So many myths surrounding the War of Northern Aggression have survived that it is impossible to dispel them all. However, we will focus on a few of the more egregious ones.

Myth #1 – By firing on Ft. Sumter the South started the War

Contrary to much of his military advice Lincoln sent U.S. Navy warships with 500 additional soldiers and much additional war-materiel to reinforce the garrison. That was clearly an act of war on Lincoln’s part. In light of Lincoln’s actions the South were left in a catch-22. If the South allowed a foreign country (the North) to supply a fort that was part of their sovereign territory they would be communicating to the world that they were not really a new country. If on the other hand they fired on the Star West they would be seen by the world to be the aggressor in the war. Being seen as the aggressor would make it more difficult to gain diplomatic recognition and foreign aid. Either action by the South would serve Lincoln’s purposes. Lincoln, then is the one who was responsible for first shot. In messages later sent to the Captain of the ship that was sent to relieve Sumter it is clearly communicated that Lincoln expected the Star West to be fired on. The sending of the Star West to Sumter was a manipulation on the part of Lincoln to force the South into firing the first shot.

The South, despite divided opinion in the confederate government, decided to fire on Sumter, so protecting her Sovereign territory. The Northern Newspapers picked up the story that the South had fired upon Sumter without telling the back story thus inflaming Northern public opinion and militaristic patriotism.

Myth #2 – The North was united in fighting war against the South

In reality Lincoln shut down many opposition Northern newspapers. In reality Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in order to deal with individuals who were against the war. In reality states like Indiana were so populated by copperheads (anti-war Northerners) that it was difficult at times for the civil government to sustain law and order. In reality Lincoln arrested and exported a Ohio Congressman who had spoke out against Lincoln’s war policy. Much of the unity for the war that was seen in the North was created by pursuing a policy that would put so much fear in citizens that they dare not speak up in opposition.

“The Lincoln Administration imprisoned at least 14,000 (Northern) civilians (some believe the numbers far higher) throughout the course of the war. … The federal government simultaneously monitored and censored both the mails and telegraphs. … It also suppressed newspapers. Over three hundred, including the Chicago Times, the New York World, and the Philadelphia Evening Journal, had to cease publication for varying periods.”

“Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men,”
Jeffrey Rogers Hummel

Myth #3 – Lincoln was a friend to the black man

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Abraham Lincoln – Campaigning for US Senate

Lincoln’s policy, consistent with Free soil party policy, was that the Western lands be kept for white people. That Lincoln believe this is seen in his desire to resettle the slave population to another country. Lincoln’s contempt for Black people was seen in his response to a question from Confederate VP Alexander Stephens in 1865 at the Hampden Roads Peace conference. Stephens asked what would become of the freedmen without property or education, and Lincoln sarcastically recited the words to a popular minstrel song, ‘root, hog or die.’”

Myth #4 – The cause of the war was slavery

While slavery certainly was an issue between North and South saying that slavery was the cause of the war for Southern Independence is like say that an ice cube was the cause for the sinking of the Titanic. Certainly an ice cube was part of the equation for the sinking the Titanic but there was a great deal more beneath the ice cube that accounted for the Titanic sinking. Similarly slavery is part of the equation as a cause of the war but a great deal more beneath slavery has to be considered as an account for the war.

Those other more substantial issues were as follows,

1) Disagreement over the nature of the union

2) Differences in economies

3) Differences over interpretation of the Constitution

4) Differences over the vision of the future of the country

5) Severe cultural and ideological differences

6) Disagreements over tariff issues

All of these are the iceberg under the ice cube.

Myth #5 – Lincoln rescued the country

Actually, Lincoln destroyed the country. These United State of America ceased to exist in 1861. In 1865 the country that came out of the war was a different country. We went into 1861 as a confederated constitutional Republic and we came out in 1865 as a centralized National Democracy.

“The idol is the measure of the worshiper.”

James Russell Lowell

“They that make idols are like unto them and so is everyone who trusts them.”

Psalm 115:8

With the preoccupation of the news cycle with Michael Jackson apparently large number of Americans continue to live vicariously through people who become embodiments for their individual and collective existence. A person, such as Jackson, becomes abstracted and reified by the image making media with the result that people find large measures of their identity in the identity of the celebrity idol. This would be bad enough if celebrity and hero were synonymous. They are not. The celebrity, unlike the hero who was known for his character, is known for being known. The celebrity has a skill but is launched into celebrity status for his signature personality or identifying habit. With Michael Jackson the identifying habit was his overall bizarreness. We love the celebrity – and this is the scary part when it comes to Michael Jackson – because in loving the celebrity we are loving ourselves because the celebrity is just us said loudly. Don’t fool yourself. This Jackson funeral isn’t so much an outpouring of love for Jackson as much as it is an outpouring of love for ourselves. In the love expressed in the mourning of the deceased Michael Jackson people are affirming how much they love themselves.

