Article
Archives

Truth may be ignored and facts may be neglected or overlooked. Does your ignorance or carelessness negate or otherwise change the truth or alter the facts? Try, as man will to make things so, sooner or later the truth comes out.

God’s Holy Word in the Gospel of John Chapter 14, Verse 6 says, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." The First Epistle General of John Chapter 5, Verses 19 and 20 state, "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."

Here are some worldly truths worth reflecting upon with regards to our Christian Nation’s founding:

James Madison: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future…upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God."

John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

Benjamin Franklin: "Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants."

Andrew Jackson: "The Bible is the rock upon which our Republic rests."

George Washington: "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

It is instructive to note that all of the above gems of truth require something from the individual. All require personal responsibility. I’ve said it before but it bears repeating here, liberty’s greatest burden is the freedom to choose between good and evil. Our yankee brethern would say, "who are you to tell me about good and evil, whose good and whose evil?" My reply would be not my good or my evil but what saith the Word of God. Personal responsibility is the pivotal point upon which our Republic was lost. In the First Book of Moses called Genesis Chapter 6, Verse 5 it states, "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Tell me, is it necessary to keep watch over a toddler to keep him from doing right? From birth, our inclination is to do what satisfies our own desires. Popular culture says, "Just do it." Doesn’t that remind you of Lucifer’s "I will"?

We encounter a serious problem when we approach an individual with truths that run contrary to what they have been taught. You see, folk have an investment in their beliefs. That investment might very well represent their upbringing, education, life’s experience, their whole world. Tamper with a man’s world-view and you will more than likely find yourself in an argument or worse, be shown the door. I guess some people aren’t interested in hearing the truth. Their investment in who they are and what their world-view represents is too fragile to mess with. It takes confidence to examine evidence contrary to what we’ve been taught.

I’ve been fascinated with the yankee myths of history for quite some time and I find in most cases that people absorb these fabrications and make them their own. Government schools have been particularly adept at maleducating (the prefix mal meaning defective or evil) the citizenry. Yankee myths are easy to swallow as they always contain a slight kernel of truth. But following that kernel is a banquet of obfuscation and lies. The method is always the same. Embrace this truth, accept the rest and never have to think about it again. Folk make it all part of their world-view as an expression of who they are and what they believe to be true. It allows them to fit easily into popular culture. It permits them to agree with academics whose approval they desire and finally it insulates them further from the responsibility of thought.

The concept of man being essentially good was first introduced into New England from Europe and the late French Revolution. The idea that man is god (Unitarianism), that trees and rocks are god (Transcendentalism), and that we are all totally equal in ability and therefore outcome (Egalitarianism), became the infection that spread across our Christian land. By the 1860’s it had metastasized into a full cancer. That cancer was by and large sectional to the more urban northern states. The same folk who introduced witch burning and laws against opinions embraced every apostasy from enlightened Europe. The Reverend Robert Catlett Cave in his 1911 treatise, The Men in Gray, Defending the Southern Confederacy, states on pages 75 and 76: "However it may have been overshadowed and obscured by giving prominence to subordinate matters, this was the real issue. The claim of the South was: Unreserved obedience to the Constitution. Wherein it may be found inadequate, amend it in the prescribed way; but until it is thus amended, its provisions must be fully carried out. The claim of the north was: ‘There is a law higher than the Constitution,’ and wherein the Constitution conflicts with that higher law it must be disobeyed. The South was dominated by the principle of ‘Law and Order’ – the principle of conformity to the lawfully established order and the remedy of wrongs in a lawful way. The north was dominated by what Wendell Phillips called ‘The Puritan Principle’ – the principle of those whose motto, as Mr. Phillips declared, was not ‘Law and Order,’ but ‘God and Justice,’ and who were always ready to tread down law and order in the effort to compel others to conform to their notion of God and justice."

This notion that some folk possessed an especial insight into what was best for others played a large role in the secular religious societies of the 1850’s and 60’s. Prominent New Englanders praised the murderer John Brown as a "Higher Law Man." On page 75 of Reverend Cave’s work we find, "They saw that if the provisions of the Constitution in regard to slavery (an institution their fathers introduced, fostered, and profited by, emphasis mine) could be disregarded on the ground of morality, expediency, necessity, or any other so-called ‘higher law,’ its provisions in regard to other things could with equal right be violated on the same ground; that all constitutional guarantees and safeguards would thus be rendered worthless; and that instead of a government administered according to the organic law of the union, we might thus come to have a government administered according to what any party in power might deem expedient and right, and therefore a 'higher law.’" Thus today our Supreme Court’s black robed oracles are free to render any meaning they choose from a document they call "Living", which simply means that they are free to change the rules of society as their handlers see fit.

