an independent nation in 1860, listen, if the South had been an independent nation in 1860, its economy would have ranked third in the world. Its economy would have ranked third on the European and the American continents in 1860. Do you realize the South was 25% ahead of the North in the purchase of advanced farming implements? The South had 33% of the nation's railroad tracks laid down. Now, while it was behind the North, it was far ahead of all of Europe and the rest of the then-known world. According to the census in 1860, the South had a per capita income 10% higher than all the states west of New York and Pennsylvania. I can show you a little later that a lot of their wealth in the North came from selling slaves.

Now, here's what the North wanted. The North wanted extremely high tariffs. Why? Well, the North was a manufacturing economy. It was a commercial economy. It was an industrial economy. The South did not want that because the South was simply agricultural and the high tariff would basically destroy the South while it was building up the North.

Now, what happened in 1787 when the Constitution was being written, there was a horrible, horrible and fatal mistake allowed. And that is that the Constitution allowed Congress to have control over commerce and navigation and allowed them to levy their import duties. Now, what the South was pushing for was for Congress to still have that power but they had to have it by a two-thirds majority and not just a simple majority. Well, you understand, I hope, that they just got it by a simple majority, not by two-thirds. Now, listen, a high impost or a high tariff or a high duty on manufactured goods would depress the prices for the South for what they had to sell. Now, listen to me. Here is the position the South took.

We had fought one war because of taxation without representation. Okay? And the South was saying, what is the difference between taxation without representation and taxation when you're always outvoted by a northern majority? It's the same principle, it's the same thing. You know what George Mason said? Now remember George Mason helped with the Constitution, but George Mason never signed it because of this issue and because of several other issues. But George Mason said this, the effect of a provision to pass commercial laws by a simple majority would be to deliver the South bound hand and foot to the Eastern or the New England states.

He saw it back then. He said, if you just have a simple majority, then the South is going to be bound hand and foot to the northern states. Now, a prominent northern congressman was asked by Mr. W.C. Fowler in 1864, what was the real reason that the North was pushing abolitionism? And his response was this. Here's what the congressman said. The real reason is that the South will not allow us to have our tariffs.

And we touch them, or they will be it. We can't get our way. We can't have what we want. We will destroy the South. George Lunt, who is the author of the book, Origins of the Late War, he said this.

Now this will shock you. In 1833, there was a surplus revenue of many millions in the public treasury, which, by an act of legislation unparalleled in the history of the nations, was distributed among the northern states to be used for local improvements. Legislation was passed by Congress to distribute all of these millions, not between all of the states, but just between the northern states. James Buchanan was the president before Abraham Lincoln. And President Buchanan's message to Congress said this. The South has not had her share of money from the Treasury. And unjust discrimination has been made against her. That was from the President himself. What's he saying? All the money in the Treasury is going to the northern states. It's not going to the southern states. You say, well, the South was just wanting their share. Hey, it was the South who was putting all the money in. I can prove that. By the way, when Abraham Lincoln was asked why the North would not allow the South to go in peace, his reply was this. "Let the South go? Let the South go?

Where then shall we get our revenues?" He understood the money to run the country came from the South. R.L. Dabney has a little pamphlet out, and the name of his little pamphlet is The Origin and the Real Cause of the War. Now, what many people do not know, and I'll point all this out a little bit later, there were several attempts by the South to avert the war. And one of those attempts was when Colonel Baldwin was sent to Washington for an interview with Abraham Lincoln. And Colonel Baldwin had authority from the southern states.

Now, the seven Gulf states had already seceded. Four others were about to join. And Colonel Baldwin assured Lincoln that all the southern states could be brought back into the Union peaceably. If, he said, he opened the southern ports. You see, Lincoln had blockaded some of the southern ports. If, he said, the southern ports were opened with their 10% tariff. In other words, all the South wanted was a 10% tariff. And when Lincoln heard that, his exclamation was, "What then would become of my tariff?" In other words, he wanted a higher one. The industrialists wanted more money. Colonel Baldwin said that he asked the question with such emphasis that he realized the interview was over and immediately Lincoln had Colonel Baldwin dismissed.

Patrick Henry himself had sounded the alarm. Patrick Henry did not go to the Constitutional Convention. And when asked why he did not go, here was his answer. "I smelled a rat. I smelled a rat." But here's what Patrick Henry said, "But I am sure that the dangers of this system, the federal government, are real when those who have no similar interest with the people of this country, that is the South, are to legislate for us when our dearest rights are to be left in the hands of those whose advantage it will be to infringe upon them." So Patrick Henry understood what was going to happen economically. You see, at first, some of the northern states were willing to allow the southern states to go in peace. But when all of a sudden they began to realize the economic loss that would accrue to the north, they changed their tunes. In fact, some writers said that if the south were allowed to go in peace, that grass would grow in the streets of New York City, while the port at New Orleans flourished. Now you see, the northerners understood something. They understood that these southern ports with their warm waters would be open year-round, while the northern ports that froze during the winter would be merely seasonable. And so they understood that with no high tariff, then everything is going to go to the southern ports, and it's going to bypass then the northern ports.

In 1786, let me show you how far this goes. In 1786, John Jay of New York.

John Jay of New York caused an uproar in Congress among the Southern delegates when he attempted to give up the rights of the Mississippi River to Spain for advantages in Spanish ports. Can you imagine? A congressman willing to give up the rights to the Mississippi River, to Spain, to a foreign power? Why? Because he knew that those southern ports would eventually take the money from the North. So the great fear then of the North was economic loss.

Now, let me prove that to you. The New York Times, on March 30, 1861, said this. It cannot get any plainer. Listen carefully. "The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly overstood the world over. If a manufacturer at Manchester, England, can send his goods into the western states through New Orleans, at a less cost than through New York, he's a fool not to avail himself to his advantage. If the importations of the country are made through southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we receive our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets.

With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works? Conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars to turn into our harbor the products of the interior. They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers.

Now listen, once at New Orleans goods may be distributed over the whole country duty-free, the process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing on the question has acted upon the norm. We now see clearly whether we are tending and the policy we must adopt. Listen, here's what the New York Times said, March 30, 1861, "With us it is no longer an abstract question, one of constitutional construction or of the reserved or delegated power of the state or federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad. We were divided and confused till our pocketbooks were touched." Did you hear what they said? They said in black and white, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. It doesn't matter about states' rights. It doesn't matter whether the South is right or wrong. That's immaterial. If we allow the South to go, we're going to be crushed financially. And it has nothing to do with Constitution, it has to do with money. The Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrats said this about letting the South go.

"The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process and we lose. No, we must not let the South go." The New York Evening Post had an article entitled, "What Shall Be Done for Revenue?" And here's what it said.

"Revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed. The sources which supply our treasury will be dried up. We shall have no money to carry on the government. The nation will become bankrupt before the next corn crop is ripe. Allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with a load duty of 10%, which is all the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported to New York, the railways would be supplied from Southern ports." Did you hear what they said? You let it come in through the South, and we're gone. Senator William Grayson of Virginia, who was one of the first United States Senators, expressed his concern that the South would soon become the milk cow of the Union.

Now, let me show you, I realize I'm taking 1860 forward. Some of these problems began before then. For instance, shortly after the Revolutionary War, the War for Independence, the northern states decided to transfer all of the state war debts to the federal treasury. So New York is saying, we won't have to pay our bill, we'll allow the federal treasury to pay the bill. Well, Virginia wouldn't have to pay her bill, we'll allow the federal treasury to pay their bill.

Now, you know, that sounds pretty good, doesn't it? I mean, you know, we won't allow the states to do it, we'll just allow the federal government to do it. Well, the only way the federal government could do it would be by raising the tariffs. And of course, the Southerners understood that. You say, well, what effect does that have on the South? Let me tell you what effect it has on the South. In 1859, the South exported in cotton alone. In cotton alone. It exported $161,434,923 worth of goods. Just in cotton alone.

In 1859, all of the goods of the northern states were valued at $78,217,000. Now, who's going to be paying most of those imposts? Who's going to be paying most of those tariffs? The South. In fact, if you were to combine all that the South produced and exported, even in 1859, it would go up into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now, when this proposal was made to allow the states to transfer their war debts to the federal government, the Virginia legislation reacted almost with horror, and they said, no, we don't want that, because inevitably it will be, quote, "the prostration of agriculture at the feet of commerce, or a change of the present form of federal government fatal to the existence of American liberty." But nevertheless, guess what? The North had its way, and those debts were transferred to the federal government. Now, let me give you what Senator Thomas H. Benton declared, 1828, he said, "Before the Revolution, the South was the seat of wealth as well as hospitality. Now listen, before the Revolution, the South was the seat of wealth as well as hospitality. Wealth has fled from the South and settled in the regions north of the Potomac. And this in the face of the fact that the South, in four staples alone, had exported produce since the Revolution to the value of 800 millions of dollars. And the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth. But what is the fact? Listen, under federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the federal revenue.

Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the federal government, and of this great sum annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them in the shape of government expenditures. That expenditure flows in the opposite direction. It flows northwardly in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappeared from the South and rises in the North. Federal legislation does all this." That was Senator Thomas H. Benton. So the economic issue alone was devastating to the South. It was through the economic legislation by the Northerners that the South was systematically raped, ruined, pillaged, and plundered. The congressman himself says before the South was a seat of wealth.

Now, let me give you a contrast. I want you to listen. We're not talking about the loss of human lives in that war. That was awful. But do you realize the first year after the war was over, the first year, the state of Mississippi allotted one-fifth of its revenues. That's 20%. The first year after the war was over, the state of Mississippi allotted one-fifth of its revenues to purchase artificial arms and legs. Listen, the enduring economic impact of that war upon Georgia was this. It was not until 1911 that the revenues of Georgia exceeded what they were in 1860.

Louisiana lost, in slave property alone, $170 million. In Louisiana, at the beginning of the war, there were 1,200 operating sugar mills. At the end of the war, only 180 mills were left. At least half of the sheep and pigs and cattle and mules and horses had been destroyed from the state of Louisiana. In 1961, Life Magazine published a one-page overview of the economic loss of the South.

Now this ought to chill your bones. After the war was over, Northern speculators chartered special trains where they came to the south and bought over 50 million acres of prime virgin timberland for as little as 50 cents an acre. The price of cotton, which was one of the major staples of the South, dropped to an all-time low, and within three years, the Northern Congress placed a high tax upon cotton and cost the South another $70 million just to produce their crop. Let me show you how devastating it was. One town, Greenville, Mississippi, at the end of the war, sixty percent of it was sold at the sheriff's auction for delinquent taxes. Sixty percent of the entire town.

Now, let me just tell you something else that will chill your bones. You say, well, Brother Weaver, the war is over, Reconstruction is over. No, it's not. I'm not just trying to stir up trouble. But may I point something out? Do you realize if you and I in the state of Georgia wish to redistrict our voting precincts, we must apply to the Justice Department for approval. And so must any southern state that was in the Confederacy. That is one Reconstruction Act that's still in the book.

The northern states can do what they want to do. They don't have to submit any plans to the Justice Department. You see, Reconstruction is still going on.

Sectional Differences and Continuing Injustice

Weaver explains that sectional differences were exacerbated by government preference for one section over another, leading to ongoing divisions in society. He notes that Reconstruction-era laws still affect Southern states.

Now, let me give you very quickly, I told you, what I want to do is show you where we are and how we got here. Thirdly, very quickly, just sectional differences. I think it could be very easily seen why there were sectional differences. I'm not going to talk about the cultural differences just yet between the North and the South. I've already talked about the theological differences. But basically, I hope you can see that there was no justice, no equity, and no rights for the Southern states. In fact, most of the injustice, rape and pillage and plunder, was done legally to the South under the guise of federal legislation. It was government, loosed from its constitutional and biblical moorings, that helped exacerbate the sectional differences by preferring and aiding one section above the other.

Let me ask you a question. Where are we today? Where are we now? Well, thanks to continuing governmental intervention, whites are now poised against blacks, and blacks against whites, and all other minority groups are against each other. Not only that, you have the worker, the man who earns his labor and earns his food by the sweat of his brow in honest labor, you have him now against the welfare recipient and the food stamp recipient and all of this other thing. You have the working man that really wants to do good against all those who are in affirmative action. You have basically union against non-union. You have license against non-license. You have now children against parents. Thanks to federal government we have children's rights. You have wives against husbands because of the rise of feminism. And husbands against wives. You have men against women. What do we have in this country? We have sexual differences. Why? Because our federal government contrary to the word of God, and contrary to the Constitution, is going to aid one group above another, and prefer one group above another, and destroy one group at the other's expense. I'm going to tell you something, folks. It is galling. It is galling.

Modern Applications and Call to Repentance

Weaver applies the historical lessons to current societal divisions, criticizing welfare and government intervention. He calls for personal and corporate repentance and obedience to God's Word as the only hope for restoration.

And I've done it many times. It is galling to go into a grocery store and not be able to buy what you need. And you get up to the checkout counter and here's a basket full of the choicest meats and steaks, everything being paid for with food stamps. That's galling. When you're working as hard as you can and trying to manage and you can't do that.

Now, what is creating that? You say, but Brother Weaver, you don't understand. If we didn't feed those folks, they'd starve. Let them starve. They will find a way to live. They will find out what work means. And by the way, there is no constitutional guarantee for welfare. That is not in the Constitution. If you will go back to the beginning of our country, it was the churches that handled biblical welfare. And the biblical principle is this, if any will not work, neither should he eat. You say, oh, they'd have to do without. They won't do without long. They'll find that they can dig a ditch just like everybody else. You see, folks, where we are today is a result of where we've been.

And when we lost our theological moorings, and when we left our constitutional moorings, we have nothing but division and confusion and chaos. And the only way we'll ever get back where we were is first of all, we must go back to the Word of God. You say, but Brother Weaver, the nation's not going to do that as a whole. Now are you beginning to see why the South was divided against the North? But here's the truth. Regardless of whether the nation as a whole does it or not, you are responsible to be biblical and scriptural in every area of your life, and to bring your life into conformity to the Word of God. And I want to tell you something, folks. If nobody else does right, we must. If no one else obeys God, we must. And the only way that we will stay bound together as Christians is by obedience to the Word of God. Why is it that church after church is rent asunder and divided? And the answer is an unsubmissive spirit to the truth of God and His Word. Our hope is in repentance and obedience and nothing else. Let's pray.

Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we ask for your blessing, for your help today. We pray, Father, that you would indeed heal us and enable us, Father, to see and understand our great need of Thee. We are where we are as a nation because we have forsaken Thee and forsaken Thy law. Forgive us our sins, and enable us to live for Thee. In the name of Jesus Christ we pray, Amen.

Study Guide

Major Themes

Theological Foundations Determine Culture

Summary: All cultural changes are the consequence of theological shifts; a change in theology leads to changes in culture, such as the acceptance of sodomy, abortion, and socialism.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'all cultural changes, all cultural shifts are the consequence of theological shifts. You cannot have a change in culture without having a change in theology.'

Northern Aggression and Hatred Toward the South

Summary: The North despised Southern dominance and sought to destroy the South politically and economically, not primarily to free slaves.

Evidence: Weaver quotes Thaddeus Stevens: 'Hang the leaders, crush the South, arm the Negroes, confiscate the land... The South must be punished.'

Economic Exploitation Through Tariffs

Summary: High tariffs imposed by the North enriched Northern industry while impoverishing the agricultural South, effectively making the South a 'milk cow' for the Union.

Evidence: Weaver cites Senator Thomas H. Benton: 'Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the federal government...'

The War Was About Money, Not Slavery

Summary: Northern leaders admitted that the real reason for preventing Southern secession was economic: the loss of tariff revenue and trade.

Evidence: Weaver quotes the New York Times: 'We were divided and confused till our pocketbooks were touched.'

Government Overreach and Sectional Favoritism

Summary: Federal legislation has historically preferred one section or group over another, leading to division and injustice, a pattern that continues today.

Evidence: Weaver notes that Southern states still must get Justice Department approval for voting district changes, a Reconstruction-era requirement.

Repentance and Obedience as the Only Hope

Summary: The nation's problems stem from forsaking God's law; the solution is personal and corporate repentance and bringing every area of life into conformity with Scripture.

Evidence: Weaver prays: 'We are where we are as a nation because we have forsaken Thee and forsaken Thy law. Forgive us our sins, and enable us to live for Thee.'

Key Arguments

The North, not the South, was the aggressor and sought war.

Summary: Weaver argues that the North, driven by industrialists and Unitarians, conspired to start the war to break Southern power and impose high tariffs.

Evidence: Weaver says: 'the North was not interested in slaves or in slavery as much as they were interested in the destruction of the South.'

The South was economically prosperous and dominant before the war.

Summary: Contrary to the myth of a backward South, Weaver presents statistics showing the South's economy ranked third in the world in 1860 and had higher per capita income than many Northern areas.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'if the South had been an independent nation in 1860, its economy would have ranked third in the world.'

Tariffs were the central economic grievance.

Summary: The South opposed high tariffs because they benefited Northern industry at the expense of Southern agriculture, effectively taxing the South for Northern gain.

Evidence: Weaver quotes a Northern congressman: 'The real reason is that the South will not allow us to have our tariffs.'

Lincoln was a tool of Northern industrial interests.

Summary: Weaver portrays Lincoln as a front man for the War Party, whose assassination was orchestrated by those who no longer needed him.

Evidence: Weaver says: 'Lincoln was nothing more than their front man. And when Lincoln's time was over, he was gotten rid of just as easily and as quickly as JFK was gotten rid of.'

Federal legislation systematically plundered the South.

Summary: Through tariffs and spending policies, the federal government transferred wealth from the South to the North, leaving the South impoverished.

Evidence: Weaver quotes Senator Benton: 'This is the reason why wealth disappeared from the South and rises in the North. Federal legislation does all this.'

