The Ten Commandments

Where We Are & How We Got Here # 1 of 14

Transcript: AI Transcript

Professor: John Weaver

Subject: Biblical Law

Genre: Sermon

Dictation Name:

Date: 1998-06-28

Synopsis: John Weaver introduces a series on the theological and cultural foundations of the United States, arguing that the nation's current moral decline stems from a prior theological revolution. He contends that the Civil War was not fought over slavery but was an abolitionist revolution driven by Northern Unitarians and radicals who rejected biblical authority. Using Psalm 11:3, he warns that when foundations are destroyed, the righteous are left without recourse, and he traces how a change in theology inevitably produces a change in culture.

[John Weaver] Lord willing, today I'm going to begin the series that I shared with you on where we are and how we got where we are, or where we came from to get to where we are. And I want you to understand that everything that happens, happens for a reason. So Psalm 11, and look if you would please at verse 3. Psalm 11, verse 3. If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? A very simple verse. If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

[John Weaver] Now, let me just point it out. Everyone understands, I hope, the importance of a foundation. If you have not understood the importance of a foundation, you need to turn on the news and witness some of these homes in California during the mudslides. Because when the foundation crumbles and breaks, the whole house gives way and literally falls to pieces. So God is asking, what in the world are the righteous going to do when the foundations are destroyed? And the foundation that was laid for our nation has been eroding very seriously over the years.

[John Weaver] And we are where we are today. Because basically, the foundation has been destroyed. You see, in 1776, we basically had one country, one faith and one God.

[John Weaver] Now, I realize there were some sectional differences even back then, because George Washington had to give orders that anyone in his army that was creating sectional feelings, that is, differences, was to be highly reprimanded because he wanted unity. Now, it was true there were some sectional differences, but basically we had one culture. It doesn't matter if you were talking about Jamestown, which was founded in 1607, or the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth in 1620. or the influx of the Puritans, the truth of the matter is this.

[John Weaver] Each group held tenaciously to the word of God. They all held to that one truth. Basically speaking, they were all Thurago and Calvinists, but at least they all held to the one culture and to one faith and to one God. And every group said that they were there to honor and to glorify God and to obey his word. Witness the Mayflower compact. I mean, it doesn't matter if you study the Charter of Jamestown or the Mayflower Compact. Every one of them say that they have a desire to glorify and honor God and to extend the kingdom of Jesus Christ. So whatever sectional feelings there were back in 1776, they were held to a very minimum.

[John Weaver] Now, even slavery was not an issue at that time. At the time of what you and I would call the War for Independence in 1776, there were slaves in every colony. Even when the Constitution of the United States was finally ratified in 1789, there were slaves in every state. with the possible exception of Massachusetts. Massachusetts had just passed a law freeing all their slaves, but even still then, although the law had passed, there still may have been some in that state.

[John Weaver] Now, the fact is, during the Constitutional Convention, the main focus of the debate was not over the rightness or the wrongness of slavery. But how in the world were the slaves going to be counted?

[John Weaver] Now, I'll give you some of these figures a little bit later on, but you see, originally, the North and the South were almost properly balanced. But then, of course, the South had the slaves, and I'll explain to you a little bit later how the South got those slaves. There were no Southern slaving ships. only northern slaving ships. Now, the big debate was over how those slaves were to be counted.

[John Weaver] Now, Congress would not end legally the slave trade until 1808. Now, although the law was passed in 1808, it still did not end there because even during Abraham Lincoln's tenure of office, they were still fighting the northern slave shipping industry. So, let me read to you what the Constitution of the United States says in Article I. 4. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound of service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed three-fifths of all other persons." So the slaves then were to count for three-fifths of the population.

[John Weaver] Of course, this was later to be changed by the 14th Amendment. Now, I'm not going to get into that argument right now, but whether or not the 14th Amendment was ever properly ratified is a subject for another sermon. And certainly I can share some things with you on that and show you that it was not properly ratified, but that's another subject in and of itself. Now, the fact is, even today, I'm not even going to be dealing with slavery. Slavery is going to be dealt with on Down the Line probably in two or three messages. But let me just suffice it to say today that slavery was not the issue of the war. It was not the issue. And anytime people say that slavery was what the world was thought about, they're just absolutely, totally ignorant of history, because it was not fought over slavery.

[John Weaver] Well, you've got to ask yourself, what in the world happened in our country? Why was there such a division between North and South? Why does that division still exist? You see, the South is still Accused of fighting the war and of being slow losers, no, and of being sorry losers, no. It's not the fact that we're sorry losers, and it's not the fact that we're still fighting the war. It's just the fact that the principles are still the same, and those principles keep resurfacing. And the truth of the matter is, those who know those principles and hold those principles and believe those principles still have just as strong of tendency and feelings today as they did 200 years ago, or 100 years ago.

[John Weaver] Now, I want to lay down a very little principle, and I want you to listen to me. I'm entitling this message, The Abolitionist Revolution. Why in the world am I talking about a revolution? Because what happened in the 1860s was indeed a revolution. But now listen, a theological revolution must precede a cultural revolution. Let me put that in plainer language. You cannot have a change in culture without having a change in theology. And what happened in our country in the 1860s and prior to that, there was a change in theology in the North. And consequently, there was a change in culture. You look at what has happened in our country in the last 40 years. You look what has happened in our country in the last 20 years. You look what has happened in the last 10 years.

[John Weaver] I'll guarantee you, when I was a boy, you would not see a man kissing a man on TV, or a woman kissing a woman, but you see it regularly today if you watch it. That's a good reason why not to watch it. I had an interesting phone call this week, first time it ever happened to me, Nielsen, you know the ratings? Yeah, call me and want to know if I would keep a diary for a week for them on my TV watching. I laughed. I said, you're asking the wrong man. Because the only TV I watch is the news, and I don't believe half of that.

[John Weaver] They said, well, we would like you to put that down. May I ask you why you don't watch the other programs?" I said, yes, because they're wicked, they're immoral, and they're an insult to my intelligence. I refuse to watch that trash. She said, would you write that down for me? I said, I sure would. I'd be more than happy to write that down for you. I said, I don't imagine it'd matter, but I said, I'll certainly be more than happy to write it down for you.

[John Weaver] Now, the point I'm trying to make is, The only way that all of this cultural change could come about is because there is a theological change. People do not know doctrine. They do not know the Word of God. Let me show you how plain and simple this statement is. I had the opportunity to talk to a gentleman this week. He claimed to be a Christian. Which I doubt very seriously.

[John Weaver] The man told me that he used to be a drunkard. God took the drinking away from him, said he hadn't drunk in 10 years. He said he smoked cigars and chewed tobacco regularly. He asked the Lord to take care of that and the Lord took it away from him just like that. Well, now that sounds impressive. Until you find out the man is going through a divorce, and the reason he's going through a divorce is not his wife's fault, but he admitted that he had been whoring around on his wife, and finally he got a guilty conscience and he told her, and they tried to work it out, but according to him, he said finally she just couldn't live with it anymore, and seemingly they're going through a divorce. He said, you know, he said, I really hurt my wife. I said, well, I'm glad you're realizing that. He said, but you know, I got hurt this week.

[John Weaver] I said, how is that? Well, he said, here's a woman that I thought I loved. He said, now I was going to ask the Lord to let me have her so I could marry her. And he said he wouldn't. He said he didn't answer my prayer. He answered all the other prayers. And he said her husband really fought for her and he won. I said, I can explain to you why God didn't answer your prayer.

[John Weaver] Because the scripture says thou shalt not commit adultery. And God is not going to help you sin and steal another man's wife. Do you understand what I'm saying? How can we think like that? There has been a theological change. There is now a cultural change. When you turn your back on the Word of God, then you have all kind of changes in your culture. You witness Israel under Jeroboam. What did Jeroboam do? Jeroboam made two golden calves, and he says, These be thy gods, O Israel, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. Why was there such a cultural and political change in Israel? Because there was a theological change. And you cannot have a cultural change without having a theological change.

[John Weaver] You see, the Bible says in Proverbs 23, verse seven, As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. Now, if you don't learn anything else, they learn this. Ideas have consequences. Ideas have consequences. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.

[John Weaver] Now, I told you I was going to be teaching on the abolitionist revolution. The abolitionists just simply get their name from the fact that they wanted to abolish slavery. Now listen. Abolitionists in general were individuals who rejected the word of God. They rejected the inspiration of scripture. They rejected the authority of the word of God. They rejected the deity of Jesus Christ. They rejected all of the major doctrines in the Word of God. If you want to do some research, you can find these abolitionists under different names.

[John Weaver] For instance, they are called Free Soilers, Radical Republicans, Transcendentalists, and Unitarians. Now, let me just hasten to tell you there were several different kinds of abolitionists. You will find that there were pacifistic abolitionists, that is, individuals who wanted to abolish slavery, but they didn't believe in fighting. And the way they wanted to abolish slavery was through the legal means, through the courts, or through political means. In other words, they weren't going to get up in arms over the issue of slavery. And then secondly, there were what were known as the disunion abolitionists. And these disunion abolitionists were ones who wanted to secede from the Union and leave the slave states to themselves. And then thirdly, there were the violent revolutionary abolitionists who wanted a slave revolt, who planned a slave revolt, who wanted the slaves to rise up and murder their masters and their families. And if they could not incite a slave insurrection, Then they were going to start an all-out war against the South and destroy the South.

[John Weaver] And literally, they despised not only the slaveholders, but anything that was Southern. Now let me just tell you, the war was not fought over slavery. I've already said it. Only one out of every seventeen families in the South had slaves. Then most of them had very few slaves. Most of the men who fought for the South during that war never owned a slave, never thought about owning a slave, and would never own one, especially when you see the price of some of those slaves. You say, well, it couldn't have been very expensive, O. Well, do you realize a young, strong, black man would sell for 200 bucks? You say, that's not much money it was back then. And if you got a black man who was a carpenter or a brick mason or had skills, he would sell from $3,000 to $5,000. That was a lot of money back in the 1830s, 1840s, 1850s, 1860s. So most of the Southerners never owned a slave in their life.

[John Weaver] But it was these radical abolitionists, these violent revolutionary abolitionists that prevailed, and they were backed by the big money interests in the North. They were backed by the industrialists, by the war party. It was these people who wanted literally to destroy the South, its prestige, its power, its political influence. And you've got to understand that from the founding of this country, Until the 1860s, it was the South that basically provided the leadership in this country. I'm talking about presidents. Did you realize that 9 out of the first 11 presidents were Southern? So, these abolitionists wanted to literally destroy the South.

[John Weaver] Now, there were many abolitionists, I'm going to name some of them a little bit later, but what most people do not know is that there was a group known as the Secret Six. And the Secret Six were very wealthy Unitarians who financed and sponsored John Brown, and they were hoping that his raid at Harpers Ferry would start a slave insurrection. John Brown was nothing more than a low-life murderer.

[John Weaver] He was not only a cheat and a thief, and would not pay his debts, had lawsuits piled up after him, seemingly a mile high, everything he ever touched went down, and he had lawsuits on every hand. But John Brown and his gang of seven before they ever began the invasion of Harper's Ferry. Five of his original gang were members of his own family. These seven men took their sabers and axes and murdered five innocent men along the Potawatomi Creek. They're referred to as the Potawatomi Massacres. These five men were not slaveholders. John Brown was just trying to start a revolution. He was trying to start a war. And he murdered five of those men. Just literally hewed them and hacked them to pieces. Now, it's interesting, in his raid on Carpers Ferry, trying to get the arsenal there, the first man killed by John Brown and his raiders was a free black. The first one they murdered was a free black.

[John Weaver] His name was Heywood Shepard. He was a porter for the B&O Railroad. They shot him, left him dying in the road, and stayed around him for 12 hours ignoring his pleas for water. So it's very ironic. that John Brown was going to come and quote-unquote save the blacks, and the first one he murders is a free black man.