You must understand that not everyone north of the Mason Dixon Line is a yankee just as everyone south of that line is not a patriot. It has to do with world-view and the content of your heart. Real yankees take particular delight in having everyone in the North declared a yankee as it artificially swells their numbers and serves as comfortable cover. You either love liberty or love security. Scripture teaches that you cannot serve two masters and any individual with courage enough to search his heart should be able to determine where his treasure is. A modern academic, who has come as close as any on this subject, is Dr. Clyde Wilson of the University of South Carolina, who said something like this (I will paraphrase), "An individual who loves his nation, it’s government and its services, and all the attendant systems is a Nationalist, while the individual who loves freedom, kin, community and State is a Patriot." The boys of ’76 (that’s 1776) were fighting a tyranny that had reached down into their communities, onto their farms and businesses, and into their homes. They would have none of it, so they fought back. The boys of ’61 (that’s 1861) were instructed at the knees of their fathers and grandfathers, who had recently overcome tyranny, so they would have none of it either. So, who were the patriots? The boys of ’76 were called Rebels, perhaps that’s why the men of the Southern Army were and their posterity remains so proud of that name.

At this point it is needful to refer to the First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians Chapter 15, Verse 4-8, "And he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures; And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethern at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time." Paul was simply telling the folk at the Church of Corinth; Cephas saw Jesus after he rose from the grave, and so did the twelve and over five hundred other people as well as the apostles, James, and myself, so don’t just take my word, there are many who can testify who saw him. Since this piece deals with religion and since we have access to the people who knew our subject best, let us hear their testimony.

Let us approach Mr. Lincoln as strangers might who have no knowledge of what popular culture and its history have already said. Let us listen to the words of the men and women who knew him best.

Ward H. Lamon accompanied Mr. Lincoln to Washington and was personally selected to accompany him in his midnight passage through Baltimore to his first inauguration. He was made United States Marshall of the District of Columbia so that he might always be at hand. In 1872 Mr. Lamon published a book titled, Life of Lincoln.

Page 404. In a letter of Herndon’s concerning a contest for congress in 1848 between Mr. Lincoln and Reverend Peter Cartwright. "In that contest he was accused of being an infidel, if not an atheist; he never denied the charge; would not; ‘would die first,’ because he knew it could be and would be proved."

Page 487. " when he went to church, he went to mock and came away to mimic."

Page 495. In a letter from Herndon he copies: "When Mr. Lincoln left this city (Springfield, Ill.) for Washington, I know that he had undergone no change in his religious opinions or views."

Page 501. " He never told any one that he accepted Jesus as the Christ, or performed one of the acts which necessarily followed upon such a conviction."

Page 502. " he indulged freely in indefinite expressions about ‘Divine Providence,’ ‘the justice of God,’ the ‘favor of the Most High,’ in his published documents, but he nowhere ever professed the slightest faith in Jesus as the Son of God and the Savior of Men."

Page 503. " If he did not believe in it, the masses of the plain people did, and no one was ever more anxious to do what was of good report among men."

All of the above from Lamon’s Life of Lincoln can be found in the Charles L.C. Minor book The Real Lincoln published in 1904, pages 26-29.

Dennis Hanks was young Abe’s cousin and loft mate in their 288 square foot cabin and Sara Bush Johnson became his stepmother when his father Thomas married her in 1819. In his 1931 work Lincoln The Man, Edgar Lee Masters states on page 21. "…Lincoln had access to that (The Bible) from the time he could read. But if Dennis Hanks is to be believed, Lincoln did not read the Bible much, though he was always reading something. In a community where the religious revival swept the inhabitants as if with flame which drove them to repentance, Lincoln stood aloof, not joining any church; and according to his stepmother Lincoln as a boy had no religion, and, so far as she could observe, did not even think about religion."

William H. Herndon was a friend of Lincoln’s for twenty years and Springfield law partner. He also authored a book in 1888 titled Lincoln; The True Story of a Great Life. David Davis was reported to be one of a handful of men who were close to Lincoln both before and after his election. He was appointed by Lincoln to be a Supreme Court Justice, and finally executor of his estate. In Edgar Lee Masters’ book we find the following on pages 149-150. "…in his New Salem days Lincoln wrote an essay against the Bible, in which he attacked its inspiration as God’s revelation, and in which he strove to prove that Jesus was not the Son of God. Herndon affirmed in his book that Lincoln did this. …and he wrote from a report of a friend of Lincoln’s who claimed to hear what Lincoln said, that at the clerks office on several occasions Lincoln had a Bible with him and proceeded to read a chapter and then skeptically to dissect it. John T. Stuart, Lincoln’s first law partner, said of him that he was an open infidel; and others called him an avowed atheist. This was in the early Springfield days before he developed caution. Stuart further asserted that Lincoln always denied the divinity of Jesus. On the other hand the sober David Davis doubted the idea that Lincoln talked about his religion, especially to any stranger. He added, however, that Lincoln had no faith in the Christian sense, but that he had faith in laws, principles, causes and effects. Another man, a friend of Lincoln’s, gave the opinion that Lincoln believed in a Creator; and that, as to the Christian theory that Christ is God, Lincoln stated to him that it had better be taken for granted; and while the divinity of Jesus came to man in doubtful shape, yet the system of Christianity was an ingenuous one, and perhaps was calculated to do good."