The war's economic devastation of the South was severe and long-lasting.

Summary: Weaver provides examples of post-war economic ruin, such as Mississippi spending 20% of revenues on artificial limbs and Georgia not recovering pre-war revenue levels until 1911.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'the state of Mississippi allotted one-fifth of its revenues to purchase artificial arms and legs.'

Government favoritism continues to cause societal division.

Summary: Modern government policies, such as welfare and affirmative action, pit groups against each other, mirroring the sectional favoritism of the past.

Evidence: Weaver says: 'our federal government contrary to the word of God, and contrary to the Constitution, is going to aid one group above another, and prefer one group above another, and destroy one group at the other's expense.'

The only solution is a return to biblical obedience.

Summary: Weaver concludes that national restoration requires repentance and submission to God's Word, starting with individual Christians.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'the only way we'll ever get back where we were is first of all, we must go back to the Word of God.'

Scripture References

Psalm 11:3

Context: Foundational verse for the series: 'If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?'

Amos 3:3

Context: Used to illustrate that division is inevitable when there is no agreement: 'Can two walk together except they be agreed?'

Proverbs 22:7

Context: Cited to show that a biblical worldview affects economics: 'the borrower is servant or slave to the lender.'

2 Thessalonians 3:10 (implied)

Context: Weaver references the biblical principle: 'if any will not work, neither should he eat.'

Historical References

Abolitionist Movement (1830s-1860s)

Context: Weaver describes abolitionists as Unitarians who hated the South, the Constitution, and the Bible, and who sought immediate emancipation.

William Lloyd Garrison

Context: Abolitionist leader who called the Constitution 'an agreement with death and a covenant with hell' and advocated arming slaves.

Abraham Lincoln

Context: Portrayed as indifferent to slavery and a front man for Northern industrialists; his assassination was part of a larger plot.

John Brown's Raid and the Secret Six

Context: Six Unitarians funded John Brown to start a slave insurrection and foment war to seize control of Congress.

Thaddeus Stevens

Context: Unitarian Radical Republican congressman who called for hanging Southern leaders, crushing the South, and confiscating land.

Hinton Helper's Book

Context: A book promoted by Northern congressmen that called for the murder of slaveholders and was nearly the cause of a violent conflict in Congress.

Tariff of 1828 and Economic Exploitation

Context: High tariffs favored Northern industry; Senator Thomas H. Benton noted that the South paid most federal revenue but received little in return.

Post-War Economic Devastation

Context: Examples include Mississippi spending 20% of revenues on artificial limbs, Georgia not recovering until 1911, and Northern speculators buying timberland cheaply.

Reconstruction Acts

Context: Weaver notes that Southern states still must get Justice Department approval for voting district changes, a remnant of Reconstruction.

Founding Fathers and Southern Dominance

Context: Weaver lists Southern contributions to the nation's founding, including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and others, and notes Southern dominance in early presidencies.

Important Quotes

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

Significance: This is the foundational verse for the entire series, emphasizing the importance of maintaining biblical and constitutional foundations.

all cultural changes, all cultural shifts are the consequence of theological shifts. You cannot have a change in culture without having a change in theology.

Significance: This statement encapsulates Weaver's thesis that theological decay underlies societal decay.

Hang the leaders, crush the South, arm the Negroes, confiscate the land. Our generals have a sword in one hand and shackles in the other. The South must be punished.

Significance: Weaver uses this quote from Thaddeus Stevens to illustrate the Northern desire to destroy the South.

We were divided and confused till our pocketbooks were touched.

Significance: This quote from the New York Times supports Weaver's argument that economic interests, not slavery, drove the North to war.

Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the federal government, and of this great sum annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them in the shape of government expenditures.

Significance: Senator Benton's quote demonstrates the economic exploitation of the South through federal policy.

the only way we'll ever get back where we were is first of all, we must go back to the Word of God.

Significance: This is Weaver's central application: the solution to national and personal problems is a return to biblical authority.

We are where we are as a nation because we have forsaken Thee and forsaken Thy law.

Significance: From the closing prayer, this summarizes the cause of the nation's decline as abandonment of God's law.

Discussion Questions

How does the principle that 'all cultural shifts are the consequence of theological shifts' apply to issues we face today?

Context: Weaver argues that changes in culture, such as acceptance of sodomy and abortion, stem from changes in theology.

In what ways might economic interests still drive political decisions, and how should Christians respond?

Context: Weaver contends that the War of Northern Aggression was primarily about tariffs and economic control, not slavery.

What does the Bible teach about the role of government in preferring one group over another, and how does this relate to modern affirmative action or welfare policies?

Context: Weaver criticizes federal government for aiding one group at the expense of another, leading to societal division.

How can Christians maintain unity when there are deep theological disagreements, as seen in the church divisions before the Civil War?

Context: Weaver notes that the broken churches preceded the broken nation, and that without biblical agreement, division is inevitable.

What is the biblical view of slavery, and how does it differ from the abusive system practiced in the antebellum South?

Context: Weaver mentions he will preach on the biblical doctrine of slavery, distinguishing it from the wickedness that attended Southern slavery.

How should Christians balance the call to obey governing authorities with the need to resist unjust laws, as the South claimed to do?

Context: Weaver discusses the South's argument that taxation without representation was tyranny, similar to the American Revolution.

What practical steps can individuals and churches take to bring every area of life into conformity with God's Word?

Context: Weaver concludes that regardless of national trends, Christians are responsible to be biblical in every area of life.

Applications

Examine Your Worldview

Summary: Recognize that your theology shapes your views on economics, politics, and social issues; ensure your beliefs are grounded in Scripture.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'Your worldview is determined by your theology. What you believe about God and what you believe about the Word of God.'

Avoid Debt to Maintain Freedom

Summary: Because the borrower is slave to the lender, Christians should strive to stay out of debt to remain free.

Evidence: Weaver cites Proverbs 22:7: 'the borrower is servant or slave to the lender.'

Practice Biblical Welfare

Summary: Welfare should be handled by the church, not the government, and based on the principle that those who will not work should not eat.

Evidence: Weaver says: 'it was the churches that handled biblical welfare. And the biblical principle is this, if any will not work, neither should he eat.'

Repent and Obey God's Word

Summary: Personal and corporate repentance and obedience to Scripture are the only hope for restoration, regardless of what the nation does.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'If nobody else does right, we must. If no one else obeys God, we must.'

Understand History to Avoid Repeating Errors

Summary: Learning the true causes of the War of Northern Aggression helps Christians recognize ongoing patterns of government overreach and economic exploitation.

Evidence: Weaver says: 'I'm not just trying to stir up trouble. But may I point something out? Do you realize if you and I in the state of Georgia wish to redistrict our voting precincts, we must apply to the Justice Department for approval.'