[John Weaver] Now, let me tell you very quickly who these secret six were. First of all, there's Franklin Sanborn. He was an author, an educator, a social scientist. Secondly, there's Jarrett Smith. Jarrett Smith was a millionaire. He was a politician from New York.

[John Weaver] Thirdly, there was Thomas Wentworth Higginson of Massachusetts. He was a unitary minister who stated that he always had money for treason. There was Dr. Samuel Ridley Howe. He was the husband of Julia Ward Howe, who wrote the battle hymn, The Republic, to the tune of John Brown's Body Lays Molder in the Grave. Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe was a medical doctor, he was a soldier at one time, and he did work with the deaf and with the blind.

[John Weaver] Fourthly, or fifthly, there was Theodore Parker. Theodore Parker was a unitary minister. William Lloyd Garrison, who was another ardent abolitionist, his paper, The Liberator, was an anti-slavery paper, but William Lloyd Garrison introduced Parker to a New York anti-slavery meeting in 1856, and here was his introduction of Theodore Parker. He said, quote, I have the pleasure of introducing to you a very excellent fanatic, a very good infidel, and a first-rate traitor in the person of Theodore Parker of Boston. A very good infidel.

[John Weaver] And, of course, Julia warned how. I believe that Parker was an out-and-out atheist, but he was a Unitarian minister, you see.

[John Weaver] Now, the sixth one was George Luther Stearns, who was a millionaire of Massachusetts, and he made his money in the lead pipe industry. Now, there were many abolitionists, and I'm going to share some of them with you a little bit later, but there were men like William Lloyd Garrison, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Henry Ward Beecher. Has anybody ever heard the expression Beecher's Bibles? Well, Henry Ward Beecher sent crates of rifles to Kansas to John Brown to use in his revolution and had the crates marked Bibles and they were known as Beecher's Bibles. There was Thaddeus Stevens. Charles Sumner, William Stanton, of course Abraham Lincoln, Samuel May, a host of others. And so I'll tell you about some of them a little bit later. But one of the important points to remember is this, that the abolitionists held themselves, their reasonings, their rationalizations, and their ideas not only above the Word of God, But above the Constitution of the United States as well. Now, Theodore Parker thought that the Constitution was not morally binding.

[John Weaver] That's what he preached and taught. What does that mean? The North, then, has no obligation to keep their end of the covenant. So if it's not morally binding, you don't have to obey, you don't have to do anything. William Lloyd Garrison referred to the Constitution as an agreement with hell, an agreement with death, and a covenant with hell. Thomas Wentworth Hickinson taught that disunion was a historical inevitability. In other words, there's going to be a separation, but he thought it was the North that was going to be seceding from the South.

[John Weaver] Now, another point that I want to make today is this, and I don't know how long I'm going to take, and I'm going to stop whenever I get to a stopping point, but I want you to understand, and this is exceedingly important, that the abolitionists as a whole did not care for the blacks. They despised them. They hated them. I'm going to prove that to you. In fact, the way I'm going to prove it to you is by using their own words. You see, the abolitionists were so adamant that slavery had to be destroyed He could care less as to whether the slaves were destroyed along with it.

[John Weaver] Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe wrote to a friend in anticipation of the war that John Brown was to begin, and here's what Gridley Howe wrote. Listen, he said, quote, that the map of our magnificent country should be destined to be so soon torn in two on account of the Negro, that poorest of human creatures satisfied even in slavery with sugarcane and a banjo." That's a real high estimate of the blacks. The poorest of human creatures satisfied even in slavery with sugarcane and a banjo. Theodore Parker's estimate of the Negro was that he was intellectually and morally low, moreover the Negro had for him a certain physical repulsion. Now these are the men who are supposed to be warning the Negro set free. Listen to what Julia Ward Howe wrote. She wrote, quote, the ideal Negro would be one refined by white culture and elevated by white blood. What is she saying? Well, if you take the Negro and mix white blood with him, you don't have a Negro anymore. You have a mulatto, you have a mix.

[John Weaver] But she is saying that was the only hope for a Negro to cease from being a Negro. That's not all. Listen to what she said. I'm quoting now. This is Julia Ward Howe. She wrote, The Negro among Negroes is a coarse, gritting, flat-footed, thick-skulled creature, ugly as Caliban, lazy as the laziest brutes, chiefly ambitious to be of no use to anyone in the world." Now, that's an abolitionist. Ugly as Caliban. I hope you want to know who Caliban is, because when I read that quote, I thought, I don't know who Caliban is, and inevitably, somebody's going to ask me. Caliban was a person in Shakespeare's play, The Tempest, and Caliban was an ugly, ignorant, savage, deformed mutant in a black band. So she wrote, the Negro among Negroes is a coarse, grinning, flat-footed, thick-skulled creature, ugly as Caliban, lazy as the laziest brutes, chiefly ambitious to be of no use to anyone in the world.

[John Weaver] And later on in her writings, she wondered this, as to whether compulsory labor for blacks was better than none. Do you hear what she was saying? If you don't force them to work, they won't work.

[John Weaver] Now this is an abolitionist argument. Thomas Wentworth Higginson said of the black troops that he helped to muster, he said that they were a thousand half-childish minds gathered together. Practically all abolitionists held a low view of the blacks. None wanted equality for the blacks. Let me share something with you. And I want to give you a quote in just a moment by Abraham Lincoln. I was listening to the news last night on TV, and the blacks in Albany were celebrating Juneteenth Day, which was supposed to be when the slaves were set free by the Emancipation Proclamation. Well, the Emancipation Proclamation bears the date of January 1, 1863.

[John Weaver] Of course, they're saying later on in Texas, I think, it was forcibly enforced by the sword and by the bayonet when that area had lost in the war. But let me tell you something, folks. The Emancipation Proclamation never, ever freed a slave. And here our news is reporting that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was a military attempt to get the slaves to revolt in the South and fight with the North. Moreover, it was politically motivated to keep England from helping the South in the war, and any other European country as well. Do you realize that where Abraham Lincoln had power to free the slaves in the northern states, he did not free any of them. Where he had no authority in the southern states, he tried to free them, and of course, originally, no one was freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. So the Emancipation Proclamation never freed any individual at all. Let me show you. The Emancipation Proclamation bears the date of January 1st, 1863. On August the 14th, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a lot of free blacks to the White House and he made a speech and here is what Lincoln said to the free blacks.

[John Weaver] Listen, I quote. Why should people of your race be colonized and where? You see what most people don't know, I'm going to stop right here, that Lincoln's Negro policy was to send the blacks back to Africa. Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens, William Stanton, all of those radical Republicans in his cabinet agreed and wanted the same thing. So here's what he's saying to these free blacks, listen, why should people of your race be colonized and where?

[John Weaver] Why should they leave this country? This is perhaps the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need not discuss. But this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence.

[John Weaver] In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. You are free men, I suppose. Perhaps you have long been free, or all of your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free. But on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours."

[John Weaver] Now is Abraham Lincoln speaking to blacks? He says there's not a single black that's equal to a single white. He's saying you never will be. Listen to what Lincoln said. Lincoln said, quote, slaves are property. And a free should be paid for. Did you know that Lincoln said if he could win the war without freeing any slave, he would do so. If he could win the war by freeing all slaves, he would do so. He could care less about the slaves. It was military expediency. Listen to what he said.

[John Weaver] I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." In his letter to Alexander Hamilton Stevens, the vice president of the Confederacy before those times, here is what he said. Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you as once a friend and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fear. The South would be no more in danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington, that is, in George Washington. So Lincoln says initially he had no plans to free the slaves.

[John Weaver] Now listen to what he said. Here's a speech that he made in Charleston, Illinois in 1858. This will rock you. No, no, but he was. Yeah, but listen to what he says. I am not now. He was in a debate with Stephen Douglas. Here's what he said, I am not now nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or the political equality of a white and black racist. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with black people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."

[John Weaver] Now that was Abraham Lincoln in his own words. So the abolitionists then, as a whole, were not interested in slavery. Listen to what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote. Alexis de Tocqueville was a Frenchman who visited this country and wrote a great book on democracy in America, etc. But he had great observations. He went around, and here's what he wrote. The prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the states that abolish slaves than in the states where slavery still exists.

[John Weaver] White carpenters, white bricklayers, and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the north, but they do it almost every day in the southern states. Now, that was back at that time. You can let the North cry about racial bigotry on the South all they want, but the racial bigotry, quote-unquote, if you want to call it that, was in the North. Professor McMaster of the University of Pennsylvania stated concerning the free blacks of the North, quote, in spite of their freedom, they were a despised, proscribed, and poverty-stricken class.

[John Weaver] The biographer William Lloyd Garrison wrote, the free-colored people were looked upon as an inferior caste to whom their liberty was a curse, and they're a lot worse than that of slaves. So, the North certainly had no love for the black, and certainly the abolitionists did not either. Do you realize that the North passed laws against the education of blacks? And the reason they did so, they were afraid that it would interfere with the white labor market. And it would tend also to the great increase of colored people in the state. New Jersey passed a law that excluded blacks from even entering into the state or settling in the state. Massachusetts passed a law that if a black remained for longer than two months in the state, he was to be flogged and driven out of the state.

[John Weaver] In 1853, Indiana's constitution stated, quote, no Negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in this state. Illinois in 1853 enacted law to prevent the immigration of free Negroes into this state. Not satisfied with a mere statute in 1862, while the North was pillaging the South, Illinois passed another law by popular vote stating no Negro or mulatto shall emigrate or settle in this state. The Lord didn't want the blacks.

[John Weaver] Why do you think they were fighting that war? Let me tell you what Lincoln said. You see, the North was afraid that if the South lost and the Blacks were freed, that there would be a great influx of the Blacks then to the northern states. And President Lincoln attempted to alleviate this fear in his message to Congress in December of 1862, and here's what he said. But why should Emancipation South send three people North? And in any event, cannot the North decide for itself whether to receive them? In other words, we'll leave it up to the states. We'll set them free. And then if the North doesn't want them, let them pass it on saying they can't come in and state.

[John Weaver] Did you know that New Jersey barred blacks from voting in 1807? Connecticut barred them from voting in 1814. Rhode Island barred them from voting in 1822. Pennsylvania in 1838. And here's an interesting statistic. Between 1790 and 1830, the black population in the North dropped from 2.13% to one half of one percent. Do you know why it dropped? Let me tell you why. Dr. Edgar McManus declared that many, if not the larger percentage, had been the victim of kidnappers and forced migration. Free blacks were kidnapped and sold into slavery by the North. In New York City alone in one year, more than 33 such cases of kidnapping were revealed. William Seward in 1858 declared, the white man needs this continent to labor in, and he must have it. Now, let me give you one other quote. John Sherman, who was the brother of William T. Cummison Sherman, you know, Sherman's marks to the sea. Here's what John Sherman, the brother of William Sherman, said. In April 2nd, 1862, he said, quote, we do not like the Negroes.

[John Weaver] We do not disguise our dislike. As my friend from Indiana, Mr. Wright, said yesterday, the whole people of the Northwestern states are opposed to having many Negroes among them, and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation for nearly all of the Northwestern states. What is he saying? We're saying we don't need blacks in our states. He said we dislike them and we don't disguise our dislike. When General John A. Dix proposed to remove a number of escaped slaves from Fortress Monroe to Massachusetts, the governor of Massachusetts objected, stating, the northern states are, of all places, the worst possible to select for an asylum for Negroes. What was he saying? We don't want them. We don't want them. Now, here's my point. If slavery was not the focal point of the war, what was it? If the North really were not interested in the slaves, and if once freed the North did not want them there, why in the world did the North want the war? There were numerous reasons for the war.