John G. Nicolay came with Lincoln from Springfield and was his private secretary to the end. He Co-authored a ten volume work titled Abraham Lincoln. Again on page 150 of Masters’ book it states. "In May, 1865, John G. Nicolay, one of Lincoln’s secretaries, wrote Herndon that Lincoln did not change his religious opinions in any way from the time he left Springfield to the time of his death. And Mrs. Lincoln, who came on to Springfield to meet Herndon and talk to him about Lincoln for the purposes of Herndon’s contemplated biography, said: ‘Mr. Lincoln had no faith and no hope in the usual acceptation of those words.’"

There we have first hand accounts from Mr. Lincoln’s cousin and stepmother who knew him early, his wife who knew him intimately, and his professional intimates who were with him constantly as lawyer, congressman and president. It is instructive to remember Ward H. Lamon’s statement that Mr. Lincoln was ever more anxious to do what was of good report among men. Perhaps you know of some modern political folk who act in a similar fashion.

In Charles L.C. Minor’s 1904 book The Real Lincoln we find the following on page 26 and 27. "Almost all the Christians of Springfield, his home, opposed him for President… He wrote and talked against religion in the most shocking words. He never denied the charge, publicly urged, that he was an infidel. His wife and closest friends attest all this. He became reticent about his religious views when he entered political life, and therefore indulged freely in pious phrases in his published documents and passionate expressions of piety began to abound in his speeches; but he never denied or flinched from his religious opinions and never changed them.

As to Lincoln’s attitude towards religion, Dr. Holland in his Abraham Lincoln, says (p. 286) ‘that twenty out of the twenty-three ministers of the different denominations of Christians, and a very large majority of the prominent members of the churches in his home, Springfield, Illinois, opposed him for President.’ He says (p. 241) ‘…Men who knew him throughout all his professional and political life have said that so far from being a religious man, or a Christian, the less said about that the better.’ He says of Lincoln’s first recorded religious utterance, used in closing his farewell address to Springfield, that it ‘was regarded by many as evidence both of his weakness and of his hypocrisy,…and was tossed about as a joke- old Abe’s last.’" The hungry politician had at last grasped his brass ring. A ring bought and paid for by wealthy New England interests. He would never again be the butt of jokes over his religious beliefs. If Mr. Lincoln knew anything, it was politics and the use of words.

The Gospel according to Saint Matthew Chapter 7, Verse 20 states, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." As any genuine Christian knows, one can observe the evidence of someone’s faith by simply reflecting upon their fruit. Granted we are all most human and thus prone to weakness, however we are constantly aware of the innermost struggle of that humanity. Therefore, an examination of our fruit might very well reveal moments of weakness but what has the preponderance of evidence to say. Does not The Epistle of Paul The Apostle To The Romans Chapter 7, Verses 19 and 20 emphatically state, "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, is it no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." Paul admits to his humanity, he admits to his sin nature. Does not the preponderance of evidence reveal Paul a Christian?

My 1965 Encyclopaedia Britannica defines oath as " 1 A solemn attestation in support of a declaration or a promise, by an appeal to God or to some person or thing regarded as high and holy; also, the declaration or promise so supported. 2 Law Such an attestation or affirmation of the truth of a statement as renders liable to punishment for perjury one who wilfully thus asserts what is not true." The same Encyclopaedia Volume 22, page 820 C states with regard to the President of the United States of America, "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath: - ‘I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’"

Scores of men have taken that solemn oath of office and scores have violated its most sacred meaning since 1861. Since the vast voting populace has no concept of our real history and since they are equally ignorant of the intended meaning of our founding documents, is it any wonder that there is no outrage, no Christian indignation. But The Second Epistle Of Paul The Apostle to Timothy reminds us in Chapter 3 Verse 13, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." Has it not always been thus? Have we not become accustomed to obfuscation, spin, and information for itchy ears? Personal responsibility is painful from the human perspective, no man wants to admit that he has possessed a lie for a lifetime. Humanly speaking it can be so much easier to go along to get along.

