Remembrance
This year marks the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War—a time to reflect, to examine, and to learn from the past. We had the privilege of traveling to Richmond, Virginia to attend a guided tour at the library, view the exhibits at the Civil War museum, tour the Confederate White House, and attend a ceremony at Hollywood Cemetery. Our stay in Virginia revealed footprints of this war from Staunton to Fredricksburg to our own backyard. While many wounds have healed from this devastation, scars remain.

Throughout my boyhood I attended an excellent school system, fostered by a strong PTA and a community of upstanding people. In elementary school we proudly recited the Pledge of Allegiance, celebrated Christmas with a presentation of the Nativity, sang hymns, and even had prayer. Certainly, we were being taught the truth about the history of our country. While we participated in air-raid drills in the event of an enemy nuclear attack, we learned that we lived in a free country—unlike evil communist countries like the Soviet Union. There they had a state-censored newspaper that told the people a side of the news that favored the government. As we bristled at the lack of freedom in other countries and the irony of a censored newspaper named Truth, we remained blissfully ignorant of the daily diet of lies that invaded our own lives.

In junior high school I attended an American History course. During the Civil War study, as an exercise, the teacher divided the class into two factions of Congress to debate the virtues and vices of slavery. The South won the debate on the argument that blacks are not human. The teacher broke the tie. Back then, thirteen-year-olds were not aware of genetics or even the exclusive nature of reproduction that segregates species “after their kind” (Genesis 1:21,24,25). In fact, just a year earlier we had been taught the obvious lie of evolution—which seeks to dehumanize all of us. Of course, the Civil War was not over slavery, black people are human, and the Southern slave owners treated them as such. While I soon realized the lie that won the debate, it was not until forty-seven years later that I understood the full measure of the propaganda that I had been taught.

Elephant in the Room
At the Civil War exhibition in the Richmond Library, we received the sanitized party line regarding this war. It did not take long into the tour to realize that the fundamental question boiled down to the whether or not those states that seceded had a legal right to do so. It was interesting to hear the replies of tour historians as they stumbled badly, attempting in vain to explain away this elephant in the room (an interesting metaphor for a GOP lie). The Constitution of 1860 was silent on the topic of secession and in enumerating any power of the Federal Government to attack states that chose to leave the Union.

But don’t take my word for it. We have a much higher authority. Recently we had the privilege to tour the estate of James Madison. There we learned that although Mr. Madison tried to separate himself from the title as a matter of humility, he’s properly deemed the “Father of the Constitution.” During the tour, we sat in the library where he wrote what was to become the basis for this document. To aid him in his mission, Thomas Jefferson sent Madison over 200 books to add to his own extensive library on the topic of systems of government. His passionate study traversed through these volumes in seven languages and extended to leading the discourse with the other framers to craft this great blueprint for the new nation.

The following excerpt comes from a lengthy essay on the topic of secession and includes within it a quote from Madison himself that puts to rest the question whether or not the states had the right to secede or the Federal Government the right to invade them.

The Tenth Amendment complements the Ninth in providing a persuasive textual argument that the right of secession is reserved to the states. The right to prevent secession is not delegated to the United States. In fact, the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected a provision that would have authorized the use of Union force against a recalcitrant state. On 31 May 1787, the Constitutional Convention considered adding to the powers of Congress the right to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union, failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof.

The clause was rejected after James Madison spoke against it:

“A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

Neither is the right to secede expressly prohibited to the states. Thus, under the plain meaning of the Tenth Amendment, the states retain the right to secede. This position is buttressed by the historical fact that the states had the right to secede in 1776 and did not expressly give up that right in ratifying the Constitution. (Ostrowski, James. “Was the Union Army’s Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act?” LewRockwell. 29 July 2002. Web. 31 October 2011.)

A careful review of secession documents reveals the true reasons for secession:

1. The election of Lincoln and the “sectional” Republican party with their stated intent to impose the principle of “mob rule” by the North upon the South executing “economic tyranny” against them.
2. Disregard for the rule of law, the Constitution, and states’ rites in particular.
3. Willful failure to enforce the fugitive slave law and protect the South from invading enemies.
4. Threatening and executing “military despotism,” “invading with hostile armies,” and “blockading” states.

If indeed secession was a state and people’s right, all the Union victory proved was that the stronger party in a constitutional conflict may violate the law with impunity. (ibid.)