[John Weaver] You have to go back to what I said initially. You cannot have a cultural revolution without a theological revolution. There were in this war, first of all, theological issues, which I will deal with later. I will show you how the North and the South differed theologically. There were, secondly, economic issues. The North wanted to impose high tariffs to drain the South financially. There were cultural issues. Even today there are cultural issues. The North and South are still not alike culturally.

[John Weaver] I had an aunt and uncle who lived in Toledo, Ohio for years. My uncle, although he was born in the South, went up there and married. worked for General Motors until he retired and then moved back to South. My aunt, whom he married, was raised in the North. And she could not get over the fact that down here everybody waved and everybody spoke. She said, let me tell you something. In Toledo, Ohio, if some stranger speaks to you, you run. You get out of the way, there's something coming down. But you drive down the road here and everybody waves at you, and everybody will stop and talk to you.

[John Weaver] There were theological issues, there were economic issues, there were cultural issues, there were political issues which I will show you. And of course there were sectional differences. And by the way, Every one of these things that I have just mentioned that were differences in 1860 are still differences in 1998. Let me just give you one. Why is it the South is so opposed to abortion, while the North, basically speaking, is not. That is a theological issue.

[John Weaver] You follow what I'm saying? It is these theological issues that raise and emphasize and aggravate all of the other issues. So, I don't care if you have a leading Unitarian minister in the North. I would never agree with him. I don't care how popular. I don't care whether he's a congressman or not. How many of you saw Trent Lott from Mississippi the other day saying that homosexuality was a sin? Yeah. You don't hear northerners.

[John Weaver] Very few Southerners now because we've been radicalized and we have been reconstructed. But those of us who are unreconstructed still believe that sodomy is a sin and wicked. And by the way, I was given this and I just have not had time to use it, if I can find it right quickly. I can assure you, I'm going to use it, put on my car, unreconstructed, because I still believe the Bible and I still believe the principles for which we fought. Paraphrasing in closing, Jefferson Davis said this, although we lost the war, the principles for which we fought, will yet be fought for again on a different battlefield, in a different venue. And all the problems we've been having with bureaucracy, federal government, it's all down to this one principle. They are being fought for again and again and again in different battlefields. and different venues, but it's still the same principle. We want liberty. And we want freedom. Let's pray.

[John Weaver] Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we ask today for Your grace, for Your mercy. Teach us, Lord, where we've come from so we can see where we are and know where we're going. Give us grace to serve Thee acceptably with reverence and godly fear. In Thy name we pray, Amen.

Where We Are & How We Got Here # 1 of 14

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	11504134153
Subject	Biblical Law
Course	The Ten Commandments
Genre	Sermon
Date	1998-06-28
Dictation Name
Book	Book 119: Where We Are & How We Got Here — Chapter 1
Source Timed Segments	57

Formatted Transcript

Introduction: The Importance of Foundations

Weaver opens with Psalm 11:3, emphasizing that when foundations are destroyed, the righteous are left helpless. He applies this to the erosion of America's founding principles.

Lord willing, today I'm going to begin the series that I shared with you on where we are and how we got where we are, or where we came from to get to where we are. And I want you to understand that everything that happens, happens for a reason. So Psalm 11, and look if you would please at verse 3. Psalm 11, verse 3:

Scripture Reading — Psalm 11:3

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

A very simple verse. If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

Now, let me just point it out. Everyone understands, I hope, the importance of a foundation. If you have not understood the importance of a foundation, you need to turn on the news and witness some of these homes in California during the mudslides. Because when the foundation crumbles and breaks, the whole house gives way and literally falls to pieces. So God is asking, what in the world are the righteous going to do when the foundations are destroyed? And the foundation that was laid for our nation has been eroding very seriously over the years.

America's Original Unity: One Faith, One God

In 1776, despite sectional differences, the colonies shared a common culture rooted in the Word of God, as seen in the Mayflower Compact and Jamestown Charter.

And we are where we are today because basically, the foundation has been destroyed. You see, in 1776, we basically had one country, one faith, and one God. Now, I realize there were some sectional differences even back then, because George Washington had to give orders that anyone in his army that was creating sectional feelings, that is, differences, was to be highly reprimanded because he wanted unity. Now, it was true there were some sectional differences, but basically we had one culture. It doesn't matter if you were talking about Jamestown, which was founded in 1607, or the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth in 1620, or the influx of the Puritans. The truth of the matter is this. Each group held tenaciously to the Word of God. They all held to that one truth. Basically speaking, they were all thoroughgoing Calvinists, but at least they all held to the one culture and to one faith and to one God. And every group said that they were there to honor and to glorify God and to obey His Word. Witness the Mayflower Compact. I mean, it doesn't matter if you study the Charter of Jamestown or the Mayflower Compact. Every one of them say that they have a desire to glorify and honor God and to extend the kingdom of Jesus Christ. So whatever sectional feelings there were back in 1776, they were held to a very minimum.

Slavery Was Not the Original Issue

Slavery existed in all colonies at the founding; the Constitutional debate focused on counting slaves for representation, not on the morality of slavery.

Now, even slavery was not an issue at that time. At the time of what you and I would call the War for Independence in 1776, there were slaves in every colony. Even when the Constitution of the United States was finally ratified in 1789, there were slaves in every state, with the possible exception of Massachusetts. Massachusetts had just passed a law freeing all their slaves, but even still then, although the law had passed, there still may have been some in that state.

Now, the fact is, during the Constitutional Convention, the main focus of the debate was not over the rightness or the wrongness of slavery, but how in the world were the slaves going to be counted? Now, I'll give you some of these figures a little bit later on, but you see, originally, the North and the South were almost properly balanced. But then, of course, the South had the slaves, and I'll explain to you a little bit later how the South got those slaves. There were no Southern slaving ships, only Northern slaving ships. Now, the big debate was over how those slaves were to be counted.

Now, Congress would not end legally the slave trade until 1808. Now, although the law was passed in 1808, it still did not end there because even during Abraham Lincoln's tenure of office, they were still fighting the Northern slave shipping industry. So, let me read to you what the Constitution of the United States says in Article I, Section 2: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons." So the slaves then were to count for three-fifths of the population.

Theological Revolution Precedes Cultural Revolution

Weaver asserts that cultural changes, such as acceptance of homosexuality on TV, result from prior theological decay. He illustrates with a personal anecdote about a man who expected God to bless his adultery.

Now, I want to lay down a very little principle, and I want you to listen to me. I'm entitling this message, "The Abolitionist Revolution." Why in the world am I talking about a revolution? Because what happened in the 1860s was indeed a revolution. But now listen, a theological revolution must precede a cultural revolution. Let me put that in plainer language. You cannot have a change in culture without having a change in theology. And what happened in our country in the 1860s and prior to that, there was a change in theology in the North. And consequently, there was a change in culture. You look at what has happened in our country in the last 40 years. You look what has happened in our country in the last 20 years. You look what has happened in the last 10 years.

I'll guarantee you, when I was a boy, you would not see a man kissing a man on TV, or a woman kissing a woman, but you see it regularly today if you watch it. That's a good reason why not to watch it. I had an interesting phone call this week, first time it ever happened to me, Nielsen, you know the ratings? Yeah, called me and wanted to know if I would keep a diary for a week for them on my TV watching. I laughed. I said, "You're asking the wrong man." Because the only TV I watch is the news, and I don't believe half of that. They said, "Well, we would like you to put that down. May I ask you why you don't watch the other programs?" I said, "Yes, because they're wicked, they're immoral, and they're an insult to my intelligence. I refuse to watch that trash." She said, "Would you write that down for me?" I said, "I sure would. I'd be more than happy to write that down for you." I said, "I don't imagine it'd matter, but I said, I'll certainly be more than happy to write it down for you."

Now, the point I'm trying to make is, the only way that all of this cultural change could come about is because there is a theological change. People do not know doctrine. They do not know the Word of God. Let me show you how plain and simple this statement is. I had the opportunity to talk to a gentleman this week. He claimed to be a Christian, which I doubt very seriously. The man told me that he used to be a drunkard. God took the drinking away from him, said he hadn't drunk in 10 years. He said he smoked cigars and chewed tobacco regularly. He asked the Lord to take care of that and the Lord took it away from him just like that. Well, now that sounds impressive. Until you find out the man is going through a divorce, and the reason he's going through a divorce is not his wife's fault, but he admitted that he had been whoring around on his wife, and finally he got a guilty conscience and he told her, and they tried to work it out, but according to him, he said finally she just couldn't live with it anymore, and seemingly they're going through a divorce. He said, "You know," he said, "I really hurt my wife." I said, "Well, I'm glad you're realizing that." He said, "But you know, I got hurt this week."

I said, "How is that?" Well, he said, "Here's a woman that I thought I loved." He said, "Now I was going to ask the Lord to let me have her so I could marry her. And he said he wouldn't. He said he didn't answer my prayer. He answered all the other prayers. And he said her husband really fought for her and he won." I said, "I can explain to you why God didn't answer your prayer." Because the Scripture says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." And God is not going to help you sin and steal another man's wife. Do you understand what I'm saying? How can we think like that? There has been a theological change. There is now a cultural change. When you turn your back on the Word of God, then you have all kind of changes in your culture. You witness Israel under Jeroboam. What did Jeroboam do? Jeroboam made two golden calves, and he says, "These be thy gods, O Israel, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." Why was there such a cultural and political change in Israel? Because there was a theological change. And you cannot have a cultural change without having a theological change.

The Abolitionists: Theological Liberals and Revolutionaries

Abolitionists were largely Unitarians and Transcendentalists who rejected biblical authority. They included pacifists, disunionists, and violent revolutionaries like John Brown and his Secret Six backers.

Now, I told you I was going to be teaching on the abolitionist revolution. The abolitionists just simply get their name from the fact that they wanted to abolish slavery. Now listen. Abolitionists in general were individuals who rejected the Word of God. They rejected the inspiration of Scripture. They rejected the authority of the Word of God. They rejected the deity of Jesus Christ. They rejected all of the major doctrines in the Word of God. If you want to do some research, you can find these abolitionists under different names.

For instance, they are called Free Soilers, Radical Republicans, Transcendentalists, and Unitarians. Now, let me just hasten to tell you there were several different kinds of abolitionists. You will find that there were pacifistic abolitionists, that is, individuals who wanted to abolish slavery, but they didn't believe in fighting. And the way they wanted to abolish slavery was through the legal means, through the courts, or through political means. In other words, they weren't going to get up in arms over the issue of slavery. And then secondly, there were what were known as the disunion abolitionists. And these disunion abolitionists were ones who wanted to secede from the Union and leave the slave states to themselves. And then thirdly, there were the violent revolutionary abolitionists who wanted a slave revolt, who planned a slave revolt, who wanted the slaves to rise up and murder their masters and their families. And if they could not incite a slave insurrection, then they were going to start an all-out war against the South and destroy the South.

And literally, they despised not only the slaveholders, but anything that was Southern. Now let me just tell you, the war was not fought over slavery. I've already said it. Only one out of every seventeen families in the South had slaves. Then most of them had very few slaves. Most of the men who fought for the South during that war never owned a slave, never thought about owning a slave, and would never own one, especially when you see the price of some of those slaves. You say, "Well, it couldn't have been very expensive." Oh, well, do you realize a young, strong, black man would sell for 200 bucks? You say, "That's not much money." It was back then. And if you got a black man who was a carpenter or a brick mason or had skills, he would sell from $3,000 to $5,000. That was a lot of money back in the 1830s, 1840s, 1850s, 1860s. So most of the Southerners never owned a slave in their life.

But it was these radical abolitionists, these violent revolutionary abolitionists that prevailed, and they were backed by the big money interests in the North. They were backed by the industrialists, by the war party. It was these people who wanted literally to destroy the South, its prestige, its power, its political influence. And you've got to understand that from the founding of this country, until the 1860s, it was the South that basically provided the leadership in this country. I'm talking about presidents. Did you realize that 9 out of the first 11 presidents were Southern? So, these abolitionists wanted to literally destroy the South.

