Tags: Abraham Lincoln, Civil War,
Union, Confederacy, Slavery, the Founders, modernist, modernism, Christian heritage,
Richard Hofstadter, John Adams, James Madison, Newtonian, Isaac Newton, Defense of the
Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, The Constitution, Herndon,
Missouri Compromise, Unitarian anti slavery, Christian abolitionists, abolition movement,
Kansas-Nebraska Act, Lincoln Douglas Debates, John Breckinridge, slavery, Republican
Party, Professor Charles W. Ramsdell, C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Setting
the Record Straight
Just because the Founders chose to
create a republic rather than a pure democracy does not mean they were
"anti-democratic. It simply means that they were wise men who understood the world
through the lens of Scripture. Even the modernist must admit that the distrust of man,
that caused the founding fathers to form the government in the manner that it now exists,
emanated from a Biblical foundation. It is in the Scripture that we find that man is a
sinner.
"Whether the Fathers looked to the
cynically illuminated intellectuals of contemporary Europe or to their own Christian
heritage of the idea of original sin," Hofstadter admitted, "they found quick
confirmation of the notion that man is an unregenerate individual who has to be
controlled. . . . Men had found a rational order in the universe and they hoped that it
could be transferred to politics, or, as John Adams put it, that governments could be
'erected on the simple principles of nature.'
"Madison spoke in the most precise
Newtonian language when he said that such a 'natural' government must be constructed 'that
its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each
other in their proper places.'"
And who is the author of all nature upon
which these men fashioned their government? The devout Christian and physicist, Isaac
Newton (whose ideas Madison alluded to) could tell you Who he observed as he studied the
universe. He was looking into the eyes of the originator of all creation. . . the God of
the Bible!
So (deriving their thought from the
notion that man is innately a sinner) a system of constitutional government was formed in
a manner that various sources of interest would check each other. A federated government
was developed to confront the evils that would develop within of a state that was ruled
according to the democratic whims of sinners.
If a single state faction sought to rise
up and take the situation by force, the totality of the states, bound in a federation by a
constitution could stop it through the power of a central government. So, the
constitutional government was formed filled with a system of checks and balances, and a
representative form of government that in itself was a check against the iniquity that
could come about if the people were merely left to rule themselves if given a pure
democracy.
The founders of the Constitution have
left us with the three branches of government that are carefully placed as to balance one
another out lest any become dominant. John Adams in his Defense of the Constitutions of
Government of the United States of America stated his beliefs as paraphrased by
Hofstadter, "The aristocracy and the democracy must be made to neutralize each other.
Each element should be given its own house of legislature, and over both houses there
should be set a capable, strong and impartial executive armed with the veto power. This
split assembly would contain within itself an organic check and would be capable of
self-control under the governance of the executive. The whole system was to be capped by
an independent judiciary."
The
So-Called Lincoln Legend
But the modernist is no longer content
to accept the underlying Christian-based beliefs upon which these men authored our
Constitution. Hofstadter concluded, "No man who is as well abreast of modern science
as the fathers were of eighteenth-century science believes any longer in unchanging
nature. Modern humanistic thinkers who seek for a means by which society may transcend
eternal conflict and rigid adherence to property rights as its integrating principles, can
expect no answer in the philosophy of balanced government as it was set down by the
Constitution-makers of 1787."
The message that is being taught here is
clear. We are an advanced society, far too sophisticated and enlightened by science to
accept the passé philosophies embraced by the founders of the Constitution. We have
advanced beyond those old notions of power according to property and man's inert sinful
nature. Didn't you know? Man is not a sinner. Rather he is noble! We need to look at
government in a new way. God forbid where it is going to take us.
In the same revisionist vein, Lincoln,
according to the liberal teacher, was primarily motivated by success. So we proceed with
the argument that this self-made man image that Lincoln made up, reeks with pride and
selfish ambition that "is closely akin with the cardinal Christian sin of pride. .
.How can an earnest man, a public figure living in a time of crisis, gratify his
aspirations and yet remain morally whole? If he is, like Lincoln, a man of private
religious intensity, the stage is set for high tragedy."