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-05T19:26:15Z

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T12:25:15Z

Clean Transcript

Where We Are & How We Got Here # 3 of 14

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

When we preach expositionally, that is, I take a passage from the Bible and I break it down and take it point by point and verse by verse. In fact, I have just finished a series of 18 messages on Romans 8:28 through 39. So that will tell you how long I normally stay on a passage. I started a series two weeks ago, basically entitled Where We Are and How We Got Here.
#1 | 0:07 to 0:36 | cleaned
And I have been dealing more with our history and principles from the Word of God. And let's read Psalm 11, then I'm going to give a brief introduction and pick up from there, because this is the third message. Look in Psalm 11, verse 3. Psalm 11, verse 3. This has been our foundational verse, and I think you can see why. Scripture says, "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"
#2 | 0:37 to 1:06 | cleaned
Now, anyone who's ever built a house or had any building experience knows the absolute importance of a foundation, because once that foundation goes, then the house that is erected on top of it is divided and rent in twain as well. So our Lord asks, if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? I tried to show you how the foundations in our country have been rent in twain.
#3 | 1:07 to 1:35 | cleaned
I first showed you number one, the abolitionist revolution. I was going back to the 1860s because that is basically when our country began to deteriorate. Actually, it began before, but that was the culmination of it. It really began in the 1830s and the 1840s because the abolitionists were those individuals who were calling for the immediate abolition or the freedom of the slaves in this country. Now, you've got to remember that, first of all, it was the northerners who sold the slaves to the southerners. Secondly, you've got to remember the people who were crying were Unitarians.
#4 | 1:36 to 2:14 | cleaned
They did not believe the Bible. They did not believe in Jesus Christ. They did not believe in inspiration of Scripture. They did not believe in supernaturalism at all. And so I showed historically where they hated not only the South, but they hated the slave and slavery, and they hated the Constitution as well. In fact, William Lloyd Garrison said the Constitution was an agreement with death and a covenant with hell, and of course they did not feel themselves morally bound to uphold their agreement that they had made with the other states. And, of course, they nullified the Constitution with what were known as the Fugitive Slave Laws because they refused to keep their end of the compact.
#5 | 2:14 to 2:58 | cleaned
I showed how these very abolitionists despised the black people and called them all kinds of names. Abraham Lincoln himself said if he could restore this country without freeing any slave, he would do it. If he could restore it by freeing all slaves, he would do it. He could care less about the blacks one way or the other. And then last week I dealt with the theological revolution, and I showed where the broken churches in this country preceded our broken nation. I showed you how the Presbyterians divided in 1837, the Methodists in 1844, and the Baptists in 1845. And I gave you numerous quotes where very clearly that everyone foresaw not only the political leaders, but the religious leaders as well, that the division in the church foreshadowed the division in the country.
#6 | 2:58 to 3:57 | cleaned
And basically is this, when people will not sit down and resolve their problems scripturally and biblically, there is not going to be a resolution. That's all there is to it. And when you have one group denying the veracity of the Word of God, and the inspiration of the Word of God and another group upholding the Word of God and saying we want to be biblical about it, there can be no reconciliation. The only thing there's going to be is division.
#7 | 3:58 to 4:24 | cleaned
For as Amos 3:3 says, "Can two walk together except they be agreed?" So the broken churches then foreshadowed the broken nation.
#8 | 4:24 to 4:34 | cleaned
Now, remember, I dealt last week with the theological shift. Let me make this statement again, because this is highly important. In fact, there are two statements. I told you, first of all, that ideas have consequences. And then secondly, I told you that all cultural changes, all cultural shifts are the consequence of theological shifts. You cannot have a change in culture without having a change in theology. And the reason our culture keeps changing in America is because our theology keeps changing.
#9 | 4:34 to 5:10 | cleaned
That's why we keep condoning sodomy. That's why we keep condoning abortion. That's why we keep condoning socialism. Because the theology keeps shifting from the Word of God to a humanistic, or a humanistic view, I should say. So very clearly, then, you cannot have a cultural shift without having a theological shift. Now, I emphasized last week the theological shift.
#10 | 5:10 to 5:35 | cleaned
Now, let me make an introductory statement today. As important as the theological shift was and is, there were other issues involved. Let me make a clarification. That does not mean that these other issues do not have theological overtones. They most certainly do. Because one's worldview affects everything that he does, everything that he believes, everything that he says. Your worldview is determined by your theology. What you believe about God and what you believe about the Word of God. And thus your worldview then is going to affect your view of economics. It's going to affect your view of differences, of subjects. It's going to affect everything. So when I am isolating today two or three issues, but please do not say, well, he dealt with theological issues last week, and this week, he's going to deal with political and economical and sexual differences, and therefore, there are no theological overtones. No, there are theological overtones.
#11 | 5:35 to 6:41 | cleaned
For instance, the Bible says in Proverbs 22, verse 7, that the borrower is servant or slave to the lender. What does that mean? That means a man who believes the Bible is going to do everything he can to stay out of debt because he wants to be free and the man who does not believe the Bible is going to continue to follow and to fall in debt because he has a slave mentality and he is a slave basically.
#12 | 6:43 to 7:09 | cleaned
So your worldview, your theology affects every area of life. So it is impossible then to escape theology. Everything that we say, do and think is affected by our theology.
#13 | 7:10 to 7:22 | cleaned
Now, today I want to deal with three other issues that brought about the division, or what you and I would call the War of Northern Aggression, or if you would like to say, the Second War for Southern Independence, or if you really want to call it for what it was, you could call it Lincoln's War Against All Christian Nations, or All Christian States. That is also an excellent title as well.
#14 | 7:23 to 7:45 | cleaned
Now, God asks, if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Let me begin today, I want to share with you three things. First of all, I want to show you the political issues. Secondly, the economic issues. And then thirdly, I want to conclude it with sectional differences.
#15 | 7:46 to 8:03 | cleaned
Now, although I have given you these three ideas that I want to develop, you're going to have to understand that there is going to be an overlapping of these ideas. For instance, the economic issue at the same time is going to be a political issue. And the sectional issue, very clearly, is going to have economic and political overtones as well. So there's going to be an overlapping, but I'm trying to separate them and give them to you one at a time, just so you can see the importance of them, and allow me to place the emphasis on each point.
#16 | 8:04 to 8:42 | cleaned
Now, there have been a great many Southerners. In fact, I met one this week. I was so flabbergasted and so frustrated. But there have been a great many Southern Christians that have swallowed the Yankee myth, the Northern myth, that the South was and always has been backward, slothful, poor, and powerless.
#17 | 8:42 to 9:05 | cleaned
Now, anyone who believes that is believing trash and it just simply has never studied history. The truth of the matter is, one of the main reasons for the War of Northern Aggression was to break the power and the influence of the South. Let me make this statement, and I've already proved it in my first message. But I will prove it also in subsequent messages. But the North was not interested in slaves or in slavery as much as they were interested in the destruction of the South. You see, the industrialists in the North, also known as the War Party, knew that Lincoln's election would end Southern political freedom and Southern economic independence and literally be the beginning of Southern subordination to the Northern industrial interest. And you could say it like this, Lincoln was nothing more than their front man. And when Lincoln's time was over, he was gotten rid of just as easily and as quickly as JFK was gotten rid of and some of the others.
#18 | 9:06 to 10:16 | cleaned
Now, let me tell you something. You know, everybody focuses on the fact that Lincoln was assassinated. You know, they never focus on the fact that there were two other men who were supposed to have been assassinated at the same time. One of them was William Seward, who was the Secretary of State, and he was merely just cut, just wounded, his attacker never got to kill him. And the third one, the assassin got drunk and just simply wandered around in the street and never got to his target at all. So here were three leading men who were supposed to be assassinated at the same time. They were northern men, they were men in Lincoln's cabinet, Lincoln and two other cabinet officers. Now, the point is this, who would profit by having three northerners assassinated?
#19 | 10:16 to 11:11 | cleaned
Well, certainly not the South. Certainly not the South. Not anyone in the South. So Lincoln was merely a front man, and when Lincoln was assassinated, they were just simply getting rid of him. Now, John S. Tilley has written a great little book. The name of it is, Facts the Historians Leave Out. And in his introductory page, he says there were five great movements that ushered in the birth of this nation.
#20 | 11:11 to 11:38 | cleaned
He said, first of all, there was the First Continental Congress that sent to the English king, that would be George III, our Declaration of Rights. The president of that Congress was Peyton Randolph, a Southerner. The agitation for armed resistance against a tyrannical George III, one of the main leaders was Patrick Henry, another Southerner. Thirdly, he pointed out that the Declaration of Independence was written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, another Southerner. The Revolution was fought and led by George Washington, who himself was a Southerner. The adoption of the Constitution, in fact the father of the Constitution, is James Madison, who was another southerner.
#21 | 11:38 to 12:25 | cleaned
In fact, if you were to stop and just do a little thinking about history, even the westward expansion, even some of the northern states were all done and accomplished by southerners. Do you realize it was Virginia who created basically the Northwest Territory. It was Virginia who gave the territory that Ohio, Indiana, and three or four other states were carved out of to the Union. Do you realize it was Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe who were responsible for the Louisiana Purchase? And may I point out that all the New England states, all the northern states were against that purchase, but it was Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe who were responsible for the Louisiana purchase.