Now, there were many abolitionists, I'm going to name some of them a little bit later, but what most people do not know is that there was a group known as the Secret Six. And the Secret Six were very wealthy Unitarians who financed and sponsored John Brown, and they were hoping that his raid at Harpers Ferry would start a slave insurrection. John Brown was nothing more than a low-life murderer. He was not only a cheat and a thief, and would not pay his debts, had lawsuits piled up after him, seemingly a mile high, everything he ever touched went down, and he had lawsuits on every hand. But John Brown and his gang of seven, before they ever began the invasion of Harpers Ferry, five of his original gang were members of his own family. These seven men took their sabers and axes and murdered five innocent men along the Pottawatomie Creek. They're referred to as the Pottawatomie Massacres. These five men were not slaveholders. John Brown was just trying to start a revolution. He was trying to start a war. And he murdered five of those men. Just literally hewed them and hacked them to pieces. Now, it's interesting, in his raid on Harpers Ferry, trying to get the arsenal there, the first man killed by John Brown and his raiders was a free black. The first one they murdered was a free black.

Abolitionists Despised Blacks

Using their own words, Weaver shows that leading abolitionists held racist views, considering blacks inferior and not desiring social equality.

Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe wrote to a friend in anticipation of the war that John Brown was to begin, and here's what Gridley Howe wrote. Listen, he said, quote, "that the map of our magnificent country should be destined to be so soon torn in two on account of the Negro, that poorest of human creatures satisfied even in slavery with sugarcane and a banjo." That's a real high estimate of the blacks. The poorest of human creatures satisfied even in slavery with sugarcane and a banjo. Theodore Parker's estimate of the Negro was that he was intellectually and morally low, moreover the Negro had for him a certain physical repulsion. Now these are the men who are supposed to be wanting the Negro set free. Listen to what Julia Ward Howe wrote. She wrote, quote, "the ideal Negro would be one refined by white culture and elevated by white blood." What is she saying? Well, if you take the Negro and mix white blood with him, you don't have a Negro anymore. You have a mulatto, you have a mix.

But she is saying that was the only hope for a Negro to cease from being a Negro. That's not all. Listen to what she said. I'm quoting now. This is Julia Ward Howe. She wrote, "The Negro among Negroes is a coarse, grinning, flat-footed, thick-skulled creature, ugly as Caliban, lazy as the laziest brutes, chiefly ambitious to be of no use to anyone in the world." Now, that's an abolitionist. Ugly as Caliban. I hope you want to know who Caliban is, because when I read that quote, I thought, I don't know who Caliban is, and inevitably, somebody's going to ask me. Caliban was a person in Shakespeare's play, The Tempest, and Caliban was an ugly, ignorant, savage, deformed mutant in a black band. So she wrote, "The Negro among Negroes is a coarse, grinning, flat-footed, thick-skulled creature, ugly as Caliban, lazy as the laziest brutes, chiefly ambitious to be of no use to anyone in the world."

And later on in her writings, she wondered this, as to whether compulsory labor for blacks was better than none. Do you hear what she was saying? If you don't force them to work, they won't work. Now this is an abolitionist argument. Thomas Wentworth Higginson said of the black troops that he helped to muster, he said that they were a thousand half-childish minds gathered together. Practically all abolitionists held a low view of the blacks. None wanted equality for the blacks. Let me share something with you. And I want to give you a quote in just a moment by Abraham Lincoln. I was listening to the news last night on TV, and the blacks in Albany were celebrating Juneteenth Day, which was supposed to be when the slaves were set free by the Emancipation Proclamation. Well, the Emancipation Proclamation bears the date of January 1, 1863.

Of course, they're saying later on in Texas, I think, it was forcibly enforced by the sword and by the bayonet when that area had lost in the war. But let me tell you something, folks. The Emancipation Proclamation never, ever freed a slave. And here our news is reporting that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was a military attempt to get the slaves to revolt in the South and fight with the North. Moreover, it was politically motivated to keep England from helping the South in the war, and any other European country as well. Do you realize that where Abraham Lincoln had power to free the slaves in the northern states, he did not free any of them. Where he had no authority in the southern states, he tried to free them, and of course, originally, no one was freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. So the Emancipation Proclamation never freed any individual at all. Let me show you. The Emancipation Proclamation bears the date of January 1st, 1863. On August the 14th, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a lot of free blacks to the White House and he made a speech and here is what Lincoln said to the free blacks.

Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation

Weaver argues Lincoln did not fight to free slaves; the Emancipation Proclamation was a military measure. Lincoln advocated colonization of blacks and believed in white superiority.

Now this is an abolitionist argument. Thomas Wentworth Higginson said of the black troops that he helped to muster, he said that they were a thousand half-childish minds gathered together. Practically all abolitionists held a low view of the blacks. None wanted equality for the blacks. Let me share something with you. And I want to give you a quote in just a moment by Abraham Lincoln. I was listening to the news last night on TV, and the blacks in Albany were celebrating Juneteenth Day, which was supposed to be when the slaves were set free by the Emancipation Proclamation. Well, the Emancipation Proclamation bears the date of January 1, 1863.

Listen, I quote. "Why should people of your race be colonized and where?" You see what most people don't know, I'm going to stop right here, that Lincoln's Negro policy was to send the blacks back to Africa. Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens, William Stanton, all of those radical Republicans in his cabinet agreed and wanted the same thing. So here's what he's saying to these free blacks, listen, "Why should people of your race be colonized and where?" "Why should they leave this country? This is perhaps the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need not discuss. But this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence."

"In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. You are free men, I suppose. Perhaps you have long been free, or all of your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free. But on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours."

Now is Abraham Lincoln speaking to blacks? He says there's not a single black that's equal to a single white. He's saying you never will be. Listen to what Lincoln said. Lincoln said, quote, "Slaves are property, and a free should be paid for." Did you know that Lincoln said if he could win the war without freeing any slave, he would do so. If he could win the war by freeing all slaves, he would do so. He could care less about the slaves. It was military expediency. Listen to what he said.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." In his letter to Alexander Hamilton Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy before those times, here is what he said. "Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you as once a friend and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fear. The South would be no more in danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington," that is, in George Washington. So Lincoln says initially he had no plans to free the slaves.

Now listen to what he said. Here's a speech that he made in Charleston, Illinois in 1858. This will rock you. No, no, but he was. Yeah, but listen to what he says. He was in a debate with Stephen Douglas. Here's what he said, "I am not now nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or the political equality of a white and black race. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with black people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."

Now that was Abraham Lincoln in his own words. So the abolitionists then, as a whole, were not interested in slavery. Listen to what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote. Alexis de Tocqueville was a Frenchman who visited this country and wrote a great book on democracy in America, etc. But he had great observations. He went around, and here's what he wrote. "The prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the states that abolish slaves than in the states where slavery still exists."

Northern Racism and Exclusion Laws

Northern states passed laws barring black immigration, voting, and education. Free blacks were often kidnapped and sold into slavery. The North did not want blacks.

"White carpenters, white bricklayers, and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the north, but they do it almost every day in the southern states." Now, that was back at that time. You can let the North cry about racial bigotry on the South all they want, but the racial bigotry, quote-unquote, if you want to call it that, was in the North. Professor McMaster of the University of Pennsylvania stated concerning the free blacks of the North, quote, "in spite of their freedom, they were a despised, proscribed, and poverty-stricken class." The biographer of William Lloyd Garrison wrote, "the free-colored people were looked upon as an inferior caste to whom their liberty was a curse, and their lot worse than that of slaves." So, the North certainly had no love for the black, and certainly the abolitionists did not either. Do you realize that the North passed laws against the education of blacks? And the reason they did so, they were afraid that it would interfere with the white labor market. And it would tend also to the great increase of colored people in the state. New Jersey passed a law that excluded blacks from even entering into the state or settling in the state. Massachusetts passed a law that if a black remained for longer than two months in the state, he was to be flogged and driven out of the state.

In 1853, Indiana's constitution stated, quote, "no Negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in this state." Illinois in 1853 enacted law to prevent the immigration of free Negroes into this state. Not satisfied with a mere statute in 1862, while the North was pillaging the South, Illinois passed another law by popular vote stating "no Negro or mulatto shall emigrate or settle in this state." The North didn't want the blacks. Why do you think they were fighting that war? Let me tell you what Lincoln said. You see, the North was afraid that if the South lost and the blacks were freed, that there would be a great influx of the blacks then to the northern states. And President Lincoln attempted to alleviate this fear in his message to Congress in December of 1862, and here's what he said. "But why should Emancipation South send the people North? And in any event, cannot the North decide for itself whether to receive them?" In other words, we'll leave it up to the states. We'll set them free. And then if the North doesn't want them, let them pass laws saying they can't come in the state.

Did you know that New Jersey barred blacks from voting in 1807? Connecticut barred them from voting in 1814. Rhode Island barred them from voting in 1822. Pennsylvania in 1838. And here's an interesting statistic. Between 1790 and 1830, the black population in the North dropped from 2.13% to one half of one percent. Do you know why it dropped? Let me tell you why. Dr. Edgar McManus declared that many, if not the larger percentage, had been the victim of kidnappers and forced migration. Free blacks were kidnapped and sold into slavery by the North. In New York City alone in one year, more than 33 such cases of kidnapping were revealed. William Seward in 1858 declared, "the white man needs this continent to labor in, and he must have it." Now, let me give you one other quote. John Sherman, who was the brother of William Tecumseh Sherman, you know, Sherman's March to the Sea. Here's what John Sherman, the brother of William Sherman, said. In April 2nd, 1862, he said, quote, "we do not like the Negroes."

"We do not disguise our dislike. As my friend from Indiana, Mr. Wright, said yesterday, the whole people of the Northwestern states are opposed to having many Negroes among them, and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation for nearly all of the Northwestern states." What is he saying? We're saying we don't need blacks in our states. He said we dislike them and we don't disguise our dislike. When General John A. Dix proposed to remove a number of escaped slaves from Fortress Monroe to Massachusetts, the governor of Massachusetts objected, stating, "the northern states are, of all places, the worst possible to select for an asylum for Negroes." What was he saying? We don't want them. We don't want them. Now, here's my point. If slavery was not the focal point of the war, what was it? If the North really were not interested in the slaves, and if once freed the North did not want them there, why in the world did the North want the war? There were numerous reasons for the war.

The Real Causes of the War and Continuing Differences

The war stemmed from theological, economic, cultural, and political issues, not slavery. These same divisions persist in 1998, e.g., Southern opposition to abortion.

You have to go back to what I said initially. You cannot have a cultural revolution without a theological revolution. There were in this war, first of all, theological issues, which I will deal with later. I will show you how the North and the South differed theologically. There were, secondly, economic issues. The North wanted to impose high tariffs to drain the South financially. There were cultural issues. Even today there are cultural issues. The North and South are still not alike culturally.

I had an aunt and uncle who lived in Toledo, Ohio for years. My uncle, although he was born in the South, went up there and married, worked for General Motors until he retired and then moved back to the South. My aunt, whom he married, was raised in the North. And she could not get over the fact that down here everybody waved and everybody spoke. She said, "Let me tell you something. In Toledo, Ohio, if some stranger speaks to you, you run. You get out of the way, there's something coming down. But you drive down the road here and everybody waves at you, and everybody will stop and talk to you."

There were theological issues, there were economic issues, there were cultural issues, there were political issues which I will show you. And of course there were sectional differences. And by the way, every one of these things that I have just mentioned that were differences in 1860 are still differences in 1998. Let me just give you one. Why is it the South is so opposed to abortion, while the North, basically speaking, is not. That is a theological issue. You follow what I'm saying? It is these theological issues that raise and emphasize and aggravate all of the other issues. So, I don't care if you have a leading Unitarian minister in the North. I would never agree with him. I don't care how popular. I don't care whether he's a congressman or not. How many of you saw Trent Lott from Mississippi the other day saying that homosexuality was a sin? Yeah. You don't hear northerners.