And what is it that people love about themselves that was embodied by Jackson? Could it be superficiality as exemplified by the lyrics of Jackson’s songs? Could it be the postmodern ability to remake ourselves in any image that was exemplified by Jackson’s surgical morphing? Could it be the ability to live beyond norms that was exemplified in Jackson’s life?

The whole funeral then becomes an exercise of self-congratulation and self-promotion. Michael Jackson was worthy of all this maudlin attention because we are worthy of all this maudlin attention. In the end it is all about cultural narcissism.

Next as we look at this funeral what we see is the American Pravda media pushing and much of America apparently swallowing is an abstracted and reified idol, who, in a normal culture, would be considered anything but a hero. Indeed, I have been wondering with the Michael Jackson death marathon if this is more about the media elite pushing a distorted lifestyle then it is about pushing Michael Jackson and his music. Consider that Michael Jackson in many respects is the perfect poster child for Cultural Marxism. He was not white. He was sexually dysfunctional. He had a non-traditional family. He was not Christian in any historic sense. Are not these descriptors the very thing for which the culturally Marxist elite are angling? So, Michael dies and suddenly cultural Marxism has the opportunity to glorify those very things that the cultural Marxist elites are trying to main stream. With the exalting of the twisted the overthrow of the normal is achieved.

I hope I won’t be misunderstood with this piece. This isn’t about whether or not someone liked or didn’t like Michael Jackson’s music. This is not about not having sympathy for a man obviously hurt and damaged by those things that marched through his life. This is about the meaning surrounding Jackson’s death as defined by the circus surrounding it.

It’s this easy: 1) When the State subsidizes something it gets more of it. The state is proposing effectively subsidizing health care consumers.

2) If the State taxes something it gets less of it. The state is proposing effectively taxing health care providers.

Right now we are on the edge of the State subsidizing health care. If this happens one can expect what happened in the realm of health care to happen in the realm of apartment rentals when renters are subsidized.

With rent controls the prices of apartments are artificially kept low by mandate of the state. This is effectually subsidizing those who rent. The result is fivefold. First, there is an increase in demand since people will always flock to that which is being given to them for a price that is far less than the value of that which they are receiving. Second, there is a decline in available rentals since new rentals are not built since the owners of potential rentals will not be able to recoup their cost of building the rental because of the rent controls. Third, the quality of rentals declines because those who do own rentals are disinclined to invest in repairing their rentals since they know that no amount of repair is going to increase what they can charge for their rental. Fourth, with an increase in demand and a decrease in availability, shortages soon follow as there are more people chasing rentals than there are rentals to be found. Fifthly, as a result of all this, rentals must be rationed by those who are in charge of the rental controls.

Look for the same phenomena to happen if the state implements health care controls. With health care controls the prices of health care will be kept artificially low by mandate of the state. This is effectively subsidizing those who access health care.

First, there will be an increase in demand for health care since people will always flock to that which is being given to them for a price that is far less than the value of that which they are receiving. Because people will not be spending their own money they will take every opportunity to access the subsidized health care.

Second, there will soon be a decline in available health care since potential providers of health care services will get out of or not go into the health care industry since they will not be able to recoup their cost of learning how to be a health care provider, since their earning potential will be effectively capped.

Third, the quality of health care will decline because those who do health care will be disinclined to invest in keeping current on new health care practices since they will know that no amount of advancement on the learning curve will increase what they can charge for their health care services.

Fourth, with an increase in demand and a decrease in availability, health care shortages soon will follow as there are more people chasing health care than there will be health care to be found. Health care controls will assure long waits for both necessary and elective surgery.

Fifthly, as a result of all this, health care must be rationed by those who are in charge of the health care controls. In a market economy health care is rationed by prices, but since prices can no longer do the work of rationing due to subsidies, some other entity will have to do the work of rationing. That entity will be the state. The state will dictate what health care can be accessed by the patient and what health care will not be accessed by the patient. For those sitting in the back of the class, this is called centralized planning.

Sixghly, a health care Black Market will arise. This Black Market will be the true market as non-Government interrupted supply and demand will dictate the prices and so provide the non-centralized rationing mechanism.