So Lincoln was a pitiful hypocrite! He
professed Christianity, but lived according to another standard. "Oh no," they
say, "Christianity is not what has made our country strong, but rather it is the
perpetrator of sorrow and anxiety."
Lincoln was stimulated by far less than
Christian virtue, Hofstadter's story progressed. In fact, "like his father, Lincoln
was physically lazy even as a youth. . .When only fifteen he was often on stumps and
fences making political speeches, from which his father had to haul him back to his
chores."
Now according to this historian, in Illinois,
if you didn't want to work for a living but you were intelligent; you could either go into
the ministry, law, or politics. So, law and politics it proved to be, the latter being the
central driving force in Lincoln's life. Lincoln's associate, Herndon wrote after his
death, "Politics were his life, newspapers his food, and his great ambition his
motive power."
So where are we headed with this
dissertation? Well, it appears that the ideas Lincoln professed to his country were not
his at all. He was no more than a politician who was looking for votes so that he might
become venerated. He was a self-seeking individual on a self-fulfilling quest that had
nothing to do with Christianity and the freeing of the slaves. These two issues were
nothing more than incidental in his plan for power and prestige; and he only professed his
loyalty to those causes to the extent that benefited him.
Oh yes, Lincoln spoke out against
slavery, Hofstadter's argument progressed, but only when the stance was popular and would
afford him political gain. "With all his quiet passion Lincoln had sought to rise in
life, to make something of himself through his own honest efforts. It was this typically
American impulse that dominated him through the long course of his career before he became
interested in the slavery question. It was his understanding of this impulse that guided
his political thought."
As the deception proceeds to advance, it
was "revealed" that Lincoln associated with the Whig party in the early part of
his political career -- not as a matter of conscious but rather opportunity. The party
promoted much needed programs such as of internal improvements, stable currency, and
conservative banking. So Lincoln, the so-called opportunist jumped on the party bandwagon
that was filled with the most affluent and imposing men America was producing at the time.
"Lincoln," contended Hofstadter, "belonged to a party of rank and
privilege; it exacted a price from him."
Though the author conceded that Lincoln
suffered hardship in his youth, Hofstadter nonetheless insisted that success came to him
at the very early age as he became the leader of his party in the Illinois House of
Representatives. "No man ever had an easier time of it in his early days than Lincoln,"
wrote Herndon of Lincoln's first years in Springfield that became his home. "He
had...influential and financial friends to help him; they almost fought each other for the
privilege of assisting Lincoln. . .Lincoln was a pet. . .He deserved it."
Let's not mention Lincoln's years in
Salem as a postmaster, the ferryman ventures down the river, the hours spent in store
keeping and splitting rails, the flopped business venture, the years in practicing law as
he traveled throughout the state doing business as a lawyer, and the fact that he lost his
fill of elections. Instead we will claim that he was a pampered politician. Let us assert
that the cost of his political associations was personal compromise.
Lincoln did marry into the aristocratic
family of Ninian Edwards. So, according to the liberal historian, when he spoke against
slavery it must have been done because it was vogue to do so. For example, after a rather
obscure stay in the Senate, it appeared as if his political career was over. But the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise in 1854, that created division within both the
Democratic and Whig parties, generated a situation that Lincoln could use to his benefit. Lincoln
used the slavery issue in that instance to revive his own party.
There was no moral integrity behind his
feelings towards the black man the author insists. Rather it is asserted, "It was
during this period that he learned the deliberate and responsible opportunism that was so
later characteristic of his statecraft. . .His keen onslaughts against slavery, in fact,
carry the conviction of a man of far greater moral force than the Presidential Lincoln
ever revealed in action."
These are strong judgments ascending on
a President who explained to a pair of Unitarian antislavery clergymen, "We shall
need all the anti-slavery feeling in the country and more; you can go home and try to
bring the people to your views; and you may say anything you like about me. Don't spare
me!" Herndon recalled Abe saying with a laugh.