#22 | 12:25 to 13:14 | cleaned
It was Lewis and Clark, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark who explored it. It was James K. Polk, another southerner, who was responsible for the acquisition of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, and we'll forgive him for that, alright? It was also Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor, two more Southerners, who led the forces against Santa Ana and won the war with Mexico. It was Stephen Austin then and Sam Houston who settled Texas and who founded it. It was John Marshall, one of the first Supreme Court Justices, who also was a Southerner.
#23 | 13:14 to 13:53 | cleaned
May I remind you of a little-known fact. Did you realize out of the first nine presidents, six of them were Southerners. Only three were from the North, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Martin Van Buren. During the next eight presidential elections, and by this time there had been a tremendous shift in the population because a lot of the immigrants were going into the northern states. But in the next eight presidential elections, four of them went to the southerners and four went to the northerners. Out of all of the presidential elections up until 1860, every northern president only served one term. Every southerner, with the exception of John Tyler, who took the place of William Henry Harrison, he died in office. With the exception of John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Zachary Taylor, who died in office. With those three exceptions, every other southerner served two terms, which was the constitutional limit.
#24 | 13:54 to 15:11 | cleaned
Now get ready for this. After the war of northern aggression, when the war was over in 1865, it would be another hundred years before a southerner was elected President of the United States. And we're ashamed of him. Because LBJ was from Texas, but he was nothing more than a reconstructed northerner who towed the line and sought to destroy the nation just about like everyone has ever since then.
#25 | 15:12 to 15:49 | cleaned
Now, I want you to think about this for a moment. From 1776 to 1860, the South basically dominated our nation. And then all of a sudden, for the next hundred years, for the next 25 elections, there was not a Southerner elected. And you're trying to tell me the war was over slavery? The war was over an effort to break the back of the South, and that's exactly what happened. Let me tell you something else. You study your history. From 1860 to 1901, every northern president was a military officer.
#26 | 15:49 to 16:37 | cleaned
All of them were generals, except William McKinley, who had been a major. So, from 1860 to 1901, every president was a military officer.
#27 | 16:38 to 16:47 | cleaned
Now, the truth of the matter is this, and I'm going to prove it to you. The North basically hated the South. They despised the Southern dominance, and they resented the fact that the South would not allow them to have their high tariffs.
#28 | 16:47 to 17:04 | cleaned
Now, we're going to get into the economic issues in just a moment. But there were two political schools of thought. There were those individuals who wanted a central government, which is what we have today, and there were those who were interested in states' rights. It may surprise you that many of the Northerners originally wanted a king, they wanted a monarchy. In fact, some even tried to get George Washington to assume a monarchial form of government, which he refused. And so those who did not necessarily want a king, they wanted a centralized, strong government. And here the southern states were saying, no, what we want is states rights. What we want is independent. We want each state to be sovereign and independent.
#29 | 17:04 to 17:55 | cleaned
Now, let me just begin to show you how the hatred of the North for the South was manifested. Remember I told you in the first message that there was a secret six. In fact, there are two books written entitled The Secret Six. And here were six Unitarians, six men who conspired together to foment, to start the war in order they might assume power and control in Congress.
#30 | 17:56 to 18:25 | cleaned
I listed those names for you. One of them was the man by the name of Franklin Sanborn. Now, Franklin Sanborn did not necessarily agree with all the details of John Brown's raid. You see, John Brown was paid by the Secret Six to foment this war and to start a slave insurrection so that they might literally seize control of Congress. And by the way, that is exactly what happened. That is why Reconstruction followed the end of the war, because these men literally seized the power of government in Washington, D.C. While Franklin Sanborn did not necessarily like all of the details of John Brown's plan, he was attracted, and I'm using his words, to the image of an unrepentant South in flames. So he literally wanted to see the South burn down.
#31 | 18:26 to 19:29 | cleaned
The northern powers declared that they would turn Mississippi, and by inference all the southern states, that they would turn Mississippi into a frog pond. And they viewed the war as an opportunity to punish the South, and they said that when they won, they would treat the South as a conquered province, and they would make the South eat the foul fruit of their rebellion. I'm going to show you how that all came to pass when the war was over.
#32 | 19:30 to 20:00 | cleaned
Now I want you to listen to what Thaddeus Stevens said. Thaddeus Stevens was a Unitarian, he was a Radical Republican. I want to say one thing until after I give his quote to you. Here is what Thaddeus Stevens said, quote, "Hang the leaders, crush the South, arm the Negroes, confiscate the land. Our generals have a sword in one hand and shackles in the other. The South must be punished. Under the rules of war, its land confiscated. These offending states were out of the Union in the role of a belligerent nation and are to be dealt with by the laws of war and conquest." Now listen to what he said. Hang the leaders, crush the South, arm the Negroes, confiscate their land. The South must be punished. Thaddeus Stevens was a congressman. Congressman Joshua Giddings said, and he said this publicly, that he looked forward to the time, quote, "when the torch of the incendiary shall light up the towns and cities of the South and blot out every vestige of slavery."
#33 | 20:01 to 21:16 | cleaned
William Lloyd Garrison, who was an abolitionist leader who published the Liberator, called for a shooting of all the slaveholders and asked publicly, "Who will go for the arming of the slave population?" What they wanted was the slaves to rise up and literally to murder all of those who were working them, who owned them.
#34 | 21:16 to 21:40 | cleaned
Now, it was Secretary of State William Seward who himself gave a speech on the irrepressible conflict. In other words, a war is coming and we can't stop it.
#35 | 21:41 to 21:53 | cleaned
Now, I want to give you some quotes just to show you how desperate the situation was. There was a book published by Hinton Helper. That was his name, Hinton Helper. It is a devastating piece of trash. But it just shows you the attitude toward the South. This book called for the murder of Southerners. And what is so revealing is that this book was promoted by Congress, by the Northerners in Congress. In fact, what many people do not know, there was almost a war began in Congress over this.
#36 | 21:54 to 22:41 | cleaned
I wish I brought Captain S.A. Ashe's book with me, Southern View of the Northern Invasion. But Captain Ashe pointed out the fact that when John Sherman from Ohio was supposed to be elected Speaker of the House, all the Southern delegates said, no, we're not going to have him because he was helping distribute Hinton Helper's book against the South. And Captain Ashe and several other people give us quotes how that in Congress every congressman was armed with at least one revolver and possibly two and everyone had a Bowie knife. So it almost came to a knock-down, drag-down, shoot-'em-up, shoot-out on the halls of Congress over John Sherman being elected Speaker of the House. Well, he was not elected, but the northerners were trying to promote him. Now let me give you some quotes out of Helper's book.
#37 | 22:43 to 23:40 | cleaned
I want you to listen to this. I want you to tell me if this is reconciliatory, if this is trying to get along. Addressing the slaveholders, and by the way, I told you I'm going to preach on the biblical doctrine of slavery. I'll also show you the wickedness and the evil that attends slavery. But slavery in itself is not evil. There is a biblical model of slavery. And even when you get to the New Testament, when there were pagan slavery, the Bible even speaks concerning that.
#38 | 23:40 to 24:14 | cleaned
But here is how Helper addresses those who own slaves. He says, quote, "But sirs, knights of the bludgeon, cavaliers of the Bowie knife and pistols and lords of the lash." He says to use the word gentlemen, toward the southerners, "an appellation which we would no sooner think of applying to a pro-slavery slaveholder or any other pro-slavery man than we would think of applying it to a border ruffian, a thief, or a murderer. We contend," he says, "that slaveholders are more cruel than the common murderers of men." On page 139 he says, "We mean precisely what our words express when we say we believe thieves are, as a general rule, less amenable to the moral law than slaveholders." And then he shows how much worse a slaveholder is than a thief. He says, "Thieves practice deceit on the wise, but slaveholders take advantage of the ignorant. We contend, moreover, that slaveholders are more criminal than common murderers." Now listen, it gets worse. He addresses the non-slaveholders, and by the way, I think it was less than 6% of the people in the South that owned slaves.
#39 | 24:14 to 25:31 | cleaned
Very few. And just even a smaller percentage had a large plantation where likely to be a hundred or more. The few who did own slaves only had one or two, but he addresses the non-slaveholders and he says, "Farmers, mechanics, and working men, we take this occasion to assure you that slaveholders, the arrogant demagogues whom you have elected to office of honor and profit, have hoodwinked you, traveled you, and used you as
#40 | 25:34 to 26:05 | cleaned
mere tools for the consummation of their wicked designs. Indeed, it is our honest conviction that all the pro-slavery slaveholders deserve to be at once reduced to a parallel with the basest criminals that lie fettered within the cells of our public prisons, were it possible for the whole number to be gathered together and transformed into four equal games of licensed robbers, ruffians, thieves, and murderers, society would suffer less from their atrocities than it does now."
#41 | 26:05 to 26:37 | cleaned
Did you hear what he said? If you took all the slaveholders and turned them into murderers and robbers, society would suffer less. Which is hogwash. Then on page 28, here's where the rubber hits the road. He says, "Henceforth sirs," now listen, "henceforth sirs, we are demandants, not supplicants. It is for you to decide whether we are to have justice peaceably or by violence. For whatever consequences may follow, we are determined to have it one way or another. Do you aspire to become the victims of white non-slaveholders' vengeance by day, and a barbarous massacre by Negroes at night?" What is he saying?
#42 | 26:37 to 27:22 | cleaned