Honest Abe
We’ve all have heard of Abraham Lincoln. He grew up in poverty, studied on his own at home by candlelight writing notes on the back of a shovel, became a skillful lawyer, and then became one of the greatest presidents of the United States. We display his image proudly on the penny, the five dollar bill, and at a massive memorial in Washington D.C. Known for his honesty and Christian faith, he led this country through its most tremulous time with courage and dignity—preserving the union, freeing the slaves, and defeating the wicked rebels who sought to destroy the country and propagate slavery throughout this land. After winning this just war, he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth and immortalized as one of this country’s greatest heroes.

While this fanciful image of Lincoln fills our history books and classrooms, what we have here is simply a whitewashed fantasy prepared for public consumption and indoctrination. While Mr. Lincoln was a skillful lawyer, he was first and foremost a consummate politician. He won his first election with a minority vote as the first Presidential candidate of the new Republican Party. The platform of that party was pro-northern, industrial, and ardently antislavery.

Once elected, Lincoln’s motive was to consolidate and extend his power which was reflected in his obsession to “preserve the Union” at any cost. No number of lives, no breach of Constitutional authority, and no moral outrage was too great to deter him from his mission. Machiavelli would be proud. Through treachery, he succeeded in transforming this country from a free confederation of independent states to a centrally controlled "union" of vassal states.

But what about freeing the slaves? Certainly, he did that in the Emancipation Proclamation. Of course, that’s what we were taught. What does it really say; when was it given; and why was it devised? Remember, Lincoln was a great politician. We see this fact no more clearly than in this great document. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in the Confederate states, not the Union. Technically, since the Confederate states lawfully seceded, Lincoln had no jurisdiction over the governance of those states. They had formed their own country and had their own constitution, currency, congress, and president located in Richmond Virginia. This ploy sought to disrupt the southern economy while appealing to high moral ground to make it difficult for Britain or France to side with the South.

But don’t take my word for it, let’s let Mr. Lincoln speak for himself:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps save the Union.”

Lincoln’s attitude toward blacks was very typical of Northern whites, and he sometimes appealed to this sentiment in his political speeches…. Originally, before using emancipation as a military strategy, Lincoln favored a gradual, slave-owner compensated emancipation of African slaves, but favored their removal to Central America, the Caribbean, or back to Africa. (Mike Scruggs. The Un-Civil War. Hendersonville, NC: The Tribune Papers, 2007. pp. 13, 44.)

Finally, with the aid of Generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, he waged a merciless assault on the Southern people—ravaging, burning, pillaging, and terrorizing their homes, their land, and their cities. As General Lee and the Confederate armies fought their battles against the Union armies and not the citizens of the North, Lincoln authorized and presided over a brutal, barbaric, total-war strategy against the South. After the North had defeated those states that lawfully seceded, the victors unlawfully passed the 13th Amendment to give credence this tyrannical, diabolical war of northern aggression. In his second inaugural address Lincoln, desperate to justify the slaughter that he caused, blamed God for this savagery saying it was God’s judgment on the nation for slavery.

I wonder then President Lincoln, shall we also blame God for the untimely deaths of all but one of your children and the madness of your wife, or was that too God’s judgment for slavery? And what about your own assassination? Shall we blame God for that too—no doubt because of slavery? As with so many others, Mr. Lincoln, when the Minister of Death (Hebrews 2:14; I Peter 5:8) is finished using his subjects, he disposes of them.

First Shot
Lincoln sought to frame the war as started by the South. The first shot taken upon Union defenses at Fort Sumter served as his proof. The truth is the South had attempted to peacefully resolve the matter of Fort Sumter, but Lincoln flatly refused all attempts. Instead he intentionally provoked war by invading Confederate territory.

…assuming the right of secession existed, the Union had no right to retaliate or initiate war against the Confederacy. Its subsequent invasion of Virginia then marks the beginning of its illegal war on the Confederacy. (Ostrowski, “Invasion.”)

Slavery
By 1860, the North and South had divided into two very different cultures. The population of the urban North, more than twice that of the rural South, manufactured industrial products and mined raw materials. By contrast, the agriculturally oriented South relied on revenue from producing crops. Slavery had become an essential part of the economy there and the slaves it owned a major asset. The growing population of the North had overwhelmed the ability of the South to combat government movement in a direction that increasingly advantaged the North and plundered the South. The election of Lincoln proved to be the last straw for the South as they rightly judged that he and his party would wreak havoc on their economy.