In the Presidential election of 1860 the stage had been prepared well in advance. Radical abolitionism had raised name-calling and sectional animosities to new heights. Heights financed by the wealthy yankee mercantile, banking and industrial interests that lusted after the wealth of the Southern States and political power of a strong, easily bought, central government. Prior to 1860 ours was the limited government of a Constitutional Republic and 70% of that governments’ revenues originated in the South while 75% of its’ expenditures ended up in the hands of our northern brethern in New England. Surely at this point, someone will stipulate, "Yes, and the South’s wealth was built upon slave labor!" Really! And New England’s was built upon the slave trade and immigrant slave wage manufacturing. The difference being that the South desired to be left alone while New England lusted after what did not belong to them. The Second Book of Moses called Exodus, verses 15 - 17 state, "Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour’s"

Of the 12 million folk who resided in the Southern and border States of 1860, about 4 million were slaves. About ten percent of the remaining population were slave owners and estimates are that over a thousand of those were free blacks. Now we learn from John Remington Graham in his A Constitutional History of Secession on page 284 that, "There were about 4 million slaves in the Southern States in 1860, and over the previous decade never more than a thousand runaways fled in any year into the North, and in some years it was half that figure". That’s about 1 to 3 per 10,000. Our first domestic terrorist, Mr. John Brown failed to ignite a servile insurrection. Blacks fought for the Confederacy. Large tracts of plantation and farmland were left by fathers, husbands, and brothers off to defense and war while only women, children, the old and infirm managed with trusty slave staff. Why was there no insurrection? Because the South was a Christian Nation in the truest King James Gospel tradition. As Christians, Southerners who owned slaves labored under the Biblical admonition of stewardship, cradle to grave. A concept not found in northern industrial environs and not comprehended by un-Christian folk. It was H.L. Menkin who named the South the ‘Bible Belt’ in scorn because he simply could not comprehend it.

You must come to recognize that slavery is not sin under biblical law and was not unconstitutional prior to the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. My Strong’s Exaustive Concordance of the Bible With Greek and Hebrew Dictionary reveals that servant, servants, bondservant, maidservant and etc., are used over 1000 times in the Scriptures. A review of the Hebrew and Greek meaning of those words invariably means slave in most uses. Try as man will he cannot escape personal responsibility. The savage kings of Africa were responsible for enslaving their own race. Yankee traders were responsible for trading those kings rum for slaves and they were also responsible for transporting their miserable cargo to buyers all over the Western Hemisphere. War for What? by Francis W. Springer states on pages 42 and 43, "It is less amazing but just as significant that abolitionists did not take any effective measures to stop the building of slave ships in New England ship yards, or put an end to the distilling of rum and the manufacture of merchandise obviously designed for bartering with African slavers. According to Mannix (p. 160) as early as the 1750’s there were 63 distilleries in Massachusetts and 30 in Rhode Island busy converting molasses into rum for the trade. When an import duty was levied on molasses, the duty was never collected because it was claimed that it would ruin the slave trade, throw 5000 men out of work and cause 700 ships to rot.

These are amazing figures but they high-light an amazing little known fact: The big profit in the slave trade was not in bringing slaves to our Southern plantations. For every one slave brought here, approximately twenty were carried to Brazil, Cuba and the West Indies.

With the Northern industrial group making money financing the slave trade and also by processing the products of slave labor, is it any wonder that they didn’t want slavery or the slave trade ended? But if they didn’t want slavery ended, why were they financing the abolitionists?

The answer is that the industrialists knew that the abolitionists were not going to end slavery. The industrialists were realists; the abolitionists were not. But the abolitionist movement was creating a climate for war, and that was what the industrialists wanted. It was as simple as that, too simple for most people to appreciate." A proper war would enable yankee interests to finally break all Constitutional barriers to a government of their own. One whose largesse they controlled and one designed to ultimately thwart our organic Law for their ‘Higher Law’. Again from Springer page 67, "War is not caused by hatred. It is the other way around. Hatred is manufactured, like munitions, as a necessary instrument of war." Northern mercantile, industrial and banking interests correctly understood that they would simply replace one version of slavery for another. It’s true, and if you believe that you are not a slave today you are a fool.

The Presidential election of 1860 had four men running representing four political parties. They were:

Stephen A. Douglass – Union Democratic Party

John Breckenridge – National Democratic Party

John Bell – Constitutional Union Party

Abraham Lincoln – Republican Party

Actually there were only two groups. The old Democrats whose ranks were successfully fractured into three and the old Whigs who evaporated into a new high sounding name, Republican. So folk who sincerely wished to preserve the Constitutional Republic were given three choices while folk who wished otherwise simply picked the remainder.

In A Constitutional History of Secession we find on page 282, "And the money men who had induced the splintering between the two wings of the democratic party, also worked hand in glove with the money men behind the republican party. In order to swing the election their way, they weakened the conservative and moderate vote by splintering it, then supporting the radical vote as a united front. …The final element, absolutely critical to the larger plan then unhatching, was to assure that secession, when it occurred, would erupt in a civil war. On May 16, 1860, the republican convention met in Chicago, and two days later nominated Abraham Lincoln of Illinois for President and Hannibal Hamlin of Maine for Vice President. Their platform announced, ‘We hold in abhorrence all schemes of disunion, come from whatever source they may,’ thus assuring that, when the republicans took over the direction of the Union and the anticipated secession of Southern States occurred, military force would be used to prevent it. That would guarantee a bloody and expensive conflict." It is instructive to note that Bart Talbert’s book Maryland: The South’s First Casualty states on page 14, "This mood also heightened an awareness of what a Republican victory in the presidential election of 1860 would mean, and consequently, the Maryland legislature responded in 1860 by appropriating $70,000 to arm the militia."