We're going to turn the whites against you, and we're going to turn the blacks against you. The whites are going to kill you by day, and the blacks are going to kill you by night. Listen, "Would you be instrumental in bringing upon yourselves, your wives, and your children a fate too terrible to contemplate? Shall history cease to cite as an instance of unexampled cruelty the massacres of St. Bartholomew, because the world, the South, shall have furnished a more direful scene of atrocity and carnage?"
#43 | 27:23 to 27:48 | cleaned
"We would not wantonly pluck a single hair from your heads, but we have endured long. We have endured much. Slaves only of the most despicable class would endure more. And now, sirs, you must emancipate them or we will emancipate them for you. And now, sirs, we have laid down our ultimatum. What are you going to do about it? Something dreadful as a matter of course? Perhaps you will dissolve the Union."
#44 | 27:49 to 28:17 | cleaned
"Do it if you dare. Our motto, and we would have you to understand it, is the abolition of slavery and the perpetuation of the American Union. If by any means you do succeed in your miserable attempts to take the South out of the Union today, we will bring it back tomorrow. If she goes away with you, she will return without you."
#45 | 28:17 to 28:35 | cleaned
Now aren't those loving, kind, reconcilable words? What's he saying? Do what you want to do, we'll kill you, and take what we want to take. So the North's political position was to subdue and destroy the South. Why? The South was still endeavoring to uphold the Constitution. The South was still basically Christian. The South was conservative. And consequently, there was an ever-widening division then between the North and the South, because here the North is wanting centralism, they're wanting what they want now, and could care less of it.
#46 | 28:37 to 29:14 | cleaned
Listen, slavery was abolished in England peaceably. Slavery was abolished in Haiti peaceably. Why could it not be abolished here peaceably? Because the North did not want it abolished peaceably, and I can prove that to you a little bit later on. So here are the political issues. Secondly, here are the economic issues.
#47 | 29:14 to 29:37 | cleaned
Now, folks, let me tell you. I'm going to give you some statistics in just a little while that ought to literally break your heart. See, so many people try to think the South was backward and the South was poor. Do you realize that if the South had been an independent nation in 1860, listen, if the South had been an independent nation in 1860, its economy would have ranked third in the world. Its economy would have ranked third on the European and the American continents in 1860. Do you realize the South was 25% ahead of the North in the purchase of advanced farming implements? The South had 33% of the nation's railroad tracks laid down. Now, while it was behind the North, it was far ahead of all of Europe and the rest of the then-known world. According to the census in 1860, the South had a per capita income 10% higher than all the states west of New York and Pennsylvania. I can show you a little later that a lot of their wealth in the North came from selling slaves.
#48 | 29:37 to 31:07 | cleaned
Now, here's what the North wanted. The North wanted extremely high tariffs. Why? Well, the North was a manufacturing economy. It was a commercial economy. It was an industrial economy. The South did not want that because the South was simply agricultural and the high tariff would basically destroy the South while it was building up the North.
#49 | 31:08 to 31:40 | cleaned
Now, what happened in 1787 when the Constitution was being written, there was a horrible, horrible and fatal mistake allowed. And that is that the Constitution allowed Congress to have control over commerce and navigation and allowed them to levy their import duties. Now, what the South was pushing for was for Congress to still have that power but they had to have it by a two-thirds majority and not just a simple majority. Well, you understand, I hope, that they just got it by a simple majority, not by two-thirds. Now, listen, a high impost or a high tariff or a high duty on manufactured goods would depress the prices for the South for what they had to sell. Now, listen to me. Here is the position the South took.
#50 | 31:41 to 32:43 | cleaned
We had fought one war because of taxation without representation. Okay? And the South was saying, what is the difference between taxation without representation and taxation when you're always outvoted by a northern majority? It's the same principle, it's the same thing. You know what George Mason said? Now remember George Mason helped with the Constitution, but George Mason never signed it because of this issue and because of several other issues. But George Mason said this, the effect of a provision to pass commercial laws by a simple majority would be to deliver the South bound hand and foot to the Eastern or the New England states.
#51 | 32:45 to 33:37 | cleaned
He saw it back then. He said, if you just have a simple majority, then the South is going to be bound hand and foot to the northern states. Now, a prominent northern congressman was asked by Mr. W.C. Fowler in 1864, what was the real reason that the North was pushing abolitionism? And his response was this. Here's what the congressman said. The real reason is that the South will not allow us to have our tariffs.
#52 | 33:38 to 34:07 | cleaned
And we touch them, or they will be it. We can't get our way. We can't have what we want. We will destroy the South. George Lunt, who is the author of the book, Origins of the Late War, he said this.
#53 | 34:07 to 34:22 | cleaned
Now this will shock you. In 1833, there was a surplus revenue of many millions in the public treasury, which, by an act of legislation unparalleled in the history of the nations, was distributed among the northern states to be used for local improvements. Legislation was passed by Congress to distribute all of these millions, not between all of the states, but just between the northern states. James Buchanan was the president before Abraham Lincoln. And President Buchanan's message to Congress said this. The South has not had her share of money from the Treasury.
#54 | 34:22 to 35:12 | cleaned
And unjust discrimination has been made against her. That was from the President himself. What's he saying? All the money in the Treasury is going to the northern states. It's not going to the southern states. You say, well, the South was just wanting their share. Hey, it was the South who was putting all the money in. I can prove that. By the way, when Abraham Lincoln was asked why the North would not allow the South to go in peace, his reply was this. "Let the South go? Let the South go?
#55 | 35:13 to 35:49 | cleaned
Where then shall we get our revenues?" He understood the money to run the country came from the South. R.L. Dabney has a little pamphlet out, and the name of his little pamphlet is The Origin and the Real Cause of the War. Now, what many people do not know, and I'll point all this out a little bit later, there were several attempts by the South to avert the war. And one of those attempts was when Colonel Baldwin was sent to Washington for an interview with Abraham Lincoln. And Colonel Baldwin had authority from the southern states.
#56 | 35:49 to 36:30 | cleaned
Now, the seven Gulf states had already seceded. Four others were about to join. And Colonel Baldwin assured Lincoln that all the southern states could be brought back into the Union peaceably. If, he said, he opened the southern ports. You see, Lincoln had blockaded some of the southern ports. If, he said, the southern ports were opened with their 10% tariff. In other words, all the South wanted was a 10% tariff. And when Lincoln heard that, his exclamation was, "What then would become of my tariff?" In other words, he wanted a higher one. The industrialists wanted more money. Colonel Baldwin said that he asked the question with such emphasis that he realized the interview was over and immediately Lincoln had Colonel Baldwin dismissed.
#57 | 36:30 to 37:32 | cleaned
Patrick Henry himself had sounded the alarm. Patrick Henry did not go to the Constitutional Convention. And when asked why he did not go, here was his answer. "I smelled a rat. I smelled a rat." But here's what Patrick Henry said, "But I am sure that the dangers of this system, the federal government, are real when those who have no similar interest with the people of this country, that is the South, are to legislate for us when our dearest rights are to be left in the hands of
#58 | 37:34 to 38:07 | cleaned
those whose advantage it will be to infringe upon them." So Patrick Henry understood what was going to happen economically. You see, at first, some of the northern states were willing to allow the southern states to go in peace. But when all of a sudden they began to realize the economic loss that would accrue to the north, they changed their tunes. In fact, some writers said that if the south were allowed to go in peace, that grass would grow in the streets of New York City, while the port at New Orleans flourished. Now you see, the northerners understood something. They understood that these southern ports with their warm waters would be open year-round, while the northern ports that froze during the winter would be merely seasonable. And so they understood that with no high tariff, then everything is going to go to the southern ports, and it's going to bypass then the northern ports.
#59 | 38:07 to 39:20 | cleaned
In 1786, let me show you how far this goes. In 1786, John Jay of New York.
#60 | 39:22 to 39:25 | cleaned
John Jay of New York caused an uproar in Congress among the Southern delegates when he attempted to give up the rights of the Mississippi River to Spain for advantages in Spanish ports. Can you imagine? A congressman willing to give up the rights to the Mississippi River, to Spain, to a foreign power? Why? Because he knew that those southern ports would eventually take the money from the North. So the great fear then of the North was economic loss.
#61 | 39:34 to 40:15 | cleaned
Now, let me prove that to you. The New York Times, on March 30, 1861, said this. It cannot get any plainer. Listen carefully. "The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly overstood the world over. If a manufacturer at Manchester, England, can send his goods into the western states through New Orleans, at a less cost than through New York, he's a fool not to avail himself to his advantage. If the importations of the country are made through southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we receive our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets.
#62 | 40:16 to 41:16 | cleaned
With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works? Conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars to turn into our harbor the products of the interior. They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers.
#63 | 41:16 to 41:32 | cleaned
Now listen, once at New Orleans goods may be distributed over the whole country duty-free, the process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing on the question has acted upon the norm. We now see clearly whether we are tending and the policy we must adopt. Listen, here's what the New York Times said, March 30, 1861, "With us it is no longer an abstract question, one of constitutional construction or of the reserved or delegated power of the state or federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad.
#64 | 41:32 to 42:11 | cleaned
We were divided and confused till our pocketbooks were touched." Did you hear what they said? They said in black and white, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. It doesn't matter about states' rights. It doesn't matter whether the South is right or wrong. That's immaterial. If we allow the South to go, we're going to be crushed financially. And it has nothing to do with Constitution, it has to do with money. The Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrats said this about letting the South go.