Then gravely Lincoln spoke to the group
of Christian abolitionists, "When the hour comes for dealing with slavery, I trust I
will be willing to do my duty though it cost my life. And gentlemen, lives will be
lost." These words sound like action words to me, especially in the light that Lincoln
did in fact lose his life over the issue of slavery.
A big to do was made about the fact that
Lincoln authorized the concept of revolution in the name of freedom saying, "Any
portion of such people that can may revolutionalize and make their own territory as they
inhabit." On the other hand, he condemned the abolitionists who fought slavery in an
unconstitutional fashion, and suppressed the secession of the South "and refused to
acknowledge that the right of revolution belonged to the South." The intellectual
Hofstadter continued, "The contradiction is not peculiar to Lincoln; Anglo-Saxon
history is full of it."
Now you have it! The true target of the
"scholar" has been revealed. Western history, and particularly that of English
origin, is filled hypocrisy that leaves it illegitimate and unworthy of respect. And what
institution stands as the foundation of Western civilization? You got it; the Church. The
implications are clear.
Likewise so are the ramifications that
come from the next assertion that contended that for Lincoln, the abolition of slavery was
no more than an economic issue. Feeling that the true test of democracy was in its ability
to provide opportunities for financial, social and political ascent, Lincoln was
pro-labor.
"I like the system which lets a man
quit when he wants to," Lincoln suggested, "and wish it might prevail
everywhere. One of the reasons I am opposed to slavery is just here. What is the condition
of the laborer?"
Obviously, in slavery, there is no
chance for upward mobility. Yet observe that Lincoln insisted that this is only one of the
reasons for his resistance to the institution. Does the fact that Lincoln recognized that
slavery was un-democratic mean that there were not moral issues in his mind as well?
Apparently, not in the revisionist's
mind, for the declaration of Hofstadter persisted in asserting, "Always privately
compassionate, in his public career and his legal practice he never made himself the
advocate of unpopular reform movements."
This statement was backed by the
assertion that it was only after the Kansas-Nebraska Act (that declared that the
territories Kansas and Nebraska could make up their own minds on whether or not they
wanted to adopt slavery) breathed life into the slavery issue that he began to attack it
openly. Whether or not slavery would be extended to the territories during that period was
a hot issue; one that Lincoln jumped right on, according to the liberal historian.
So at the age of 45 for the first time
in his life, Lincoln denounced slavery in public. But again it was affirmed that his
efforts were a broad political move to arrive at a platform that would appeal to a country
divided over the issue. It would be something that would gain the attention of both the
radical abolitionists, and then the "Negrophobes" in the North who detested the
idea of living next to the blacks and competing with their labor potential.
Therefore when Lincoln said, "If
free Negroes should be made things, how long, think you, before they will begin to make
things out of poor white men," Lincoln was addressing an economic issue rather than a
moral one.
"Lincoln took the slavery issue out
of the realm of the moral and legal dispute and, by dramatizing it in terms of free
labor's interest, gave it a universal appeal," said Hofstadter. "To please the
abolitionists he kept saying that slavery was an evil thing; but for the benefit of all
Northern white men he opposed its further extension."
He was supposedly no more than a
politician looking for votes. Therefore, as he campaigned for a seat in the Senate,
Douglas, his opponent, brought up to Lincoln the inconsistencies of his stance. Statements
made during his campaigning had left Lincoln looking as a political chameleon.
Way up north in Chicago on July 10,
1858, Lincoln declared, "Let's discard all this quibbling about this man and the
other man, this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they
must be placed in an inferior position. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one
people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are
created equal."
Yet when in the deep South in Charleston
on September 18, 1858, Lincoln apparently contradicted himself by proclaiming, "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: and I am not, nor ever
have been, in favor of making voters and jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold
office, nor to intermarry with white people. . .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 am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Let's not make mention of the fact that
it was during his campaign against Douglas that Lincoln became universally known as an
opponent to slavery as a result of his famous debates with Douglas over the issue. Let's
not give credence to the fact that he lost that election, because his stance on slavery
was apparently not the most popular position to take in his district. (It appears in that
instance Lincoln's stance on slavery was not "politically correct at all.")