Conclusion: Unreconstructed Principles

Weaver closes by affirming that the principles of liberty for which the South fought are still being contested, and he prays for grace to understand history and serve God.

Very few Southerners now because we've been radicalized and we have been reconstructed. But those of us who are unreconstructed still believe that sodomy is a sin and wicked. And by the way, I was given this and I just have not had time to use it, if I can find it right quickly. I can assure you, I'm going to use it, put on my car, "unreconstructed," because I still believe the Bible and I still believe the principles for which we fought. Paraphrasing in closing, Jefferson Davis said this, "Although we lost the war, the principles for which we fought will yet be fought for again on a different battlefield, in a different venue." And all the problems we've been having with bureaucracy, federal government, it's all down to this one principle. They are being fought for again and again and again in different battlefields and different venues, but it's still the same principle. We want liberty. And we want freedom. Let's pray.

Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we ask today for Your grace, for Your mercy. Teach us, Lord, where we've come from so we can see where we are and know where we're going. Give us grace to serve Thee acceptably with reverence and godly fear. In Thy name we pray, Amen.

Study Guide

Major Themes

Foundations and Their Destruction

Summary: The nation's moral and cultural decline is due to the erosion of its biblical foundations, leaving the righteous powerless.

Evidence: Psalm 11:3: 'If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?'

Theological Revolution Precedes Cultural Revolution

Summary: Changes in culture, such as sexual immorality, are the result of prior changes in theology and rejection of biblical authority.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'You cannot have a change in culture without having a change in theology.'

Abolitionists as Theological Liberals

Summary: The abolitionist movement was led by Unitarians and others who rejected the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, and biblical authority.

Evidence: Weaver says abolitionists 'rejected the Word of God... the inspiration of Scripture... the deity of Jesus Christ.'

Racism Among Abolitionists and Northerners

Summary: Despite their anti-slavery rhetoric, abolitionists and Northerners held deeply racist views and did not want social equality for blacks.

Evidence: Quotes from Julia Ward Howe, Theodore Parker, and Northern laws barring black immigration.

The Civil War Was Not About Slavery

Summary: The war was fought over theological, economic, cultural, and political issues, not slavery. Only a small minority of Southerners owned slaves.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'the war was not fought over slavery... Only one out of every seventeen families in the South had slaves.'

Continuing Sectional and Theological Differences

Summary: The divisions between North and South in 1860 persist in 1998, seen in issues like abortion and homosexuality.

Evidence: Weaver notes Southern opposition to abortion and recent comments by Trent Lott on homosexuality.

Key Arguments

Theological change drives cultural change

Summary: Weaver argues that the moral decay in modern America (e.g., homosexuality on TV) is a direct result of abandoning biblical doctrine.

Evidence: He states: 'You cannot have a change in culture without having a change in theology.'

Abolitionists rejected biblical authority

Summary: The abolitionist movement was fundamentally anti-Christian, led by Unitarians who denied core doctrines of the faith.

Evidence: Weaver says they 'rejected the inspiration of Scripture... the deity of Jesus Christ.'

John Brown was a murderer, not a hero

Summary: John Brown and his gang murdered innocent men, including a free black man, and were financed by wealthy Unitarians.

Evidence: Weaver details the Pottawatomie Massacre and the killing of Heywood Shepherd.

Abolitionists despised blacks

Summary: Using their own writings, Weaver demonstrates that abolitionists viewed blacks as inferior and did not seek equality.

Evidence: Quotes from Julia Ward Howe calling blacks 'ugly as Caliban' and 'lazy as the laziest brutes.'

Lincoln did not fight to free slaves

Summary: Lincoln's own words show he believed in white superiority, supported colonization, and would have kept slavery to preserve the Union.

Evidence: Lincoln's 1858 debate statement: 'I am not now nor ever have been in favor of... the social or the political equality of a white and black race.'

The North was more racist than the South

Summary: Northern states passed laws excluding blacks, and free blacks were often kidnapped and sold into slavery by Northerners.

Evidence: Weaver cites laws in Indiana, Illinois, and Massachusetts, and statistics on black population decline.

The war had multiple causes beyond slavery

Summary: Theological, economic (tariffs), cultural, and political issues were the real drivers of the conflict.

Evidence: Weaver lists 'theological issues... economic issues... cultural issues... political issues' as causes.

The principles of the war are still being fought

Summary: The struggle for liberty and against federal overreach continues in different venues, as Jefferson Davis predicted.

Evidence: Weaver paraphrases Davis: 'the principles for which we fought will yet be fought for again on a different battlefield.'

Scripture References

Psalm 11:3

Context: Weaver uses this verse as the foundational text for the sermon, asking what the righteous can do when foundations are destroyed.

Proverbs 23:7

Context: Weaver quotes this to support the idea that ideas have consequences: 'As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.'

Exodus 20:14 (implied)

Context: Weaver references the command 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' when explaining why God would not answer a man's prayer to take another man's wife.

1 Kings 12:28 (implied)

Context: Weaver references Jeroboam making two golden calves as an example of theological change leading to cultural and political change.

Historical References

Mayflower Compact (1620)

Context: Weaver cites it as evidence that early settlers desired to glorify God and extend Christ's kingdom.

Jamestown Charter (1607)

Context: Mentioned alongside the Mayflower Compact as showing the religious motivations of early colonies.

Constitutional Convention (1787)

Context: Weaver notes the debate was over how to count slaves for representation, not the morality of slavery.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2

Context: Weaver reads the three-fifths clause regarding apportionment of representatives.

14th Amendment

Context: Weaver mentions it changed the three-fifths clause but questions whether it was properly ratified.

John Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry (1859)

Context: Weaver describes John Brown as a murderer financed by the Secret Six to start a slave insurrection.

Pottawatomie Massacre (1856)

Context: John Brown and his men murdered five innocent men along Pottawatomie Creek.

Emancipation Proclamation (January 1, 1863)

Context: Weaver argues it freed no slaves and was a military and political measure.

Lincoln's Colonization Proposal

Context: Weaver states Lincoln's policy was to send blacks back to Africa, as expressed in an 1862 speech to free blacks.

Northern Black Exclusion Laws

Context: Weaver cites laws in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Indiana, and Illinois barring black immigration and voting.

Important Quotes

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

Significance: This is the key verse of the sermon, framing the entire message about the consequences of eroding biblical foundations.

You cannot have a change in culture without having a change in theology.

Significance: This is the central thesis of the sermon, linking theological decline to cultural decay.

the map of our magnificent country should be destined to be so soon torn in two on account of the Negro, that poorest of human creatures satisfied even in slavery with sugarcane and a banjo.

Significance: Weaver uses this quote from Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe to show abolitionist contempt for blacks.

The Negro among Negroes is a coarse, grinning, flat-footed, thick-skulled creature, ugly as Caliban, lazy as the laziest brutes, chiefly ambitious to be of no use to anyone in the world.

Significance: Julia Ward Howe's words are cited to prove that abolitionists held deeply racist views.

I am not now nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or the political equality of a white and black race.

Significance: Weaver quotes Lincoln to argue that the war was not fought for racial equality.

Although we lost the war, the principles for which we fought will yet be fought for again on a different battlefield, in a different venue.

Significance: Weaver paraphrases Jefferson Davis to connect the Civil War to ongoing cultural and political struggles.

Discussion Questions

What does Psalm 11:3 mean when it asks, 'If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?' How does this apply to our nation today?

Context: Weaver opens the sermon with this verse and applies it to the erosion of America's biblical foundations.

How does a change in theology lead to a change in culture? Can you think of modern examples?

Context: Weaver argues that cultural shifts like acceptance of homosexuality stem from prior theological changes.

Why does Weaver claim that the abolitionists rejected the Word of God? What evidence does he provide?

Context: He describes abolitionists as Unitarians and Transcendentalists who denied biblical inspiration and Christ's deity.

How does Weaver use the writings of abolitionists like Julia Ward Howe to challenge the common narrative about the Civil War?

Context: He quotes their racist statements to show they did not truly care for black people.

What was Lincoln's stated view on racial equality, according to the quotes Weaver provides? How does this affect your understanding of the Civil War?

Context: Weaver reads Lincoln's 1858 debate statement and his colonization speech to free blacks.

What were the Northern black exclusion laws, and what do they reveal about racial attitudes in the North?

Context: Weaver cites laws from Indiana, Illinois, Massachusetts, and others that barred black immigration and voting.

According to Weaver, what were the real causes of the Civil War if not slavery?

Context: He lists theological, economic, cultural, and political issues as the primary drivers.

How does Weaver connect the issues of 1860 to the cultural and political debates of 1998? Do you see similar connections today?

Context: He points to abortion and homosexuality as modern examples of the same sectional and theological divides.

Applications

Guard the theological foundations

Summary: Believers must recognize that cultural decay stems from theological compromise and must hold firmly to biblical doctrine.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'You cannot have a change in culture without having a change in theology.'

Discern the true motives behind movements

Summary: Christians should not be swayed by rhetoric but examine the underlying beliefs and goals of social and political movements.

Evidence: Weaver exposes the racist views of abolitionists despite their anti-slavery language.

Understand history accurately

Summary: Weaver urges listeners to learn the true causes of the Civil War and not accept the popular narrative that it was about slavery.

Evidence: He says: 'anytime people say that slavery was what the war was fought about, they're just absolutely, totally ignorant of history.'

Reject cultural conformity to ungodly media

Summary: Weaver models refusing to watch immoral television and encourages separation from worldly entertainment.

Evidence: He tells the Nielsen caller: 'they're wicked, they're immoral, and they're an insult to my intelligence.'

Stand for biblical principles regardless of cultural pressure

Summary: Weaver identifies as 'unreconstructed' and affirms the ongoing relevance of the principles of liberty and biblical truth.

Evidence: He says: 'I still believe the Bible and I still believe the principles for which we fought.'