John Shipley Tilley in his 1941 work, Lincoln Takes Command says on page xv, "With the election of Abraham Lincoln in the fall of 1860, the final blow fell. The returns rocked the South like an earthquake. Following a campaign which had shunted aside national issues, in an election shot through and through with sectional animosity, the Southerners had felt the sting of defeat. Most disheartening of all, Lincoln had received only 1,866,452 popular votes out of a total of 4,690,193. All eighteen states in his column lay north of Mason and Dixon’s line. Fifteen of the thirty-three states gave him no electoral votes. In ten states not a ballot bore his name." Then from A Constitutional History of Secession page 283 we find, "The election of Abraham Lincoln as President was thereby assured, -‘rigged’ would be a more accurate and realistic word. He carried eighteen States in the North, one county in Missouri, and one county in Kentucky, but not a single state in the South. So certain in advance was the outcome that Lincoln could afford the luxury of not giving even one campaign speech. He simply sat at home and waited for his election victory on November 6, 1860." And from Charles L.C. Minor’s book page 73 we learn, " James Russell Lowell wrote of the day when Lincoln’s Administration began, ‘Even in that half of the Union which acknowledged him as President there was a large and at the time dangerous minority that hardly admitted his claim to office, and even in the party that elected him there was also a large minority that suspected him of being secretly a communicant with the church of Laodicea.’"

From 1825 to 1840 at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, the text used to teach future officers Constitutional Law was one by William Rawle, LL.D. That text, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, taught that secession was constitutional. And from 1840 to 1859 his text was used as a reference work. From pages 2 and 3 of that law text we find, "By a constitution we mean the principles on which a government is formed and conducted. On the voluntary association of men in sufficient numbers to form a political community, the first step to be taken for their own security and happiness, is to agree on the terms on which they are to be united and act. They form a constitution, or plan of government suited to their character, their exigencies, and their future prospects. They agree that it shall be the supreme rule of obligation among them.

This is the pure and genuine source of a constitution in the republican form. In other governments the origin of constitutions is not the same. A successful conqueror establishes such a form of government as he thinks proper. If he deigns to give it the name of a constitution, the people are instructed to consider it as a donation from him; but the danger to his power, generally induces him to withhold an appellation, of which, in his own apprehension, an improper use might be made." And from pages 17-18, "The history of man does not present a more illustrious monument of human invention, sound political principles, and judicious combinations, than the Constitution of the United States. In many other countries, the origin of government has been vaguely attributed to force, or artifice or accident, and obscurities of history have been laboriously developed to trace the result of these supposed causes. But America has distinctly presented to view the deliberate formation of an independent government, not under compulsion, or by artifice, or chance, but as a mean of resisting external force, and with a full and accurate knowledge of her own rights, providing for, and securing her own safety." From pages 238-239, "The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution…but in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal." From page 297, "The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics." From page 299, "If the majority of the people of a state deliberately and peaceably resolve to relinquish the republican form of government, they cease to be members of the Union."

Please remember that the action of the Second Continental Congress by the unanimous declaration of the thirteen united States assembled declared in our seldom-read document, "The Declaration of Independence" that, "…That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government". And The Tenth Amendment to our Constitution clearly states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Prior to 1861 most folk north and south held the view that secession was a right. Mr. Lincoln said so himself on January 12, 1848. It was only when it became apparent that their lust for wealth and consolidation of power would suffer, that northern interests began their mantra of treason and rebellion.

From Maryland: The South’s First Casualty page 30-31 we learn, "The Virginia legislature, shortly after its regularly scheduled meeting in January of 1861, called a convention to decide the proper course of action in its crisis with the Union. The election was held in the first week of February, and a majority of members voted against unconditional secession. As a result, Tennessee and North Carolina decided against calling secession conventions and, with Maryland and Virginia, awaited the results of national efforts to compromise Lincoln’s inaugural procession had to cross Maryland as it traveled by railroad to Washington…When it was learned that Lincoln had taken a special train in the night, there was a reaction of surprise, which changed to shame and profound humiliation…Lincoln was ridiculed as a coward and degraded in both the North and South…for the disgraceful secrecy with which he, the future chief executive of the country, made his way through one of its principal cities" (Baltimore) en route to Washington.

Abraham Lincoln took his solemn oath of office on March 4, 1861 and thus became the 16th President of the United States of America. Within his power was the ability to prevent the deaths of over 620,000 men and boys, the destruction of thousands of homes and lives, the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars to northern business interests at the expense of innocent civilians, and the rape and murder of thousands of innocents. More importantly as President he held in his hand the ability to enforce the rule of law and uphold the Constitution.