Let's not take into consideration that
he was talking to a deeply divided country on the brink of revolution. It was a country so
distraught with itself that during the 1860 Democratic national convention, delegates from
the South walked out after a furious and bitter battle that saw Douglas nominated as their
candidate. As they designated their own aspirant for President, John Breckinridge, Stephen
of Georgia replied to the question of what he thought about it all, "Why, that men
will be cutting one another's throats in a little while. In less that twelve months we
shall be at war, and that the bloodiest in history."
Let's not consider that Lincoln was
elected President after a campaign in which the Republican Party (so concerned about their
candidate's views on slavery and the matter of succession) did not even allow Lincoln to
speak publicly. Nonetheless, upon his successful election the Southern States began to
systematically succeed from the Union as they testified, "The South will never submit
to such humiliation and degradation as the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln."
Let's not give proper acknowledgment to
the fact that consistently through his brilliant political career, Lincoln made no bones
about the fact that his primary agenda was to keep the Union together. The armchair
historian continues to criticize the priority that put the Union first.
"Lincoln may have become involved
in a gross inconsistency over slavery and the Negro," the self-proclaimed judge of
history alleged, "but this was incidental to his main concern. Never much troubled
about the Negro, he had always been most deeply interested in the fate of free
republicanism . . ."
This resolve on Lincoln's part may have
produced some early inconsistencies in his stance on the slavery issue, as he attempted to
meld the two concepts of Union and slavery together into a unified whole that would leave
the nation intact. The fact is, Lincoln understood, apparently in a way that the modernist
doesn't, that the Civil War was the test of whether or not Democracy would endure in America.
If any state were to be allowed to succeed, then the whole would fail and Democracy in America
would ultimately be destroyed.
The intellectual may desire to devaluate
and ridicule Lincoln's preference, but the fact is that without the nation intact, there
would have been little value in freeing the slaves and granting them equal rights. If
liberty itself has been eradicated through division, then who can be liberated? If the
South were allowed to leave the Union, then how could Lincoln have freed the slaves? If
the modernist was to be really honest with history, he would concede that Lincoln was
right!
How can you argue with the one who held
our country together in a time when the future of democracy itself was on the line? Yet in
his resolve to undermine the person of Lincoln, the modern historian refused to admit who Lincoln
really was. And this denial was accomplished in spite of the fact that the benefit of Lincoln's
work of restoring the Union and emancipating the slaves still lives with us today. It
would seem to be prudent to give Lincoln the benefit of the doubt based on his
indisputable record of courage and determination during the Civil War. Give credit where
credit is due.
Instead, the Hofstadter stated, "It
is not easy to decide whether the true Lincoln is the one who spoke in Chicago or the one
who spoke in Charleston. Possibly the man devoutly believed each of the utterances at the
time he delivered it; possibly his mind too was a house divided against itself. (This was
in reference to the famous House Divided speech Lincoln delivered at the Republican
National convention on June 16, 1858 where he declared, 'A house divided against itself
cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half
free.') In any case it is easy to see in all, the behavior of a professional politician
looking for votes."
Through
His Own Paradigm
A person will always view events
according to his own paradigm. You tend to ascertain occurrences within the light of your
own self. The thing that is easiest to see is that the modernist is looking at the past
through his own eyes. These are eyes that are corrupted by sin and rebellion.
So, the cerebral mass of arrogance
extended his argument to demand that Lincoln attempted to wage war while maintaining the
status quo; which was leaving slavery in the South intact. Being a man who according to Douglas
was "preeminently a man of the atmosphere that surrounds him," Lincoln, in the
estimation of Hofstadter, did not get on the anti-slavery bandwagon during the war until
the Radical abolitionists gained strength. It was then that he made a "brilliant
strategic retreat toward a policy of freedom. . . Plainly Lincoln was, as always, thinking
primarily of the free white worker: the Negro was secondary." Why else would of he
offered the idea of enticing the emancipated Negroes to consider colonizing New Granada in
Central America; a land rich in coal mines, farm land, harbors, and other advantages?