#65 | 42:11 to 42:44 | cleaned
"The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process and we lose. No, we must not let the South go." The New York Evening Post had an article entitled, "What Shall Be Done for Revenue?"
#66 | 42:45 to 43:22 | cleaned
And here's what it said.
#67 | 43:23 to 43:24 | cleaned
"Revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed. The sources which supply our treasury will be dried up. We shall have no money to carry on the government. The nation will become bankrupt before the next corn crop is ripe. Allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with a load duty of 10%, which is all the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported to New York, the railways would be supplied from Southern ports."
#68 | 44:25 to 45:06 | cleaned
Did you hear what they said? You let it come in through the South, and we're gone. Senator William Grayson of Virginia, who was one of the first United States Senators, expressed his concern that the South would soon become the milk cow of the Union.
#69 | 45:07 to 45:25 | cleaned
Now, let me show you, I realize I'm taking 1860 forward. Some of these problems began before then. For instance, shortly after the Revolutionary War, the War for Independence, the northern states decided to transfer all of the state war debts to the federal treasury. So New York is saying, we won't have to pay our bill, we'll allow the federal treasury to pay the bill. Well, Virginia wouldn't have to pay her bill, we'll allow the federal treasury to pay their bill.
#70 | 45:26 to 46:03 | cleaned
Now, you know, that sounds pretty good, doesn't it? I mean, you know, we won't allow the states to do it, we'll just allow the federal government to do it. Well, the only way the federal government could do it would be by raising the tariffs. And of course, the Southerners understood that. You say, well, what effect does that have on the South? Let me tell you what effect it has on the South. In 1859, the South exported in cotton alone. In cotton alone. It exported $161,434,923 worth of goods. Just in cotton alone.
#71 | 46:04 to 46:40 | cleaned
In 1859, all of the goods of the northern states were valued at $78,217,000. Now, who's going to be paying most of those imposts? Who's going to be paying most of those tariffs? The South. In fact, if you were to combine all that the South produced and exported, even in 1859, it would go up into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
#72 | 46:51 to 47:22 | cleaned
Now, when this proposal was made to allow the states to transfer their war debts to the federal government, the Virginia legislation reacted almost with horror, and they said, no, we don't want that, because inevitably it will be, quote, "the prostration of agriculture at the feet of commerce, or a change of the present form of federal government fatal to the existence of American liberty." But nevertheless, guess what? The North had its way, and those debts were transferred to the federal government.
#73 | 47:24 to 48:01 | cleaned
Now, let me give you what Senator Thomas H. Benton declared, 1828, he said, "Before the Revolution, the South was the seat of wealth as well as hospitality. Now listen, before the Revolution, the South was the seat of wealth as well as hospitality. Wealth has fled from the South and settled in the regions north of the Potomac. And this in the face of the fact that the South, in four staples alone, had exported produce since the Revolution to the value of 800 millions of dollars. And the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth. But what is the fact? Listen, under federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the federal revenue.
#74 | 48:02 to 48:58 | cleaned
Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the federal government, and of this great sum annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them in the shape of government expenditures. That expenditure flows in the opposite direction. It flows northwardly in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappeared from the South and rises in the North. Federal legislation does all this."
#75 | 48:58 to 49:30 | cleaned
That was Senator Thomas H. Benton. So the economic issue alone was devastating to the South. It was through the economic legislation by the Northerners that the South was systematically raped, ruined, pillaged, and plundered. The congressman himself says before the South was a seat of wealth.
#76 | 49:32 to 50:03 | cleaned
Now, let me give you a contrast. I want you to listen. We're not talking about the loss of human lives in that war. That was awful. But do you realize the first year after the war was over, the first year, the state of Mississippi allotted one-fifth of its revenues. That's 20%. The first year after the war was over, the state of Mississippi allotted one-fifth of its revenues to purchase artificial arms and legs. Listen, the enduring economic impact of that war upon Georgia was this. It was not until 1911 that the revenues of Georgia exceeded what they were in 1860.
#77 | 50:03 to 51:17 | cleaned
Louisiana lost, in slave property alone, $170 million. In Louisiana, at the beginning of the war, there were 1,200 operating sugar mills. At the end of the war, only 180 mills were left. At least half of the sheep and pigs and cattle and mules and horses had been destroyed from the state of Louisiana. In 1961, Life Magazine published a one-page overview of the economic loss of the South.
#78 | 51:17 to 51:59 | cleaned
Now this ought to chill your bones. After the war was over, Northern speculators chartered special trains where they came to the south and bought over 50 million acres of prime virgin timberland for as little as 50 cents an acre. The price of cotton, which was one of the major staples of the South, dropped to an all-time low, and within three years, the Northern Congress placed a high tax upon cotton and cost the South another $70 million just to produce their crop.
#79 | 52:00 to 52:52 | cleaned
Let me show you how devastating it was. One town, Greenville, Mississippi, at the end of the war, sixty percent of it was sold at the sheriff's auction for delinquent taxes. Sixty percent of the entire town.
#80 | 52:53 to 53:13 | cleaned
Now, let me just tell you something else that will chill your bones. You say, well, Brother Weaver, the war is over, Reconstruction is over. No, it's not. I'm not just trying to stir up trouble. But may I point something out? Do you realize if you and I in the state of Georgia wish to redistrict our voting precincts, we must apply to the Justice Department for approval. And so must any southern state that was in the Confederacy. That is one Reconstruction Act that's still in the book.
#81 | 53:17 to 54:00 | cleaned
The northern states can do what they want to do. They don't have to submit any plans to the Justice Department. You see, Reconstruction is still going on.
#82 | 54:00 to 54:11 | cleaned
Now, let me give you very quickly, I told you, what I want to do is show you where we are and how we got here. Thirdly, very quickly, just sectional differences. I think it could be very easily seen why there were sectional differences. I'm not going to talk about the cultural differences just yet between the North and the South. I've already talked about the theological differences. But basically, I hope you can see that there was no justice, no equity, and no rights for the Southern states. In fact, most of the injustice, rape and pillage and plunder, was done legally to the South under the guise of federal legislation. It was government, loosed from its constitutional and biblical moorings, that helped exacerbate the sectional differences by preferring and aiding one section above the other.
#83 | 54:14 to 55:06 | cleaned
Let me ask you a question. Where are we today? Where are we now? Well, thanks to continuing governmental intervention, whites are now poised against blacks, and blacks against whites, and all other minority groups are against each other. Not only that, you have the worker, the man who earns his labor and earns his food by the sweat of his brow in honest labor, you have him now against the welfare recipient and the food stamp recipient and all of this other thing. You have the working man that really wants to do good against all those who are in affirmative action.
#84 | 55:06 to 55:54 | cleaned
You have basically union against non-union. You have license against non-license. You have now children against parents. Thanks to federal government we have children's rights. You have wives against husbands because of the rise of feminism. And husbands against wives. You have men against women. What do we have in this country? We have sexual differences. Why? Because our federal government contrary to the word of God, and contrary to the Constitution, is going to aid one group above another, and prefer one group above another, and destroy one group at the other's expense. I'm going to tell you something, folks. It is galling. It is galling.
#85 | 55:56 to 56:58 | cleaned
And I've done it many times. It is galling to go into a grocery store and not be able to buy what you need. And you get up to the checkout counter and here's a basket full of the choicest meats and steaks, everything being paid for with food stamps. That's galling. When you're working as hard as you can and trying to manage and you can't do that.
#86 | 56:59 to 57:29 | cleaned
Now, what is creating that? You say, but Brother Weaver, you don't understand. If we didn't feed those folks, they'd starve. Let them starve. They will find a way to live. They will find out what work means. And by the way, there is no constitutional guarantee for welfare. That is not in the Constitution. If you will go back to the beginning of our country, it was the churches that handled biblical welfare. And the biblical principle is this, if any will not work, neither should he eat. You say, oh, they'd have to do without. They won't do without long. They'll find that they can dig a ditch just like everybody else. You see, folks, where we are today is a result of where we've been.
#87 | 57:30 to 58:25 | cleaned
And when we lost our theological moorings, and when we left our constitutional moorings, we have nothing but division and confusion and chaos. And the only way we'll ever get back where we were is first of all, we must go back to the Word of God. You say, but Brother Weaver, the nation's not going to do that as a whole.
#88 | 58:26 to 58:58 | cleaned
Now are you beginning to see why the South was divided against the North? But here's the truth. Regardless of whether the nation as a whole does it or not, you are responsible to be biblical and scriptural in every area of your life, and to bring your life into conformity to the Word of God. And I want to tell you something, folks. If nobody else does right, we must. If no one else obeys God, we must. And the only way that we will stay bound together as Christians is by obedience to the Word of God. Why is it that church after church is rent asunder and divided? And the answer is an unsubmissive spirit to the truth of God and His Word. Our hope is in repentance and obedience and nothing else. Let's pray.
#89 | 59:00 to 1:00:20 | cleaned
Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we ask for your blessing, for your help today. We pray, Father, that you would indeed heal us and enable us, Father, to see and understand our great need of Thee. We are where we are as a nation because we have forsaken Thee and forsaken Thy law. Forgive us our sins, and enable us to live for Thee. In the name of Jesus Christ we pray, Amen.
#90 | 1:00:21 to 1:00:50 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-05T19:26:15Z