Mr. Lincoln chose none of that. Instead he chose to order army captains and navy lieutenants on missions expressly designed to cause patriotic men to conclude war. I refer to John Shipley Tilley’s (M.A. Harvard) 1941, Lincoln Takes Command. In that book we find the complete scheme designed to cause provoked tempers to fire on Fort Sumter and on pages 62-64 we find communications from the administration to their field operatives. And on page 64, "Rarely has a letter told as much in as few words. ‘The subject broached in the office of the President.’ …Lincoln was giving a convincing exhibition of what a man can accomplish once he has made up his mind and chartered his course. The document leaves no doubt that those in the executive office conference understood what the consequences would be….This is the beginning of War." All of this transpires on or about April 1, 1861 "…and it is more than a coincidence that this was the day on which Lincoln had issued his six personally signed emergency orders. One of these was for the fitting out of the (warship) Powhatan." And on page 274, "Within a few days after Lincoln succeeded Buchanan the (Southern) peace commissioners were in Washington. Through Senator Hunter, of Virginia, they endeavored to secure an interview with Lincoln’s secretary of state, but Seward replied that before consenting he would have to consult the president. The following day he declined to receive them." Mr. Tilley, using Official Records, convincingly paints a clear picture of a President determined to not only wage war against his own people but to arrange through his secret agents for the South to fire the first volley. His 334 page text gives a day by day explanation, in detail, of those who began the war and the way they began it. Our 16^th President took his oath of office on March 4^th, refused to meet with Southern representatives, and by April 1^st it was understood that the South would fire the first shot before the end of the month which would allow the reign of terror to begin. No effort was made on the part of the President to avert War.

In my humble opinion there is more than enough historical evidence to conclude that Mr. Lincoln’s successful election to the Presidency was for one purpose, and that purpose was ‘War’. Thus when South Carolina was skillfully manipulated into firing on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, the die was cast. What necessarily had to follow was the total destruction of the South and it’s people so that the government of the Union might be remade to better suit our yankee brethern. And no Southern Statesman would be alive or allowed to interfere in their hallowed halls of power.

In the book, Sermons by B.M. Palmer we find on page xix, "In his famous Thanksgiving sermon of November 29, 1860…Palmer observed:

‘Last of all, in this great struggle, we defend the cause of God and Religion. The abolition spirit is undeniably atheistic. The demon which erected its throne upon the guillotine in the days of Robespierre and Marat, which abolished the Sabbath and worshipped reason in the person of a harlot, yet survives to work other horrors, of which those of the French Revolution are but the type. Among a people so generally religious as the American, a disguise must be worn; but it is the same old threadbare disguise of the advocacy of human rights. From a thousand Jacobin clubs here, as in France, the decree has gone forth which strikes at God by striking at all subordination and law.

The spirit of atheism, which knows no God who tolerates evil, no Bible which sanctions law, and no conscience that can be bound by oaths and covenants, has selected us for its victims, and slavery for its issue. Its banner-cry rings out already upon the air – "liberty, equality, fraternity," which simply interpreted mean bondage, confiscation and massacre. With its tricolor waving in the breeze, - it waits to inaugurate its reign of terror. To the South the high position is assigned of defending, before all nations, the cause of all religion and of all truth. In this trust, we are resisting the power which wars against constitutions and laws and compacts, against Sabbaths and sanctuaries, against the family, the State and the Church; which blasphemously invades the prerogatives of God, and rebukes the Most High for the errors of His administration; which, if it cannot snatch the reign of empire from His grasp, will lay the universe in ruins at his feet.’"

Almost five months before Fort Sumter, Reverend Palmer and indeed most Southerners understood what was about to befall their country. Those same folk who in 1637 caused it a crime to harbor 82 separate opinions, those same folk who convened the first Secession Convention in Hartford in 1814, those same federalists who with Hamilton argued for Monarchy over a Republic, those same folk who swooned over French democracy aptly nicknamed mobocracy, those same folk who called our Constitution a covenant with death and an agreement with hell, those same folk were about to ascend the reigns of power. How frightful the prospect must have appeared. With no organized central government, no army or navy and no manufacturing base, these agrarian people mounted an army of some 900,000 men and boys in defense of their homes against an onslaught of 2,300,000 men who over the course of four years finally defeated independence. So much for Mr. Lincoln’s oath to faithfully protect and defend the Constitution.

But wait, there is still more. It is instructive to note that by April 18, 1861, northern troops began arriving at the Northern Central Railroad station in Baltimore, Maryland. That is but 4 days after Mr. Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops. And the next day, thirty-five rail cars containing the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment rolled into the President Street Railroad Station. Given the speed of communication and travel at the time one would almost be lead to postulate that troops were previously assembled and merely awaiting orders. Be that as it may, the citizens of Baltimore and Maryland paid a terrible price for being on the route from New England to Washington. By the middle of May, 1861, federal troops were in firm control of Maryland. The Mayors of Annapolis and Baltimore were summarily arrested by the invading New England troops, as were most members of the Maryland Legislature. Their crime: harboring thoughts of independence. Their sentence: no warrant, no council, no trial, no charges, and indefinite imprisonment. Incidentally, one Marylander who was among hundreds of newspaper editors arrested for suspected independent thinking was Mr. Howard of Baltimore. He was arrested for his anti-Lincoln editorial bias and imprisoned in Fort McHenry. Mr. Francis Key Howard was the grandson of Francis Scott Key and he was imprisoned for two years without formal charges in the very fort from which his grandfather composed the "Star Spangled Banner". The irony of that imprisonment speaks volumes about Mr. Lincoln’s oath to preserve the Constitution.