Remember though, that the Civil War
occurred during a time when the colonization of the first 13 states was not as distant as
it is now. Colonization is how our country began, you might remember. I find it difficult
to see how it is anything other than inconsistent to attach a negative connotation an idea
that gave us our freedom to begin with.
In addition, America during the Civil
war was still in the process of a Western expansion. Supplanting oneself into an
unexplored environment was a concept that was not as foreign to the American mind as it is
today. This is something that Lincoln had grown up in, as his father continued to pull up
stakes into new territories during his childhood.
With that in mind, we don't have to go
to the "informed" historian to understand why Lincoln suggested the plan. He
explained it himself to the first committee of free Negroes whom he had invited to the
White House on August 14, 1862, to convey the plan. "Your race suffers very greatly,
many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. . . Your race
suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you
cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the
white people."
As it was, the blacks showed very little
interest in the plan that, by the way, was suggested by Lincoln only as an opportunity --
and that exclusively by consent.
In spite of one's personal opinion
regarding Lincoln's proposed solution to the slavery problem, it is undeniable that his
observation on the condition of the black in America was exactly correct. Those in our
society today, who would with the most enthusiasm condemn Lincoln for his suggestion of
black colonization, are the ones who pronounce with the greatest adamancy that the black
still doesn't have equality in America. And when they complain about it they are only
mirroring Lincoln's words. Understanding Lincoln's reasons for his opinion is to have a
cognizance that it was out of compassion rather than prejudice.
Though the new tutors of history resolve
that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation only out of military necessity, and only
after all his other policies had failed, Lincoln himself confided after endorsing it,
"I never, in my life, felt more certain I was doing right, than I do signing this
paper." Previously, all the official documents the President had signed only
displayed the initial "A" to indicate his first name. Now he boldly wrote in
full, "Abraham Lincoln" -- as if to certify that he had a personal interest in
the plight of the black.
Oh yes, the liberal historian is correct
when he tells you that this document in reality didn't free any slaves. It neglected to
include the slaves in the Border States that had remained faithful to the Union cause,
though they still practiced slavery - but only freeing the slaves in the South in which it
had no apparent effect.
What they fail to mention though is that
just three months prior, Lincoln had offered an earlier Preliminary Emancipation
Proclamation that actually directed its attention to freeing the slaves in the Border
States through the process of buying them in order to subsequently free them. Likewise, he
had already signed an act ending slavery in the District of Columbia. Regardless of the
actual effect of the Emancipation Proclamation at the time it was signed, none can argue
that it was a historic document: one that was a crucial steppingstone in the emancipation
of the slaves: one that bore the full name of Abraham Lincoln.
The famous document concluded, "And
upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution,
upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious
favor of Almighty God." And has the liberal historian afforded Lincoln the
"considerate judgment" he solicited? I think the answer is evident.
No doubt each individual evaluates
others in the light of his own prejudices and pre-suppositions. The posture of the
progressive teachers towards Western and American history comes from a desire to live
their lives as they see fit without accountability to absolute ordinances established by
God. They want to divorce themselves from Christianity, and the only way to do it is to
alienate themselves from the truth history as generated by the Christian faith.
Adhering to moral standards is something
they wish to avoid. Can they be trusted to make ethical judgments on history?
You can either take a man for his word,
or you can't. When the intellectual reads the accounts and testimonies of those who lived
with Lincoln, they cannot find evidence to suggest that his contemporaries felt that Lincoln
was a man who said one thing and believed another. They resound in concurrence that Lincoln
was a man of character and integrity.
The bulk of the evidence asserts that Lincoln's
word could be trusted: it pronounces that Lincoln was a man of impeccable moral stature in
his life. Honesty is a virtue that he held to be of the utmost value, and everyone who
knew him attested of his adhesion to that principle.
Lincoln himself attested that he signed
his name to that historic document for reasons far more profound than just "military
necessity." He asserted the abolishment of slavery was Constitutional and just, a
theme that he pronounced more than once during his political career.