When the state enters into health care controls they are subsidizing the consumer (thus assuring more consumers) while at the same time effectively taxing the producer (health care providers) by means of demanding increased work for less reward.

Now, while what I’ve explained may take time to kick into gear, due to the state’s ability to create money, you’ve been told what’s likely to happen, so don’t come complaining to me when loved ones die because they couldn’t get the health care they needed because the state didn’t deem them worthy of the expense for what they needed.

The beginning of fixing our health care problems is to be found in:

1) Getting the government out of health care completely. Allowing the government to regulate health care because it is broke is like allowing the bull in the china shop to run the china shop because some of the china was found broken.

2) Reconnecting the consumer with the cost of their health care. As it stands now, the consumer, because their health care is considered a benefit that attends their employment, isn’t careful about how he spends his health care dollars since he sees no correlation between the cost of the health care and the damage that the cost does to his pocketbook. Health care savings accounts are an idea whose time is passed.

3) Tort reform. Much of the cost associated with health care is built into health care expense in order to cover insurance for malpractice that doctors must carry due to ambulance chasers looking to make a buck. A cap should be put on malpractice cases and those lawyers and clients who bring malpractice cases and lose should be required to split the attorney cost for the defense. But as lawyers inhabit Washington D.C. like demons inhabit hell, don’t look for this to happen.

“Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers.”

“One of the greatest strengths of the United States’ is that it does not consider itself ‘a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

President Barack Hussein Obama

On Independence Day 2009 I would like to explore whether or not we can say that we are a “Christian nation.” In order to do so I am going to examine the components we might expect to find in a Christian nation. I hope to show that when it comes to the issue of whether or not these united States are a Christian nation the conclusions suggest that we are a mixed bag.

Exploring the issue of whether or not a nation is a Christian country is a bit more complex then exploring the issue of whether or not a person is a Christian. If we were to look at a individual we would look to see if they were Baptized and if they were members in good standing with a credible profession of faith in a true Church. However one can’t baptize a nation and a nation can’t be a member of good standing in a true church.

Setting parameters require us to admit that a Christian nation is not nor ever has been a nation where all the citizens are genuine Christians, nor is a Christian nation one where every single public official is a genuine Christian. Just as in a Christian church there will be tares among the wheat so in a Christian nation there will be tares.

So what should we look for when asking whether or not a nation is Christian?

I would submit the first thing to look for is whether or not a nation (a people) is Christian is whether or not the nation’s founding public documents recognize the sovereignty of God. This idea of a people covenanting with God is found throughout Scripture. The whole book of Deuteronomy is a document where the nation covenant with God before entering into the promised land. Another example we find is in II Kings 23 where King Josiah, recognizing how Israel had violated covenant, renews covenant with God as part of Israel’s repentance.

This kind of thinking sounds strange to our ears today but we need to recognize that this idea of covenanting with God was not strange to early America. As early as the Mayflower compact stretching through the Royal colonial charters and embracing the early colonial constitutions we have documents that explicitly, in one form or another, recognize the rule of the God of the Bible.

Here are but a few examples, (more examples can be accessed easily through google.)

Delaware Oath For Public Office

“I, _________, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

NORTH CAROLINA, 1776:

ARTICLE 32. That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.”

“CONSTITUTION OF VERMONT – July 8, 1777

SECTION 9…And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.

“I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and Punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the Protestant religion.”

By means of these official public documents these were clearly constituted as Christian nations.

In stark contrast to these explicit colonial statements the constitution of these united States is a document were the elements of Biblical covenanting are completely absent.

1.) In the US constitution there is no directly conscious and meaningful mention of the sovereign authority of God. Instead what we find is that the sovereign authority is lodged in “We the people.” It is as if “We the people,” are serving as both parties in the covenant. “We the people,” are both the sovereign authority and those submitting to the sovereign authority.

2.) In the US constitution it is expressly said that, “No religious test shall ever be required for any office of public trust under these United States….” This statement is a poison pill against the idea of covenanting and so weighs heavily against the idea that, in a DeJure sense, these united State was constituted as a Christian nation.

In my estimation eliminating the need for a religious test itself became a kind of subversive humanist religious test as the deletion of a overtly religious test created and reinforced the mindset that man could operate autonomously apart from God.

3.) In the US constitution there is no reference to God’s law as the standard by which men would be ruled.

This stands in contrast to such governing documents such as “Abstract Of The Laws Of New England.” What we find in the constitution instead of laws anchored in Scripture is the statement, “This Constitution and the laws of the the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land…” As in the previous two examples it is as if some form of humanism is the reigning religion.