Most older Americans remember reading something about the Magna Carta in their history class. Unfortunately, most younger Americans would probably give you that blank stare at its mention. Sadly for all Americans one of our most valuable rights was paid for centuries ago by brave patriots whose names have been forgotten. But the framing of our first British precedent of ‘Organic Law’ began with the Magna Carta as granted in 1215 AD by King John at Runnymeade. Thus began the legal precedent which has resulted in our Writ of Habeas Corpus. This writ is of the most importance in a free country whose citizens desire to be safe from arbitrary arrest or imprisonment by the state. As Americans we enjoy an historic and Constitutional right to be informed of the accusations against us, to enjoy the benefit of council, to face our accusers, to be able to bring our own favorable witnesses, and to a speedy public trial. Unfortunately for our ancestors, Mr. Lincoln in his wisdom concluded on April 27, 1861, that almost 650 years of legal precedent and our own Constitution impeded his ability to dictate, so he ordered his military to enforce his suspension of same for his entire administration. His action resulted in the summary imprisonment of an estimated 30,000 northern folk who held unacceptable opinions. Once more we are forced to question his solemn oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

This by no means represents the end of the matter. There remains Mr. Lincoln’s approval of the conduct of the Southern war and occupation that even by today’s standards would result in charges of ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Not to mention his ribald jokes at Gettysburg and the historically inaccurate but poetically appealing Gettysburg Address. I seem to recall a twentieth century President laughing and making merry at the funeral of a Cabinet Member until he discovered the cameras were upon him, at which time he wiped away a tear. Then there is his pitiful Emancipation Proclamation that did not free a single slave in occupied yankee territory. King George III tried the same stunt during our first War of Independence. Then there is the unimaginable incident of his issuing an arrest warrant for the then Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney who had the audacity to announce that what he was doing was un-Constitutional. A listing of such incidents which reflect upon the character of the man could go on and on but would serve no useful purpose, some would call it piling on. In spite of the many hagiographic works produced and devised to obfuscate, the truth comes out. Mr. Lincoln was the first of a sad disingenuine type of political panderer raised to the level of the National Presidency. He can be nothing less since he and his administration have set the moral and legal precedents followed by occupants of that office ever since.

Here’s something else to consider. Mr. Lincoln, being pressed to accept New England banking interests to finance his war, issued paper fiat currency. He was the first President to do so. In 1863, the Rothschild brothers of London controlled the Bank of England and made several remarks that are pertinent to our state of affairs. Here is one, "Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws."- Mayer A.B. Rothschild. By the way, the first to introduce paper currency in the Colonies was the Colony of Massachusetts on 2/3/1690, and it was a miserable failure as folk mistrusted it. The cruelest tax ever levied is the hidden and silent tax of inflation. That tax is levied by a private corporation with no allegiance to or restraints from our Constitution. Henry Ford said, " It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." President James A. Garfield said this, "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." And this from the Congressional Record 12595-12603 – Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Commerce Committee on Banking and Currency (12 years) June 10, 1932, "Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government’s institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers." The man who signed the Federal Reserve Act into law had this to say some years later, "A great industrial nation is controlled by it’s system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world - no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."- President Woodrow Wilson. John Maynard Keynes the darling of socialist economics said this, "Should government refrain from regulation, the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent and the fraud can no longer be concealed." And this from The Civil Servants’Year Book, "The Organizer" January, 1934, "Capital must protect itself in every way…Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd." Finally, James Madison said, "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it’s issuance." So here we have another precedent set by the legacy of Mr. Lincoln. He allowed New England banking interests and through them international bankers to gain a foothold in Washington. Our Constitution proclaims that our rights are from God, that we the people are sovereign and that government is instituted by men to serve very specific needs. Prior to 1860 we were served by organic law with roots to the Magna Carta. Since that time we have witnessed our organic law become higher law or living law and witness men doing that which seems right in their own eyes. Still more of the Lincoln legacy.