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-04T14:42:08Z

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-05T18:59:57Z

Clean Transcript

Where We Are & How We Got Here # 1 of 14

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

Lord willing, today I'm going to begin the series that I shared with you on where we are and how we got where we are, or where we came from to get to where we are. And I want you to understand that everything that happens, happens for a reason. So Psalm 11, and look if you would please at verse 3. Psalm 11, verse 3: "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" A very simple verse. If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
#1 | 0:00 to 0:41 | cleaned
Now, let me just point it out. Everyone understands, I hope, the importance of a foundation. If you have not understood the importance of a foundation, you need to turn on the news and witness some of these homes in California during the mudslides. Because when the foundation crumbles and breaks, the whole house gives way and literally falls to pieces. So God is asking, what in the world are the righteous going to do when the foundations are destroyed? And the foundation that was laid for our nation has been eroding very seriously over the years.
#2 | 0:42 to 1:20 | cleaned
And we are where we are today because basically, the foundation has been destroyed. You see, in 1776, we basically had one country, one faith, and one God.
#3 | 1:21 to 1:38 | cleaned
Now, I realize there were some sectional differences even back then, because George Washington had to give orders that anyone in his army that was creating sectional feelings, that is, differences, was to be highly reprimanded because he wanted unity. Now, it was true there were some sectional differences, but basically we had one culture. It doesn't matter if you were talking about Jamestown, which was founded in 1607, or the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth in 1620, or the influx of the Puritans. The truth of the matter is this.
#4 | 1:39 to 2:18 | cleaned
Each group held tenaciously to the Word of God. They all held to that one truth. Basically speaking, they were all thoroughgoing Calvinists, but at least they all held to the one culture and to one faith and to one God. And every group said that they were there to honor and to glorify God and to obey His Word. Witness the Mayflower Compact. I mean, it doesn't matter if you study the Charter of Jamestown or the Mayflower Compact. Every one of them say that they have a desire to glorify and honor God and to extend the kingdom of Jesus Christ. So whatever sectional feelings there were back in 1776, they were held to a very minimum.
#5 | 2:19 to 3:07 | cleaned
Now, even slavery was not an issue at that time. At the time of what you and I would call the War for Independence in 1776, there were slaves in every colony. Even when the Constitution of the United States was finally ratified in 1789, there were slaves in every state, with the possible exception of Massachusetts. Massachusetts had just passed a law freeing all their slaves, but even still then, although the law had passed, there still may have been some in that state.
#6 | 3:07 to 3:54 | cleaned
Now, the fact is, during the Constitutional Convention, the main focus of the debate was not over the rightness or the wrongness of slavery, but how in the world were the slaves going to be counted?
#7 | 3:54 to 4:09 | cleaned
Now, I'll give you some of these figures a little bit later on, but you see, originally, the North and the South were almost properly balanced. But then, of course, the South had the slaves, and I'll explain to you a little bit later how the South got those slaves. There were no Southern slaving ships, only Northern slaving ships. Now, the big debate was over how those slaves were to be counted.
#8 | 4:10 to 4:45 | cleaned
Now, Congress would not end legally the slave trade until 1808. Now, although the law was passed in 1808, it still did not end there because even during Abraham Lincoln's tenure of office, they were still fighting the Northern slave shipping industry. So, let me read to you what the Constitution of the United States says in Article I, Section 2: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons." So the slaves then were to count for three-fifths of the population.
#9 | 4:46 to 5:45 | cleaned
Of course, this was later to be changed by the 14th Amendment. Now, I'm not going to get into that argument right now, but whether or not the 14th Amendment was ever properly ratified is a subject for another sermon. And certainly I can share some things with you on that and show you that it was not properly ratified, but that's another subject in and of itself. Now, the fact is, even today, I'm not even going to be dealing with slavery. Slavery is going to be dealt with down the line probably in two or three messages. But let me just suffice it to say today that slavery was not the issue of the war. It was not the issue. And anytime people say that slavery was what the war was fought about, they're just absolutely, totally ignorant of history, because it was not fought over slavery.
#10 | 5:47 to 6:39 | cleaned
Well, you've got to ask yourself, what in the world happened in our country? Why was there such a division between North and South? Why does that division still exist? You see, the South is still accused of fighting the war and of being sore losers. No, it's not the fact that we're sore losers, and it's not the fact that we're still fighting the war. It's just the fact that the principles are still the same, and those principles keep resurfacing. And the truth of the matter is, those who know those principles and hold those principles and believe those principles still have just as strong of tendency and feelings today as they did 200 years ago, or 100 years ago.
#11 | 6:39 to 7:34 | cleaned
Now, I want to lay down a very little principle, and I want you to listen to me. I'm entitling this message, "The Abolitionist Revolution." Why in the world am I talking about a revolution? Because what happened in the 1860s was indeed a revolution. But now listen, a theological revolution must precede a cultural revolution. Let me put that in plainer language. You cannot have a change in culture without having a change in theology. And what happened in our country in the 1860s and prior to that, there was a change in theology in the North. And consequently, there was a change in culture. You look at what has happened in our country in the last 40 years. You look what has happened in our country in the last 20 years. You look what has happened in the last 10 years.
#12 | 7:35 to 8:48 | cleaned
I'll guarantee you, when I was a boy, you would not see a man kissing a man on TV, or a woman kissing a woman, but you see it regularly today if you watch it. That's a good reason why not to watch it. I had an interesting phone call this week, first time it ever happened to me, Nielsen, you know the ratings? Yeah, called me and wanted to know if I would keep a diary for a week for them on my TV watching. I laughed. I said, "You're asking the wrong man." Because the only TV I watch is the news, and I don't believe half of that.
#13 | 8:50 to 9:28 | cleaned
They said, "Well, we would like you to put that down. May I ask you why you don't watch the other programs?" I said, "Yes, because they're wicked, they're immoral, and they're an insult to my intelligence. I refuse to watch that trash." She said, "Would you write that down for me?" I said, "I sure would. I'd be more than happy to write that down for you." I said, "I don't imagine it'd matter, but I said, I'll certainly be more than happy to write it down for you."
#14 | 9:30 to 9:55 | cleaned
Now, the point I'm trying to make is, the only way that all of this cultural change could come about is because there is a theological change. People do not know doctrine. They do not know the Word of God. Let me show you how plain and simple this statement is. I had the opportunity to talk to a gentleman this week. He claimed to be a Christian, which I doubt very seriously.
#15 | 9:55 to 10:29 | cleaned
The man told me that he used to be a drunkard. God took the drinking away from him, said he hadn't drunk in 10 years. He said he smoked cigars and chewed tobacco regularly. He asked the Lord to take care of that and the Lord took it away from him just like that. Well, now that sounds impressive. Until you find out the man is going through a divorce, and the reason he's going through a divorce is not his wife's fault, but he admitted that he had been whoring around on his wife, and finally he got a guilty conscience and he told her, and they tried to work it out, but according to him, he said finally she just couldn't live with it anymore, and seemingly they're going through a divorce. He said, "You know," he said, "I really hurt my wife." I said, "Well, I'm glad you're realizing that." He said, "But you know, I got hurt this week."
#16 | 10:33 to 11:26 | cleaned
I said, "How is that?" Well, he said, "Here's a woman that I thought I loved." He said, "Now I was going to ask the Lord to let me have her so I could marry her. And he said he wouldn't. He said he didn't answer my prayer. He answered all the other prayers. And he said her husband really fought for her and he won." I said, "I can explain to you why God didn't answer your prayer."
#17 | 11:27 to 11:55 | cleaned
Because the Scripture says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." And God is not going to help you sin and steal another man's wife. Do you understand what I'm saying? How can we think like that? There has been a theological change. There is now a cultural change. When you turn your back on the Word of God, then you have all kind of changes in your culture. You witness Israel under Jeroboam. What did Jeroboam do? Jeroboam made two golden calves, and he says, "These be thy gods, O Israel, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." Why was there such a cultural and political change in Israel? Because there was a theological change. And you cannot have a cultural change without having a theological change.
#18 | 11:57 to 12:53 | cleaned
You see, the Bible says in Proverbs 23, verse 7, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." Now, if you don't learn anything else, learn this: Ideas have consequences. Ideas have consequences. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.
#19 | 12:53 to 13:09 | cleaned
Now, I told you I was going to be teaching on the abolitionist revolution. The abolitionists just simply get their name from the fact that they wanted to abolish slavery. Now listen. Abolitionists in general were individuals who rejected the Word of God. They rejected the inspiration of Scripture. They rejected the authority of the Word of God. They rejected the deity of Jesus Christ. They rejected all of the major doctrines in the Word of God. If you want to do some research, you can find these abolitionists under different names.
#20 | 13:09 to 13:48 | cleaned
For instance, they are called Free Soilers, Radical Republicans, Transcendentalists, and Unitarians. Now, let me just hasten to tell you there were several different kinds of abolitionists. You will find that there were pacifistic abolitionists, that is, individuals who wanted to abolish slavery, but they didn't believe in fighting. And the way they wanted to abolish slavery was through the legal means, through the courts, or through political means. In other words, they weren't going to get up in arms over the issue of slavery. And then secondly, there were what were known as the disunion abolitionists. And these disunion abolitionists were ones who wanted to secede from the Union and leave the slave states to themselves. And then thirdly, there were the violent revolutionary abolitionists who wanted a slave revolt, who planned a slave revolt, who wanted the slaves to rise up and murder their masters and their families. And if they could not incite a slave insurrection, then they were going to start an all-out war against the South and destroy the South.
#21 | 13:48 to 14:56 | cleaned
And literally, they despised not only the slaveholders, but anything that was Southern. Now let me just tell you, the war was not fought over slavery. I've already said it. Only one out of every seventeen families in the South had slaves. Then most of them had very few slaves. Most of the men who fought for the South during that war never owned a slave, never thought about owning a slave, and would never own one, especially when you see the price of some of those slaves. You say, "Well, it couldn't have been very expensive." Oh, well, do you realize a young, strong, black man would sell for 200 bucks? You say, "That's not much money." It was back then. And if you got a black man who was a carpenter or a brick mason or had skills, he would sell from $3,000 to $5,000. That was a lot of money back in the 1830s, 1840s, 1850s, 1860s. So most of the Southerners never owned a slave in their life.
#22 | 14:57 to 16:00 | cleaned
But it was these radical abolitionists, these violent revolutionary abolitionists that prevailed, and they were backed by the big money interests in the North. They were backed by the industrialists, by the war party. It was these people who wanted literally to destroy the South, its prestige, its power, its political influence. And you've got to understand that from the founding of this country, until the 1860s, it was the South that basically provided the leadership in this country. I'm talking about presidents. Did you realize that 9 out of the first 11 presidents were Southern? So, these abolitionists wanted to literally destroy the South.
#23 | 16:10 to 17:02 | cleaned
Now, there were many abolitionists, I'm going to name some of them a little bit later, but what most people do not know is that there was a group known as the Secret Six. And the Secret Six were very wealthy Unitarians who financed and sponsored John Brown, and they were hoping that his raid at Harpers Ferry would start a slave insurrection. John Brown was nothing more than a low-life murderer.
#24 | 17:03 to 17:41 | cleaned
He was not only a cheat and a thief, and would not pay his debts, had lawsuits piled up after him, seemingly a mile high, everything he ever touched went down, and he had lawsuits on every hand. But John Brown and his gang of seven, before they ever began the invasion of Harpers Ferry, five of his original gang were members of his own family. These seven men took their sabers and axes and murdered five innocent men along the Pottawatomie Creek. They're referred to as the Pottawatomie Massacres. These five men were not slaveholders. John Brown was just trying to start a revolution. He was trying to start a war. And he murdered five of those men. Just literally hewed them and hacked them to pieces. Now, it's interesting, in his raid on Harpers Ferry, trying to get the arsenal there, the first man killed by John Brown and his raiders was a free black. The first one they murdered was a free black.
#25 | 17:42 to 19:02 | cleaned
His name was Heywood Shepherd. He was a porter for the B&O Railroad. They shot him, left him dying in the road, and stayed around him for 12 hours ignoring his pleas for water. So it's very ironic that John Brown was going to come and quote-unquote save the blacks, and the first one he murders is a free black man.
#26 | 19:03 to 19:30 | cleaned
Now, let me tell you very quickly who these Secret Six were. First of all, there's Franklin Sanborn. He was an author, an educator, a social scientist. Secondly, there's Gerrit Smith. Gerrit Smith was a millionaire. He was a politician from New York.
#27 | 19:32 to 19:49 | cleaned
Thirdly, there was Thomas Wentworth Higginson of Massachusetts. He was a Unitarian minister who stated that he always had money for treason. There was Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe. He was the husband of Julia Ward Howe, who wrote the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" to the tune of "John Brown's Body Lies A-Mouldering in the Grave." Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe was a medical doctor, he was a soldier at one time, and he did work with the deaf and with the blind.
#28 | 19:50 to 20:28 | cleaned
Fourthly, or fifthly, there was Theodore Parker. Theodore Parker was a Unitarian minister. William Lloyd Garrison, who was another ardent abolitionist, his paper, The Liberator, was an anti-slavery paper, but William Lloyd Garrison introduced Parker to a New York anti-slavery meeting in 1856, and here was his introduction of Theodore Parker. He said, quote, "I have the pleasure of introducing to you a very excellent fanatic, a very good infidel, and a first-rate traitor in the person of Theodore Parker of Boston." A very good infidel.
#29 | 20:29 to 21:10 | cleaned
And, of course, Julia Ward Howe. I believe that Parker was an out-and-out atheist, but he was a Unitarian minister, you see.
#30 | 21:11 to 21:19 | cleaned