So, when we consider the US Constitution we must conclude that while it is a covenant document the covenant parties are “We the people,” with “We the people.” This is completely subjective and it is a form of humanism and such a document would hardly, in a Dejure sense, constitute a people as Christian.

This lack in the US constitution of acknowledging the Sovereignty of God and His Christ was not lost on people who lived during that time.

The attention of Washington was called to this omission. After he was inaugurated, in 1789, as the first President under the Constitution, the Presbytery Eastward, in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, sent a Christian address to Washington, in which they say, “We should not have been alone in rejoicing to have seen some explicit acknowledgment of the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He
has sent, inserted somewhere in the Magna Charta of our country.”

Now to be fair we must admit there are a couple incidental references to Christianity and the God of the Bible in the US Constitution.

1.) The US constitution was signed “In the year of our Lord.”

Now this isn’t insignificant when one considers that in the French revolution there was an attempt to create a completely new calendar. The fact that the Constitution recognizes God in this fashion is a small indicator that these were a Christian people.

2.) The Sabbath exception clause.

Some argue that as the constitution exempts the Lord’s Day in counting as a day to be included in the count of days before a President was required to sign legislation indicates that the constitution is a Christian document.

These two examples, in my estimation, prove only that the context in which the constitution was written and signed was Christian. It doesn’t prove, in a Dejure sense, that our covenant document is Christian or that we were established as a Christian nation.

Now, having conceded that we must realize that the nation and government that was formed by the constitution was a government that was extraordinarily restricted. The issues of social order, and religious identity were to be left to the new states – which is why the Federal government was not allowed to establish a religion. Questions of religious supremacy were to be handled by the individual states.

Still, in retrospect it must be said that the US constitution made an egregious error by not explicitly invoking the sovereignty of God. So when we consider the Dejure aspect of whether or not we were established as a Christian nation we would have to say that looking at our founding document does not give us a great deal of hope on the issue.

We have been emphasizing the Dejure sense as it concerns our being founded as a Christian nation. Now, I want to change gears to the Defacto sense of the issue. Dejure is a Latin phrase that means “concerning law”, as contrasted with de facto, which means “concerning fact”.

I am convinced that while the Dejure sense of our being founded as a Christian nation is in doubt there can be no doubt that in a defacto sense that we have been for most of our existence a Christian nation.

The evidence for this is overwhelming and as been exhaustively and thoroughly documented in Robert Morris’ “The Christian Life and Character Of The Civil Institutions Of The United States.” Also one should access Christianity & The Constitution,” by Eidsmoe.

Here are but a few examples,

“The people of the colonies … are, therefore, not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas and on English principles. Their governments are popular in a high degree. If any thing were wanting to this necessary operation of the form of government, Religion would have given it a complete effect. Religion—always a principle of energy in this new people—is no way worn out or impaired; and their mode of professing is also one main cause of this free spirit. The people are Protestants, and of that kind which is most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion. This is a persuasion, sir, not only favorable to liberty, but built upon it. The dissenting interests have sprung up in direct opposition to all the ordinary powers of the world, and could justify that opposition only on a strong claim to natural liberty. All Protestantism, even the most cold and passive, is a sort of dissent. But the religion most prevalent in our Northern colonies is a refinement on the spirit of the principle of resistance: it is the dissidence of dissent, and the protestantism of the Protestant religion. This religion, under a variety of denominations, agreeing in nothing but in the communion of the spirit of liberty, is predominant in most of the Northern Provinces. The colonists left England when this spirit was high, and in the migrants was highest of all; and even the stream of foreigners which has been constantly flowing into these colonies has, for the greater part, been composed of dissenters of their own countries, and have brought with them a temper and a character far from alien to that of the people with whom they mixed. A fierce spirit of liberty has grown up; it has grown up with the growth of your people, and increased with the increase of their population and wealth—a spirit that, unhappily, meeting with an excess of power in England, which, however lawful, is not reconcilable to any idea of liberty, much less with theirs, has
kindled this flame which is ready to consume us.”

Edmund Burke
Speech in British Parliament

Congress, the day before Washington was inaugurated, passed the following—

Resolved, That, after the oath shall be administered to the President, the Vice-President, and members of the Senate, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, will accompany him to St. Paul’s Chapel, to hear divine service performed by the Chaplains.

The first session of the first Congress was not suffered to pass without a solemn act of legislation recognizing the Christian religion. It was a national thanksgiving, proclaimed by the authority of Congress.