From time to time you will find in an otherwise flattering work of Mr. Lincoln the mention of two aspects of his character that I find worth mentioning. One is the frequent reference to his reading the Bible and his use of Biblical quotations in his speeches and correspondences. I would imagine that for a country lawyer to aspire and arrive at his political heights it would behoove him to familiarize himself with a book so profoundly loved by the majority of his countrymen. After all, if Dr. Holland is to be believed, Abe would not be mocked again as he was in his Springfield days. One cannot talk the talk until one learns the language. It’s been often said that even Lucifer knows the Bible better than any of us. Quoting scripture and being seen with a Bible is hardly evidence of a Christian’s walk. How many political men do you know who will stand up in a crowded venue and proclaim that they have a personal relationship with their beloved Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? That is far different than simply saying, "I pray that God will bless our nation". The second thing always mentioned is Mr. Lincoln’s fascination with the occult. Some historians have made much of his dreams about death and how he knew he would be martyred. Webb Garrison in his book The Lincoln No One Knows is reasonably friendly to the great emancipator and yet he offers an entire chapter titled, "What Accounts for His Interest in Signs, Omens, Portents, and Dreams?" And in that same book we find on page 261-262, "Widespread oral tradition asserts that Abraham Lincoln earlier pondered the riddle of his existence and its end, then declared: It appears that the Lord wants a sacrificial victim, as he did in the time of Moses. I must confess that I believe I have been chosen to be that victim. So many plots have been made against my life that it is a miracle that none has succeeded. But can we expect God to work a perpetual miracle in order to save my life? I believe not…" I’ll let you ponder that.

Syndicated columnist Charlie Reese in the magazine Southern Partisan Volume XXII No 6 on page 37 quotes Orestes Brownson, a New Englander, writing in 1864 about New Englanders and he quotes: "The New Englander, has excellent points, but is restless in body and mind, always scheming, always in motion, never satisfied with what he has, and always seeking to make all the world like himself, or as uneasy as himself… He is smart, seldom great; educated but seldom learned; active in mind, but rarely a profound thinker; religious, but thoroughly materialistic: His worship is rendered in a temple founded on Mammon… he is philanthropic but makes his philanthropy his excuse for meddling with everybody’s business as if it were his own, and under pretense of promoting religion and morality, he wars against every generous and natural instinct and aggravates the very evils he seeks to cure." That, it seems to me, is an apt description of adult America today. Just one more legacy of our 16^th President and those for whom he worked.

Since our black robed oracles found within our founding documents that girls can kill unborn babies we as a people have sacrificed about 40,000,000 children on the altar of flesh and pleasure. That’s a lot of murders. I doubt if the Aztec Empire sacrificed as many folk in their entire existence. Husband and wife today must both work to make ends meet as a result of our monetary and tax system. Even in Christian families mom must work and children are remanded to day care or government indoctrination centers. Folk all seem to need cell phones, satellite television, DSL, access to vast amounts of trivial preoccupation, new automobiles and stuff, yes plenty of new stuff. It sure reminds me of the Book of Psalms, Chapter 106 verses 36-39, "And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions."

This union of Sovereign States, the United States of America, our once Constitutional Republic was founded upon Christian principals and organic law. In 1860, lustful men conspired to amass power and wealth at the expense of millions of innocents and they succeeded. Shame on Christian men and women today who make a deity of the man who was the instrument of their success.

I should hope that at this point sufficient evidence has been offered to the closed mind or mind otherwise occupied that there is history available for investigation. And with regard to Mr. Lincoln’s Christianity I would like to remind all that his stepmother said he had no religion, his wife clearly stated that he had no faith and no hope in the usual acceptation of those words, his first law partner called him an avowed atheist, and his professional lifelong associate clearly iterated that he was ever more anxious to do what was of good report among men. In his early political career he had ample opportunity to deny his atheism and never did. During his entire career and in spite of his flowery use of pious words he never once claimed that Jesus Christ was his personal Lord and Savior nor did he ever belong to a Bible believing Christian Church. Given command of his executive office and powers he could have prevented death and destruction to countless millions of his countrymen by simply faithfully keeping his oath of office, yet he conducted his affairs of State in a blatant illegal and un-Constitutional manner. And through his entire administration he admitted no personal responsibility. As the instrument of evil, lustful, wealthy New England interests he permitted our union of Sovereign States to be crushed and replaced with what has become an imperial-like mobocracy.

In closing I would like to quote an outstanding Virginia gentleman, Doctor of Divinity, Confederate Officer, and Soldier for Christ, Robert Lewis Dabney. In 1867 he caused to be published a treatise, A Defense of Virginia and the South. These are the opening lines of his preface, "To the conquerors of my native State, and perhaps to some of her sons, a large part of the following defense will appear wholly unseasonable. A discussion of a social order totally overthrown, and never to be restored here, will appear as completely out of date to them as the ribs of Noah’s Ark, bleaching amidst the eternal snows of Ararat, to his posterity, when engaged in building the Tower of Babel." My friends, the "Tower of Babel" that has been constructed upon the rubble of our Republic has at its core the deity of men like Mr. Lincoln. And rather than be "Proud to be an American" we should follow the Biblical admonition of II Chronicles Chapter 7 and verse 14, and humble ourselves.

Deo Vindice

Back To 

www.confederateshop.com