The slavery of the South viewed slaves as human but at the same time as valued property. The business considerations as well as religious and moral convictions motivated slave owners to nurture and protect this asset. The slave owner provided food, clothing, shelter, education, employment, medical care, and retirement for his slaves. In general, southern slaves enjoyed better living and working conditions than industrial workers of the North. Interviews of former slaves commissioned by FDR confirm this surprising fact. Those interviews attest to a generally paternal relationship of the southern master to slave and a generally friendly, and even family-like relationship between them—hence we still have icons like Aunt Jamima and Uncle Ben.

Biblical slavery regulations give further insight in to the likely tenor of southern slavery. The Bible prohibits the theft of a man to sell him (Exodus 21:16). It permits purchasing a Hebrew for a maximum of six years after which he must be set free (21:2). A thief who cannot afford to make restitution, will be sold (22:3). While a slave is considered property (21:21), a master who causes permanent injury to his slave must set that slave free as restitution (21:26–27). A master who kills a slave must also be punished (21:20).

The war was over slavery—but not the kind of slavery that you’re thinking. It was over the difference between tyranny of the majority over the rights and freedoms of the minority. When democracy degenerates into mob rule (as it invariably does), the minority will rise up to oppose injustice, as secession documents of the states and our own Declaration of Independence attest. Regrettably, the victors in this war were on the side of the slavery imposed with ever-increasing rigor to this day. You see, when the Civil War was lost by the South, so were the rights to freedom over an oppressive federal government that will execute its will upon its citizens (subjects/servants/slaves) at gunpoint.

…all the late and post War talk and modern propaganda about the War being a noble crusade to free the slaves and of Lincoln being the Great Emancipator is a shameless fraud.

Preserving the Union was the principal purpose stated by the North. That might be called noble; if forcing states to bear a subservient and exploited status in an unwanted and to them unprofitable Union by gunpoint can be called noble. The North had more than just territory in mind when preserving the Union. Loss of the Southern States would mean loss of most tax revenues, of which over 90% were from the tariff that so burdened the South.

The “Civil War” was not really a civil war. Two titles for the war are most appropriate. For the South it was the War for Southern Independence. For the North it was the War to Prevent Southern Independence. It was not a glorious crusade to free the slaves. (Scruggs, The Un-Civil War, 13)

But most importantly, the deliberate creation of a “mythology of a free New England” was a crucial event in the history of sectional conflict in America. The North, and New England in particular, sought to demonize the South through its institution of slavery; they did this in part by burying their own histories as slave-owners and slave-importers. The ending of Uncle Tom’s Cabin is an eloquent appeal for colonization. In the 1850s, colonization was urged by the governor of New York and the legislature of Connecticut. The concept was endorsed by the new Republican Party and was embraced by its first successful presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln. Even some black leaders came to see removal as the only alternative, however undesirable, to eternal repression, poverty, and mob violence in the North. (Harper, Douglas. “American Colonization Society.” SlaveNorth. 2003. Web. 31 October 2011.)

Liar
Propaganda of course, is a form of lie, but from whence cometh these lies? From beginning to end, the Bible clearly reveals the source. In the Garden of Eden we see Satan telling Eve, “Ye shall not surely die” (Genesis 3:4). At end of the Bible, we see the following characterization:

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world. (Revelation 12:9)

In last year’s letter we looked at Satan’s man, The Ultimate Counterfeit, who will soon rule the earth. He too will lie and deceive:

And then shall that Wicked be revealed, …whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, (II Thessalonians 2:8-9)

Of course we do not need to be possessed by Satan to reflect his evil. From his fall, man has carried the lethal infection of sin (Romans 5:12; Jeremiah 17:9). Even the self-righteous Hebrew religious leaders had this problem. Jesus told them:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)

It should be no surprise then that propaganda runs rampant in a place where Satan reigns as “the god of this world” (II Corinthians 4:4).

Truth
In contrast to Satan and fallen man, we know that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Romans 3:4; Hebrews 6:18). Unlike the propaganda of the world, the word of the Lord is pure (Psalm 12:6; 19:8; 119:140; Proverbs 30:5), true (Psalm 19:9), and sure (Psalm 19:7; II Peter 2:19).

Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1; Revelation 19:13). He is called Faithful and True (Revelation 19:11). He came to rid the world of lies and establish righteousness. In a world full of confusion and deceit, we celebrate the gift (II Corinthians 9:15) of Truth and Light (John 8:12) that God sent into the world (John 3:17) that blessed day two millennia ago.

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (I Peter 2:22-24)