Where We Are & How We Got Here # 3 of 14

John Weaver | Freedom Ministries

In this third message of the series, John Weaver examines the political, economic, and sectional differences that led to the War of Northern Aggression. He argues that the North's desire to break Southern power and impose high tariffs, not slavery, was the primary cause of the war. The South was systematically exploited through federal legislation, and the theological shift away from biblical foundations continues to cause cultural decay. The only remedy is repentance and obedience to God's Word.

Introduction and Review

Weaver reviews the foundational verse Psalm 11:3 and recaps the abolitionist and theological revolutions covered in previous messages, emphasizing that cultural shifts stem from theological shifts.

Scripture Reading — Psalm 11:3

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

Theological Overtones in All Issues

Weaver clarifies that while he will discuss political, economic, and sectional issues, all have theological overtones because one's worldview, determined by theology, affects every area of life.

Political Issues: Northern Hatred and Desire to Destroy the South

Economic Issues: Tariffs and Exploitation

And we touch them, or they will be it. We can't get our way. We can't have what we want. We will destroy the South. George Lunt, who is the author of the book, Origins of the Late War, he said this.

In 1786, let me show you how far this goes. In 1786, John Jay of New York.

The northern states can do what they want to do. They don't have to submit any plans to the Justice Department. You see, Reconstruction is still going on.

Sectional Differences and Continuing Injustice

Modern Applications and Call to Repentance

Where We Are & How We Got Here # 3 of 14

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	1200417529
Subject	Economics and Stewardship
Course	Debt, Money, and Stewardship
Genre	Sermon
Date	1998-07-12
Dictation Name
Book	Book 119: Where We Are & How We Got Here — Chapter 3
Source Timed Segments	90

Lecture Guide

Outline

Introduction and Review: Weaver reviews the foundational verse Psalm 11:3 and recaps the abolitionist and theological revolutions covered in previous messages, emphasizing that cultural shifts stem from theological shifts.
Theological Overtones in All Issues: Weaver clarifies that while he will discuss political, economic, and sectional issues, all have theological overtones because one's worldview, determined by theology, affects every area of life.
Political Issues: Northern Hatred and Desire to Destroy the South: Weaver argues that the North hated Southern dominance and sought to break its power. He cites quotes from Northern leaders calling for the destruction of the South and notes that Lincoln was a front man for industrial interests.
Economic Issues: Tariffs and Exploitation: Weaver details how high tariffs favored Northern industry at the South's expense, and how federal legislation systematically transferred wealth from the South to the North. He provides statistics showing the South's economic strength before the war and its devastation afterward.
Sectional Differences and Continuing Injustice: Weaver explains that sectional differences were exacerbated by government preference for one section over another, leading to ongoing divisions in society. He notes that Reconstruction-era laws still affect Southern states.
Modern Applications and Call to Repentance: Weaver applies the historical lessons to current societal divisions, criticizing welfare and government intervention. He calls for personal and corporate repentance and obedience to God's Word as the only hope for restoration.

Major Themes

Key Arguments

The North, not the South, was the aggressor and sought war.

Weaver argues that the North, driven by industrialists and Unitarians, conspired to start the war to break Southern power and impose high tariffs.

Weaver says: 'the North was not interested in slaves or in slavery as much as they were interested in the destruction of the South.'

The South was economically prosperous and dominant before the war.

Contrary to the myth of a backward South, Weaver presents statistics showing the South's economy ranked third in the world in 1860 and had higher per capita income than many Northern areas.

Weaver states: 'if the South had been an independent nation in 1860, its economy would have ranked third in the world.'

Tariffs were the central economic grievance.

The South opposed high tariffs because they benefited Northern industry at the expense of Southern agriculture, effectively taxing the South for Northern gain.

Weaver quotes a Northern congressman: 'The real reason is that the South will not allow us to have our tariffs.'

Lincoln was a tool of Northern industrial interests.

Weaver portrays Lincoln as a front man for the War Party, whose assassination was orchestrated by those who no longer needed him.

Weaver says: 'Lincoln was nothing more than their front man. And when Lincoln's time was over, he was gotten rid of just as easily and as quickly as JFK was gotten rid of.'

Federal legislation systematically plundered the South.

Through tariffs and spending policies, the federal government transferred wealth from the South to the North, leaving the South impoverished.

Weaver quotes Senator Benton: 'This is the reason why wealth disappeared from the South and rises in the North. Federal legislation does all this.'

The war's economic devastation of the South was severe and long-lasting.

Weaver provides examples of post-war economic ruin, such as Mississippi spending 20% of revenues on artificial limbs and Georgia not recovering pre-war revenue levels until 1911.

Weaver states: 'the state of Mississippi allotted one-fifth of its revenues to purchase artificial arms and legs.'

Government favoritism continues to cause societal division.

Modern government policies, such as welfare and affirmative action, pit groups against each other, mirroring the sectional favoritism of the past.

Weaver says: 'our federal government contrary to the word of God, and contrary to the Constitution, is going to aid one group above another, and prefer one group above another, and destroy one group at the other's expense.'

The only solution is a return to biblical obedience.

Weaver concludes that national restoration requires repentance and submission to God's Word, starting with individual Christians.

Weaver states: 'the only way we'll ever get back where we were is first of all, we must go back to the Word of God.'

Scripture References

Psalm 11:3: Foundational verse for the series: 'If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?'
Amos 3:3: Used to illustrate that division is inevitable when there is no agreement: 'Can two walk together except they be agreed?'
Proverbs 22:7: Cited to show that a biblical worldview affects economics: 'the borrower is servant or slave to the lender.'
2 Thessalonians 3:10 (implied): Weaver references the biblical principle: 'if any will not work, neither should he eat.'

Historical References

Abolitionist Movement (1830s-1860s): Weaver describes abolitionists as Unitarians who hated the South, the Constitution, and the Bible, and who sought immediate emancipation.
William Lloyd Garrison: Abolitionist leader who called the Constitution 'an agreement with death and a covenant with hell' and advocated arming slaves.
Abraham Lincoln: Portrayed as indifferent to slavery and a front man for Northern industrialists; his assassination was part of a larger plot.
John Brown's Raid and the Secret Six: Six Unitarians funded John Brown to start a slave insurrection and foment war to seize control of Congress.
Thaddeus Stevens: Unitarian Radical Republican congressman who called for hanging Southern leaders, crushing the South, and confiscating land.
Hinton Helper's Book: A book promoted by Northern congressmen that called for the murder of slaveholders and was nearly the cause of a violent conflict in Congress.
Tariff of 1828 and Economic Exploitation: High tariffs favored Northern industry; Senator Thomas H. Benton noted that the South paid most federal revenue but received little in return.
Post-War Economic Devastation: Examples include Mississippi spending 20% of revenues on artificial limbs, Georgia not recovering until 1911, and Northern speculators buying timberland cheaply.
Reconstruction Acts: Weaver notes that Southern states still must get Justice Department approval for voting district changes, a remnant of Reconstruction.
Founding Fathers and Southern Dominance: Weaver lists Southern contributions to the nation's founding, including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and others, and notes Southern dominance in early presidencies.

Important Quotes

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

This is the foundational verse for the entire series, emphasizing the importance of maintaining biblical and constitutional foundations.

all cultural changes, all cultural shifts are the consequence of theological shifts. You cannot have a change in culture without having a change in theology.

This statement encapsulates Weaver's thesis that theological decay underlies societal decay.

Hang the leaders, crush the South, arm the Negroes, confiscate the land. Our generals have a sword in one hand and shackles in the other. The South must be punished.

Weaver uses this quote from Thaddeus Stevens to illustrate the Northern desire to destroy the South.

We were divided and confused till our pocketbooks were touched.

This quote from the New York Times supports Weaver's argument that economic interests, not slavery, drove the North to war.

Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the federal government, and of this great sum annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them in the shape of government expenditures.

Senator Benton's quote demonstrates the economic exploitation of the South through federal policy.

the only way we'll ever get back where we were is first of all, we must go back to the Word of God.

This is Weaver's central application: the solution to national and personal problems is a return to biblical authority.

We are where we are as a nation because we have forsaken Thee and forsaken Thy law.

From the closing prayer, this summarizes the cause of the nation's decline as abandonment of God's law.

Discussion Questions

[Question]

How does the principle that 'all cultural shifts are the consequence of theological shifts' apply to issues we face today?

[Context]

Weaver argues that changes in culture, such as acceptance of sodomy and abortion, stem from changes in theology.

[Question]

In what ways might economic interests still drive political decisions, and how should Christians respond?

[Context]

Weaver contends that the War of Northern Aggression was primarily about tariffs and economic control, not slavery.

[Question]

What does the Bible teach about the role of government in preferring one group over another, and how does this relate to modern affirmative action or welfare policies?

[Context]

Weaver criticizes federal government for aiding one group at the expense of another, leading to societal division.

[Question]

How can Christians maintain unity when there are deep theological disagreements, as seen in the church divisions before the Civil War?

[Context]

Weaver notes that the broken churches preceded the broken nation, and that without biblical agreement, division is inevitable.

[Question]

What is the biblical view of slavery, and how does it differ from the abusive system practiced in the antebellum South?

[Context]

Weaver mentions he will preach on the biblical doctrine of slavery, distinguishing it from the wickedness that attended Southern slavery.

[Question]

How should Christians balance the call to obey governing authorities with the need to resist unjust laws, as the South claimed to do?

[Context]

Weaver discusses the South's argument that taxation without representation was tyranny, similar to the American Revolution.

[Question]

What practical steps can individuals and churches take to bring every area of life into conformity with God's Word?

[Context]

Weaver concludes that regardless of national trends, Christians are responsible to be biblical in every area of life.

Applications

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

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T12:25:15Z