The Journals of Congress present the following record.

Sept. 25, 1789

Day of Thanksgiving

Mr. Boudinot said he could not think of letting the session pass without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them. With this view he would move the following resolution—

Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.

Mr. Sherman justified the practice of thanksgiving on any signal event, not only as a laudable one in itself, but as warranted by precedents in Holy Writ: for instance, the solemn thanksgiving
and rejoicing which took place in the time of Solomon after the building of the temple was a case in point. This example he thought worthy of imitation on the present occasion.

Countless more examples of this kind of thing can be found at,

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=23909

All of this data indicates that there can be no doubt that in a defacto sense these united State were a Christian nation.

“With the doctrine of predestination, Christians were dramatically freed from dependence on church and state. Predestination freed man from the custodial care of institutions. His determination and salvation came from God, not church or state. It is not an accident but an inescapable fact that the decline of the doctrine of predestination had led to statism and to power-hungry churches…. If the doctrine of predestination is weakened, then church and state are exalted and their powers enhanced.”

R. J. Rushdoony
The Great Christian Revolution

“Every consistent teaching of predestined grace inevitably implies a radical and ultimate devaluation of all magical, sacramental, and institutional distribution of grace, in view of God’s sovereign will.”

Max Weber
The Sociology Of Religion

A squat grey building of only thirty-four stories. Over the main entrance the words, Central London Hatchery And Conditioning Centre, and in a shield, the World State’s motto, Community, Identity, Stability…. “We also predestine and condition. We decant our babies as socialized human beings, as Alphas or Epsilons, as future sewage workers or future …” He was going to say “future World Controllers” but correcting himself, said “future Directors of Hatcheries,” instead.

Aldous Huxley
Brave New World

Predestination, in Biblical understanding, is the doctrine by which we confess God’s exhaustive sovereignty that extends from eternity past in the decrees of God to eternity future as seen in the fulfillment of all that God ordained.

What we learn from these quotes is that Predestination is an inescapable category. The question is never whether or not predestination is true but rather the question is what or which predestination we will be predestined with and by. Either we will acknowledge and bow to a supernatural predestination or, denying that we will be governed and controlled by a naturalistic predestination – a governance and control that God predestined for the disobedient who seek to cast Him from their thinking.

Should we deny God’s predestination and function as if it is not true we will not suddenly discover the libertarian freedom that so many assure us will be the result of denying God’s predestination but rather we will find our wills bound, as God predestined, by the predestination of some false idol seeking to ascend to the seat of God.

The reality that naturalistic predestination is a reality in America can be seen in the increase of Statism as the Federal Government seeks to predestine the lives of the citizenry. Wherever we find an dramatic increase in centralized planning there we find a state that is seeking to take on the prerogative of predestination.

Wherever we find the State implementing school to work programs that have as their intent channeling individuals to precise places in the work force there we find an example of naturalistic predestination. The language of the “school to work” legislation reveals that the State is embracing the role of predestinators of the future careers of individual students. As B. K. Eakman notes, “The underlying assumption (of School to Work) appears to be that it is not cost effective to have mere individuals making choices about their own lives, that they must be regimented and controlled for their own good and for the good of society.”

Examples could be multiplied but we must understand the connection between abandoning the truth of supernaturalistic predestination and the rise of naturalistic predestination. Predestination is an inescapable reality that never goes away. One significant implication of this is that when people deny God’s supernatural predestination they do not escape the fact that their wills are conditioned by the will of some other naturalistic predestinating source. Another significant implication of this is that just as God predestines to the end of advancing His Kingdom so naturalistic predestinators predestine to the end of building up their respective Kingdoms. Ironically naturalistic predestination always serves God supernatural predestination.

What we see here then is that whenever man seeks to overthrow God’s predestination so that he may experience full libertarian freedom what happens is that his freedom is constrained by naturalistic predestinating agents.

All of this teaches us that if we are a people who desire political and economic freedom we must be a people who embrace the Biblical teaching of God’s predestination for when the Church loses the high notion of predestination the consequence is the reduction and constraint of individual freedoms in the societal realm.

Finally we should learn from this that proper Biblical notions of predestination do not make men careless, languid or lazy but rather makes them active, vigorous and striving since a proper understanding of predestination means that the Christian understands that if he isn’t, in obedience, actively about ordering the world according to God’s revealed law-word he will instead be himself ordered according to the naturalistic predestined will of the state or some other institution. Predestination then, properly taught, energizes and enlivens God’s people.