Now, the sixth one was George Luther Stearns, who was a millionaire of Massachusetts, and he made his money in the lead pipe industry. Now, there were many abolitionists, and I'm going to share some of them with you a little bit later, but there were men like William Lloyd Garrison, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Henry Ward Beecher. Has anybody ever heard the expression "Beecher's Bibles"? Well, Henry Ward Beecher sent crates of rifles to Kansas to John Brown to use in his revolution and had the crates marked "Bibles" and they were known as Beecher's Bibles. There was Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, William Stanton, of course Abraham Lincoln, Samuel May, a host of others. And so I'll tell you about some of them a little bit later. But one of the important points to remember is this, that the abolitionists held themselves, their reasonings, their rationalizations, and their ideas not only above the Word of God, but above the Constitution of the United States as well. Now, Theodore Parker thought that the Constitution was not morally binding.
#31 | 21:19 to 22:40 | cleaned
That's what he preached and taught. What does that mean? The North, then, has no obligation to keep their end of the covenant. So if it's not morally binding, you don't have to obey, you don't have to do anything. William Lloyd Garrison referred to the Constitution as an agreement with hell, an agreement with death, and a covenant with hell. Thomas Wentworth Higginson taught that disunion was a historical inevitability. In other words, there's going to be a separation, but he thought it was the North that was going to be seceding from the South.
#32 | 22:41 to 23:16 | cleaned
Now, another point that I want to make today is this, and I don't know how long I'm going to take, and I'm going to stop whenever I get to a stopping point, but I want you to understand, and this is exceedingly important, that the abolitionists as a whole did not care for the blacks. They despised them. They hated them. I'm going to prove that to you. In fact, the way I'm going to prove it to you is by using their own words. You see, the abolitionists were so adamant that slavery had to be destroyed, they could care less as to whether the slaves were destroyed along with it.
#33 | 23:16 to 24:08 | cleaned
Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe wrote to a friend in anticipation of the war that John Brown was to begin, and here's what Gridley Howe wrote. Listen, he said, quote, "that the map of our magnificent country should be destined to be so soon torn in two on account of the Negro, that poorest of human creatures satisfied even in slavery with sugarcane and a banjo." That's a real high estimate of the blacks. The poorest of human creatures satisfied even in slavery with sugarcane and a banjo. Theodore Parker's estimate of the Negro was that he was intellectually and morally low, moreover the Negro had for him a certain physical repulsion. Now these are the men who are supposed to be wanting the Negro set free. Listen to what Julia Ward Howe wrote. She wrote, quote, "the ideal Negro would be one refined by white culture and elevated by white blood." What is she saying? Well, if you take the Negro and mix white blood with him, you don't have a Negro anymore. You have a mulatto, you have a mix.
#34 | 24:11 to 25:34 | cleaned
But she is saying that was the only hope for a Negro to cease from being a Negro. That's not all. Listen to what she said. I'm quoting now. This is Julia Ward Howe. She wrote, "The Negro among Negroes is a coarse, grinning, flat-footed, thick-skulled creature, ugly as Caliban, lazy as the laziest brutes, chiefly ambitious to be of no use to anyone in the world." Now, that's an abolitionist. Ugly as Caliban. I hope you want to know who Caliban is, because when I read that quote, I thought, I don't know who Caliban is, and inevitably, somebody's going to ask me. Caliban was a person in Shakespeare's play, The Tempest, and Caliban was an ugly, ignorant, savage, deformed mutant in a black band. So she wrote, "The Negro among Negroes is a coarse, grinning, flat-footed, thick-skulled creature, ugly as Caliban, lazy as the laziest brutes, chiefly ambitious to be of no use to anyone in the world."
#35 | 25:34 to 26:50 | cleaned
And later on in her writings, she wondered this, as to whether compulsory labor for blacks was better than none. Do you hear what she was saying? If you don't force them to work, they won't work.
#36 | 26:51 to 27:05 | cleaned
Now this is an abolitionist argument. Thomas Wentworth Higginson said of the black troops that he helped to muster, he said that they were a thousand half-childish minds gathered together. Practically all abolitionists held a low view of the blacks. None wanted equality for the blacks. Let me share something with you. And I want to give you a quote in just a moment by Abraham Lincoln. I was listening to the news last night on TV, and the blacks in Albany were celebrating Juneteenth Day, which was supposed to be when the slaves were set free by the Emancipation Proclamation. Well, the Emancipation Proclamation bears the date of January 1, 1863.
#37 | 27:06 to 28:01 | cleaned
Of course, they're saying later on in Texas, I think, it was forcibly enforced by the sword and by the bayonet when that area had lost in the war. But let me tell you something, folks. The Emancipation Proclamation never, ever freed a slave. And here our news is reporting that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was a military attempt to get the slaves to revolt in the South and fight with the North. Moreover, it was politically motivated to keep England from helping the South in the war, and any other European country as well. Do you realize that where Abraham Lincoln had power to free the slaves in the northern states, he did not free any of them. Where he had no authority in the southern states, he tried to free them, and of course, originally, no one was freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. So the Emancipation Proclamation never freed any individual at all. Let me show you. The Emancipation Proclamation bears the date of January 1st, 1863. On August the 14th, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a lot of free blacks to the White House and he made a speech and here is what Lincoln said to the free blacks.
#38 | 28:01 to 29:49 | cleaned
Listen, I quote. "Why should people of your race be colonized and where?" You see what most people don't know, I'm going to stop right here, that Lincoln's Negro policy was to send the blacks back to Africa. Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens, William Stanton, all of those radical Republicans in his cabinet agreed and wanted the same thing. So here's what he's saying to these free blacks, listen, "Why should people of your race be colonized and where?"
#39 | 29:49 to 30:20 | cleaned
"Why should they leave this country? This is perhaps the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need not discuss. But this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence."
#40 | 30:20 to 30:50 | cleaned
"In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. You are free men, I suppose. Perhaps you have long been free, or all of your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free. But on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours."
#41 | 30:51 to 31:29 | cleaned
Now is Abraham Lincoln speaking to blacks? He says there's not a single black that's equal to a single white. He's saying you never will be. Listen to what Lincoln said. Lincoln said, quote, "Slaves are property, and a free should be paid for." Did you know that Lincoln said if he could win the war without freeing any slave, he would do so. If he could win the war by freeing all slaves, he would do so. He could care less about the slaves. It was military expediency. Listen to what he said.
#42 | 31:29 to 32:11 | cleaned
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." In his letter to Alexander Hamilton Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy before those times, here is what he said. "Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you as once a friend and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fear. The South would be no more in danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington," that is, in George Washington. So Lincoln says initially he had no plans to free the slaves.
#43 | 32:13 to 33:02 | cleaned
Now listen to what he said. Here's a speech that he made in Charleston, Illinois in 1858. This will rock you. No, no, but he was. Yeah, but listen to what he says. He was in a debate with Stephen Douglas. Here's what he said, "I am not now nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or the political equality of a white and black race. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with black people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."
#44 | 33:03 to 34:09 | cleaned
Now that was Abraham Lincoln in his own words. So the abolitionists then, as a whole, were not interested in slavery. Listen to what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote. Alexis de Tocqueville was a Frenchman who visited this country and wrote a great book on democracy in America, etc. But he had great observations. He went around, and here's what he wrote. "The prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the states that abolish slaves than in the states where slavery still exists."
#45 | 34:14 to 34:46 | cleaned
"White carpenters, white bricklayers, and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the north, but they do it almost every day in the southern states." Now, that was back at that time. You can let the North cry about racial bigotry on the South all they want, but the racial bigotry, quote-unquote, if you want to call it that, was in the North. Professor McMaster of the University of Pennsylvania stated concerning the free blacks of the North, quote, "in spite of their freedom, they were a despised, proscribed, and poverty-stricken class."
#46 | 34:47 to 35:36 | cleaned
The biographer of William Lloyd Garrison wrote, "the free-colored people were looked upon as an inferior caste to whom their liberty was a curse, and their lot worse than that of slaves." So, the North certainly had no love for the black, and certainly the abolitionists did not either. Do you realize that the North passed laws against the education of blacks? And the reason they did so, they were afraid that it would interfere with the white labor market. And it would tend also to the great increase of colored people in the state. New Jersey passed a law that excluded blacks from even entering into the state or settling in the state. Massachusetts passed a law that if a black remained for longer than two months in the state, he was to be flogged and driven out of the state.
#47 | 35:37 to 36:40 | cleaned
In 1853, Indiana's constitution stated, quote, "no Negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in this state." Illinois in 1853 enacted law to prevent the immigration of free Negroes into this state. Not satisfied with a mere statute in 1862, while the North was pillaging the South, Illinois passed another law by popular vote stating "no Negro or mulatto shall emigrate or settle in this state." The North didn't want the blacks.
#48 | 36:41 to 37:18 | cleaned
Why do you think they were fighting that war? Let me tell you what Lincoln said. You see, the North was afraid that if the South lost and the blacks were freed, that there would be a great influx of the blacks then to the northern states. And President Lincoln attempted to alleviate this fear in his message to Congress in December of 1862, and here's what he said. "But why should Emancipation South send the people North? And in any event, cannot the North decide for itself whether to receive them?" In other words, we'll leave it up to the states. We'll set them free. And then if the North doesn't want them, let them pass laws saying they can't come in the state.
#49 | 37:23 to 38:17 | cleaned
Did you know that New Jersey barred blacks from voting in 1807? Connecticut barred them from voting in 1814. Rhode Island barred them from voting in 1822. Pennsylvania in 1838. And here's an interesting statistic. Between 1790 and 1830, the black population in the North dropped from 2.13% to one half of one percent. Do you know why it dropped? Let me tell you why. Dr. Edgar McManus declared that many, if not the larger percentage, had been the victim of kidnappers and forced migration. Free blacks were kidnapped and sold into slavery by the North. In New York City alone in one year, more than 33 such cases of kidnapping were revealed. William Seward in 1858 declared, "the white man needs this continent to labor in, and he must have it." Now, let me give you one other quote. John Sherman, who was the brother of William Tecumseh Sherman, you know, Sherman's March to the Sea. Here's what John Sherman, the brother of William Sherman, said. In April 2nd, 1862, he said, quote, "we do not like the Negroes."
#50 | 38:18 to 39:54 | cleaned
"We do not disguise our dislike. As my friend from Indiana, Mr. Wright, said yesterday, the whole people of the Northwestern states are opposed to having many Negroes among them, and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation for nearly all of the Northwestern states." What is he saying? We're saying we don't need blacks in our states. He said we dislike them and we don't disguise our dislike. When General John A. Dix proposed to remove a number of escaped slaves from Fortress Monroe to Massachusetts, the governor of Massachusetts objected, stating, "the northern states are, of all places, the worst possible to select for an asylum for Negroes." What was he saying? We don't want them. We don't want them. Now, here's my point. If slavery was not the focal point of the war, what was it? If the North really were not interested in the slaves, and if once freed the North did not want them there, why in the world did the North want the war? There were numerous reasons for the war.
#51 | 39:55 to 41:19 | cleaned
You have to go back to what I said initially. You cannot have a cultural revolution without a theological revolution. There were in this war, first of all, theological issues, which I will deal with later. I will show you how the North and the South differed theologically. There were, secondly, economic issues. The North wanted to impose high tariffs to drain the South financially. There were cultural issues. Even today there are cultural issues. The North and South are still not alike culturally.
#52 | 41:19 to 42:12 | cleaned
I had an aunt and uncle who lived in Toledo, Ohio for years. My uncle, although he was born in the South, went up there and married, worked for General Motors until he retired and then moved back to the South. My aunt, whom he married, was raised in the North. And she could not get over the fact that down here everybody waved and everybody spoke. She said, "Let me tell you something. In Toledo, Ohio, if some stranger speaks to you, you run. You get out of the way, there's something coming down. But you drive down the road here and everybody waves at you, and everybody will stop and talk to you."
#53 | 42:13 to 43:01 | cleaned
There were theological issues, there were economic issues, there were cultural issues, there were political issues which I will show you. And of course there were sectional differences. And by the way, every one of these things that I have just mentioned that were differences in 1860 are still differences in 1998. Let me just give you one. Why is it the South is so opposed to abortion, while the North, basically speaking, is not. That is a theological issue.
#54 | 43:03 to 43:55 | cleaned
You follow what I'm saying? It is these theological issues that raise and emphasize and aggravate all of the other issues. So, I don't care if you have a leading Unitarian minister in the North. I would never agree with him. I don't care how popular. I don't care whether he's a congressman or not. How many of you saw Trent Lott from Mississippi the other day saying that homosexuality was a sin? Yeah. You don't hear northerners.
#55 | 43:58 to 44:43 | cleaned
Very few Southerners now because we've been radicalized and we have been reconstructed. But those of us who are unreconstructed still believe that sodomy is a sin and wicked. And by the way, I was given this and I just have not had time to use it, if I can find it right quickly. I can assure you, I'm going to use it, put on my car, "unreconstructed," because I still believe the Bible and I still believe the principles for which we fought. Paraphrasing in closing, Jefferson Davis said this, "Although we lost the war, the principles for which we fought will yet be fought for again on a different battlefield, in a different venue." And all the problems we've been having with bureaucracy, federal government, it's all down to this one principle. They are being fought for again and again and again in different battlefields and different venues, but it's still the same principle. We want liberty. And we want freedom. Let's pray.
#56 | 44:48 to 46:19 | cleaned
Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we ask today for Your grace, for Your mercy. Teach us, Lord, where we've come from so we can see where we are and know where we're going. Give us grace to serve Thee acceptably with reverence and godly fear. In Thy name we pray, Amen.
#57 | 46:19 to 46:38 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-04T14:42:08Z