The contemporary historian on the other
hand, would want you to believe his motives were no more than those of a self-serving
politician who freed the slaves only for the benefit of the whites. Who do you believe?
Those of us, who have embraced God's
word in our lives as the only truth of God, are familiar with arguments that attempt to
undermine the virtue of another person. Liberal theologians use the liberal line of
reasoning utilized by the modern historian to frustrate the integrity of the Word by
"bringing up" supposed discrepancies they contend cannot be explained in any
manner other than realizing that the Bible is filled with mistakes -- because in their
mind it was penned by mortal men. In the same manner as Satan as he tempted Jesus in the
wilderness, they elicit half-truths, pulled out of context, to deceive the uninformed.
And this is how they deal with anyone
who has been sent to them with a message they don't want to hear (particularly when the
theme of the memorandum condemns the way they live their life). They attack the messenger
himself rather than listening to message. They bring question to the messenger's
credibility, hoping that if they can deface the person they can rid themselves of the
guilt. But the message of Lincoln rings out clearly in the works that he performed. They
were accomplishments that had their base in the sovereign God who created all things.
A
Heartbreaking Ending?
Did you know that Abraham Lincoln
actually started the Civil War? At least that's how the story goes according to the
contemporary historians. It seems that when the Confederates made the first move by
attacking fort Sumter it was because they were forced into the position by Lincoln.
The fort, occupied by Union troops, was
placed at the mouth of Charleston harbor, deep in Southern territory. For the South to
allow the continued Union occupation of the fortress was certainly incompatible with the
notion of secession. On the other hand, to evacuate the position would be a concession on
the part of Lincoln who believed the secession was illegal to begin with. The two sides
were at a stalemate, except for the fact that the Union fort was running out of supplies.
So, Lincoln came up with a bold strategy
that would put the ball in the Confederate court. If Lincoln could create a situation that
would force the South to strike first, he could justify to the Northern people the use of
force. With this in mind, so the story goes, Lincoln sent a humanitarian relief expedition
to the fort. It looked innocent enough but presented a tremendous threat to the South. The
South had to use force to stop the effort, for if indefinite occupation by Union forces
was acknowledged by their silence it would, according to Hofstadter, "weaken the
Confederate cause at home and sap its prestige abroad, where diplomatic recognition was so
precious."
So let's devaluate the man since he was
a good chess player! The fact that Lincoln was so cautious in the way he handled the
situation at Fort Sumter illustrates how politically "incorrect" Lincoln's
stance was. The idea of Civil War was an unpopular cause in the North. They needed a
reason to fight.
It was not easy to convince people that
they needed to go to war for the preservation of democracy. It would have been even more
difficult to rally them to free the slaves. How does this fit in with the declaration that
Lincoln did not associate with unpopular causes?
The South seceded from the Union upon
hearing that this one who had spoken out against slavery was elected. Lincoln's life was
in constant danger of assassination from the moment he took office. If his objective was
popularity, he certainly wasn't very good at attaining it!
The words coming from Lincoln that
confess, "I claim not to have controlled events but plainly that events have
controlled me," when understood in the context of the turmoil and hatred of the time
that threatened to terminate America's government, sound like the words of a man who did
the best that he could do in the calamitous situation he was handed.
Professor Charles W. Ramsdell
nonetheless, has suggested that as he began to see the cost of lives of the venture
(618,000 lives were lost in the Civil War on both sides), Lincoln was filled with guilt as
a result of his own part in whipping up the crisis. Therefore, it was in desperation that
he issued pardons and desired to extend his hand in charity and benevolence to the
conquered South. It was remorse over his iniquity that weighed so heavy on him as
President, causing his face to show the age of a hundred years after just four years in
the Executive office. So Lincoln said to Noah Brooks upon the suggestion that he rest,
"I suppose it is good for the body. But the tired part of me is out of reach."