Where We Are & How We Got Here # 1 of 14

John Weaver | Freedom Ministries

John Weaver introduces a series on the theological and cultural foundations of the United States, arguing that the nation's current moral decline stems from a prior theological revolution. He contends that the Civil War was not fought over slavery but was an abolitionist revolution driven by Northern Unitarians and radicals who rejected biblical authority. Using Psalm 11:3, he warns that when foundations are destroyed, the righteous are left without recourse, and he traces how a change in theology inevitably produces a change in culture.

Introduction: The Importance of Foundations

Weaver opens with Psalm 11:3, emphasizing that when foundations are destroyed, the righteous are left helpless. He applies this to the erosion of America's founding principles.

Scripture Reading — Psalm 11:3

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

A very simple verse. If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

America's Original Unity: One Faith, One God

In 1776, despite sectional differences, the colonies shared a common culture rooted in the Word of God, as seen in the Mayflower Compact and Jamestown Charter.

Slavery Was Not the Original Issue

Slavery existed in all colonies at the founding; the Constitutional debate focused on counting slaves for representation, not on the morality of slavery.

Theological Revolution Precedes Cultural Revolution

The Abolitionists: Theological Liberals and Revolutionaries

Abolitionists Despised Blacks

Using their own words, Weaver shows that leading abolitionists held racist views, considering blacks inferior and not desiring social equality.

Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation

Weaver argues Lincoln did not fight to free slaves; the Emancipation Proclamation was a military measure. Lincoln advocated colonization of blacks and believed in white superiority.

Northern Racism and Exclusion Laws

Northern states passed laws barring black immigration, voting, and education. Free blacks were often kidnapped and sold into slavery. The North did not want blacks.

The Real Causes of the War and Continuing Differences

The war stemmed from theological, economic, cultural, and political issues, not slavery. These same divisions persist in 1998, e.g., Southern opposition to abortion.

Conclusion: Unreconstructed Principles

Weaver closes by affirming that the principles of liberty for which the South fought are still being contested, and he prays for grace to understand history and serve God.

Where We Are & How We Got Here # 1 of 14

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	11504134153
Subject	Biblical Law
Course	The Ten Commandments
Genre	Sermon
Date	1998-06-28
Dictation Name
Book	Book 119: Where We Are & How We Got Here — Chapter 1
Source Timed Segments	57

Lecture Guide

Outline

Introduction: The Importance of Foundations: Weaver opens with Psalm 11:3, emphasizing that when foundations are destroyed, the righteous are left helpless. He applies this to the erosion of America's founding principles.
America's Original Unity: One Faith, One God: In 1776, despite sectional differences, the colonies shared a common culture rooted in the Word of God, as seen in the Mayflower Compact and Jamestown Charter.
Slavery Was Not the Original Issue: Slavery existed in all colonies at the founding; the Constitutional debate focused on counting slaves for representation, not on the morality of slavery.
Theological Revolution Precedes Cultural Revolution: Weaver asserts that cultural changes, such as acceptance of homosexuality on TV, result from prior theological decay. He illustrates with a personal anecdote about a man who expected God to bless his adultery.
The Abolitionists: Theological Liberals and Revolutionaries: Abolitionists were largely Unitarians and Transcendentalists who rejected biblical authority. They included pacifists, disunionists, and violent revolutionaries like John Brown and his Secret Six backers.
Abolitionists Despised Blacks: Using their own words, Weaver shows that leading abolitionists held racist views, considering blacks inferior and not desiring social equality.
Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation: Weaver argues Lincoln did not fight to free slaves; the Emancipation Proclamation was a military measure. Lincoln advocated colonization of blacks and believed in white superiority.
Northern Racism and Exclusion Laws: Northern states passed laws barring black immigration, voting, and education. Free blacks were often kidnapped and sold into slavery. The North did not want blacks.
The Real Causes of the War and Continuing Differences: The war stemmed from theological, economic, cultural, and political issues, not slavery. These same divisions persist in 1998, e.g., Southern opposition to abortion.
Conclusion: Unreconstructed Principles: Weaver closes by affirming that the principles of liberty for which the South fought are still being contested, and he prays for grace to understand history and serve God.

Major Themes

Key Arguments

Theological change drives cultural change

Weaver argues that the moral decay in modern America (e.g., homosexuality on TV) is a direct result of abandoning biblical doctrine.

He states: 'You cannot have a change in culture without having a change in theology.'

Abolitionists rejected biblical authority

The abolitionist movement was fundamentally anti-Christian, led by Unitarians who denied core doctrines of the faith.

Weaver says they 'rejected the inspiration of Scripture... the deity of Jesus Christ.'

John Brown was a murderer, not a hero

John Brown and his gang murdered innocent men, including a free black man, and were financed by wealthy Unitarians.

Weaver details the Pottawatomie Massacre and the killing of Heywood Shepherd.

Abolitionists despised blacks

Using their own writings, Weaver demonstrates that abolitionists viewed blacks as inferior and did not seek equality.

Quotes from Julia Ward Howe calling blacks 'ugly as Caliban' and 'lazy as the laziest brutes.'

Lincoln did not fight to free slaves

Lincoln's own words show he believed in white superiority, supported colonization, and would have kept slavery to preserve the Union.

Lincoln's 1858 debate statement: 'I am not now nor ever have been in favor of... the social or the political equality of a white and black race.'

The North was more racist than the South

Northern states passed laws excluding blacks, and free blacks were often kidnapped and sold into slavery by Northerners.

Weaver cites laws in Indiana, Illinois, and Massachusetts, and statistics on black population decline.

The war had multiple causes beyond slavery

Theological, economic (tariffs), cultural, and political issues were the real drivers of the conflict.

Weaver lists 'theological issues... economic issues... cultural issues... political issues' as causes.

The principles of the war are still being fought

The struggle for liberty and against federal overreach continues in different venues, as Jefferson Davis predicted.

Weaver paraphrases Davis: 'the principles for which we fought will yet be fought for again on a different battlefield.'

Scripture References

Psalm 11:3: Weaver uses this verse as the foundational text for the sermon, asking what the righteous can do when foundations are destroyed.
Proverbs 23:7: Weaver quotes this to support the idea that ideas have consequences: 'As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.'
Exodus 20:14 (implied): Weaver references the command 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' when explaining why God would not answer a man's prayer to take another man's wife.
1 Kings 12:28 (implied): Weaver references Jeroboam making two golden calves as an example of theological change leading to cultural and political change.

Historical References

Mayflower Compact (1620): Weaver cites it as evidence that early settlers desired to glorify God and extend Christ's kingdom.
Jamestown Charter (1607): Mentioned alongside the Mayflower Compact as showing the religious motivations of early colonies.
Constitutional Convention (1787): Weaver notes the debate was over how to count slaves for representation, not the morality of slavery.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2: Weaver reads the three-fifths clause regarding apportionment of representatives.
14th Amendment: Weaver mentions it changed the three-fifths clause but questions whether it was properly ratified.
John Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry (1859): Weaver describes John Brown as a murderer financed by the Secret Six to start a slave insurrection.
Pottawatomie Massacre (1856): John Brown and his men murdered five innocent men along Pottawatomie Creek.
Emancipation Proclamation (January 1, 1863): Weaver argues it freed no slaves and was a military and political measure.
Lincoln's Colonization Proposal: Weaver states Lincoln's policy was to send blacks back to Africa, as expressed in an 1862 speech to free blacks.
Northern Black Exclusion Laws: Weaver cites laws in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Indiana, and Illinois barring black immigration and voting.

Important Quotes

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

This is the key verse of the sermon, framing the entire message about the consequences of eroding biblical foundations.

You cannot have a change in culture without having a change in theology.

This is the central thesis of the sermon, linking theological decline to cultural decay.

the map of our magnificent country should be destined to be so soon torn in two on account of the Negro, that poorest of human creatures satisfied even in slavery with sugarcane and a banjo.

Weaver uses this quote from Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe to show abolitionist contempt for blacks.

The Negro among Negroes is a coarse, grinning, flat-footed, thick-skulled creature, ugly as Caliban, lazy as the laziest brutes, chiefly ambitious to be of no use to anyone in the world.

Julia Ward Howe's words are cited to prove that abolitionists held deeply racist views.

I am not now nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or the political equality of a white and black race.

Weaver quotes Lincoln to argue that the war was not fought for racial equality.

Although we lost the war, the principles for which we fought will yet be fought for again on a different battlefield, in a different venue.

Weaver paraphrases Jefferson Davis to connect the Civil War to ongoing cultural and political struggles.

Discussion Questions

[Question]

What does Psalm 11:3 mean when it asks, 'If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?' How does this apply to our nation today?

[Context]

Weaver opens the sermon with this verse and applies it to the erosion of America's biblical foundations.

[Question]

How does a change in theology lead to a change in culture? Can you think of modern examples?

[Context]

Weaver argues that cultural shifts like acceptance of homosexuality stem from prior theological changes.

[Question]

Why does Weaver claim that the abolitionists rejected the Word of God? What evidence does he provide?

[Context]

He describes abolitionists as Unitarians and Transcendentalists who denied biblical inspiration and Christ's deity.

[Question]

How does Weaver use the writings of abolitionists like Julia Ward Howe to challenge the common narrative about the Civil War?

[Context]

He quotes their racist statements to show they did not truly care for black people.

[Question]

What was Lincoln's stated view on racial equality, according to the quotes Weaver provides? How does this affect your understanding of the Civil War?

[Context]

Weaver reads Lincoln's 1858 debate statement and his colonization speech to free blacks.

[Question]

What were the Northern black exclusion laws, and what do they reveal about racial attitudes in the North?

[Context]

Weaver cites laws from Indiana, Illinois, Massachusetts, and others that barred black immigration and voting.

[Question]

According to Weaver, what were the real causes of the Civil War if not slavery?

[Context]

He lists theological, economic, cultural, and political issues as the primary drivers.

[Question]

How does Weaver connect the issues of 1860 to the cultural and political debates of 1998? Do you see similar connections today?

[Context]

He points to abortion and homosexuality as modern examples of the same sectional and theological divides.

Applications

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

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-05T18:59:57Z