And so the academic thinker concluded,
"For a man of sensitivity and compassion to exercise great powers in a time of crisis
is a grim and agonizing thing. Instead of glory, he once said, he had found only 'ashes
and blood.'. . . He had his ambitions and fulfilled them, and met heartache in his
triumph."
This is a pretty sad ending to the story
of a man who has historically been viewed as the most dynamic hero of our nation. For
those of us who stand for righteousness, the devaluation of our nation's founders appears
to be the foremost affront on our contention that our nation should return to obedience to
the precepts of the Bible.
How does it make you feel? Do you want
to stand up and say, "Oh yea!" Would you like to beat someone over the head, or
what ever it would take to silence those who seek to draw our culture into immorality and
the oblivion that can only result from it?
The non-truths that pervade in our
educational system today are the genesis of attitudes such as these towards our
forefathers. It is time that we as believers speak out the truth in the midst of this
gross distortion.
However, this cannot be accomplished
until we discover the truth itself. What is the reality of our Christian heritage? Is our
Christian background no more than a myth? Is it in actuality the God of the Bible who has
provided the glue that has held America together? Or was our country really founded upon
the same paganism that predominates in our society today?
C. S. Lewis commented in Mere
Christianity, ". . . I think if you look at the present state of the world, it is
pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And
if that is so, we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on."
Enough of the modern folk lore myths
proposed by the intellectuals! Let's go back in time to discover the true story of the man
Abraham Lincoln, and his lifelong search for the Lord. You see, the answers to these
questions are not to be found in the liberal's pen, but in a modest one-room log cabin
perched deep in the frontier of our 19th century western expansion.
About the Author
Click Here to purchase the E-book edition for only 99 cents!
 
Blog Index
 
WIGTUNE HOME
About the Author
Don Wigton
is a graduate of the prestigious music department at CSULB where he studied under Frank
Pooler, lyricist of Merry Christmas Darling, and sang in Pooler’s world renown
University Choir alongside Karen and Richard Carpenter. During this time Don was also the
lead composer of the band, Clovis Putney, that won the celebrated Hollywood Battle of the
Bands. After giving his life to God, Don began attending Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa to
study under some of the most prominent early Maranatha! musicians. Subsequently he toured
the Western United States with Jedidiah in association with Myrrh Records.
Eventually
Don served as a pastor at Calvary Chapel Bakersfield to witness thousands of salvations
through that ministry. As the music/concert director, Don worked for seven years with most
major Christian artist of that time while producing evangelical concerts attended by
thousands of young people seeking after God. Don’s Calvary Chapel Praise Choir
released the album Let All Who Hath Breath Praise the Lord on the Maranatha! label.
The next
years of Don’s life were spent as the praise leader of First Baptist Church in Bakersfield
during a time of unprecedented church renewal. Don teamed with the leadership to
successfully meld the old with the new through a period of tremendous church growth.
During this exciting time, Don’s praise team, Selah, produced the CD Stop and
Think About It.
Today Don is
the leading force behind Wigtune Company. This
webbased project located at www.praisesong.net has provided several million downloads of
Don’s music and hymn arrangements to tens of thousands of Christian organizations
throughout the world. More music can be found at Don's Southern
Cross Band website at www.socrossband.com.
The book Holy
Wars represents Don’s most recent effort to bless the church with biblical
instruction and direction in praise and worship. This heartfelt volume is an offering not
only to God’s people, but also to God Himself.
Connect With Don Online
Facebook - Southern Cross
Band
Facebook - Wigtune Company
Wigtune Blog
Smashwords |
was formed as a service to the body of Christ to encourage scriptural
worship. To accomplish this goal Wigtune Company offers free contemporary Christian praise
and worship music, contemporary Christian rock and hymn mp3 and chart material along with
a free on-line worship study book for personal devotions, Bible study groups, Sunday
schools, pastors, music ministers and ministry training. In order to bridge the gap
between the old and the new the worship study book gives solid theological and
historical support to the use of traditional Christian hymn-singing in conjunction with
praise chorus singing. 
Vision Statement 
Wigtune Story 
Check out this powerful Southern Cross song! 
