Slavery Was Part Of Federal Constitution Ratified By Allegedly Holy Northern States

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “The United States Constitution, ratified by your sanctified, holy Northern states, made slavery legal, brother.  It was the law of the land, otherwise you would not need, in 1864, a 13^th Amendment to said Constitution to abolish said slavery.  The guilt is on everyone’s head, regardless of whether you were a Southerner or a Northerner.  Slavery is an abomination.  It was then; it is today.  End of discussion.”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  John is in New York.  Hello, John.  How you doing?

Caller John:  Hi, Mike.

Mike:  Hi, John.

Caller John:  Thanks for having me.  I like your show a lot, but sometimes I get a little upset when you don’t bring up the — you talk about the Northern War of Aggression, but you never talk about slavery.  I was hoping that someday you could read the articles of secession, especially from some of the states who clearly point out why they’re seceding from the United States.

Mike:  John, if I brought up slavery — and I have brought it up.  You weren’t listening, I guess.  If I brought up slavery and we discuss slavery, the answer to slavery is not to slaughter 830,000 people, it’s not.  That’s not the answer.  Regardless of whether or not I ever brought it up or not is immaterial to what transpired and what occurred on the federal congress and President Lincoln’s watch.  Furthermore, I have brought up slavery.  If you’d actually like to hear my thought on it, I’ll give it to you.  The United States Constitution, ratified by your sanctified, holy Northern states, made slavery legal, brother.  It was the law of the land, otherwise you would not need, in 1864, a 13^th Amendment to said Constitution to abolish said slavery.  The guilt is on everyone’s head, regardless of whether you were a Southerner or a Northerner.  Slavery is an abomination.  It was then; it is today.  End of discussion.  But to try to place it at the feet of one set of people is not historically accurate, John.

What do you mean Republican in name only?  Which Republican are you referring to that they should be more like, the radical Republicans, the ones that really gave Lincoln the authority and told him that he needed to be commander in chief of that war?  The radical Republicans that conscripted Irishmen and any other Europeans that got off boats in 1862, ’63 and ’64?  They thought they were coming here to plant potatoes.  They were handed a uniform and gun and told to go kill some Johnny Rebs.  So what Republican are you referring to?

Caller John:  I totally agree with you.

Mike:  Yay!  Sorry, I get a little animated about that.

Caller John:  I think that’s really interesting.  I totally agree with you.  It’s just that when you simply say the words “Northern Aggression,” it implies that it was a one-sided act of aggression.  Both sides were guilty of this.  I agree with that.

Mike:  I don’t believe, though, reading the history and the series of events, I do not believe that the intentions of the seceding Southern states were hostile, and that they ever intended war.  I think you have to place the hostile and warlike activities firmly at the feet of Lincoln and the radical Republicans in Congress.  This is another one of these things, John, now that you brought it up, my brother, one of these other things that bothers me about this, when people start assigning names and acronyms like RINO, Republican in name only.  What do you mean Republican in name only?  Which Republican are you referring to that they should be more like, the radical Republicans, the ones that really gave Lincoln the authority and told him that he needed to be commander in chief of that war?  The radical Republicans that conscripted Irishmen and any other Europeans that got off boats in 1862, ’63 and ’64?  They thought they were coming here to plant potatoes.  They were handed a uniform and gun and told to go kill some Johnny Rebs.  So what Republican are you referring to?

The radical Republicans of the Lincoln administration and the origin of the Republican Party, there is nothing in that history that you would want to ascribe or link yourself to.  I wouldn’t think that you would.  Of course, I’m not certain individuals that host radio and television shows.  That’s just my thought.  When I hear that RINO, that’s always my first thought.  Which Republican are you talking about?

Caller John:  There was an interesting op-ed in the New York Times last week saying: Where have the Republicans of the Lincoln party gone?  It was good reading.

Mike:  Heaven forfend!  You’re saying this was in the New York Times last week?

Caller John:  Yeah, it was.

Mike:  Do you recall who wrote it?

Caller John:  I don’t but it was intelligently written but also a slanted view of history.  Mike, I just want to say I enjoy your show.  I listen to you every time I drive to work.

Mike:  John, thank you very much.  Paul, see if you can find said editorial from the New York Times.  I did not see this.  Where are the Lincoln Republicans?  For heaven’s sake, why would you want to reanimate those monstrosities?  We might as well be dreaming about bringing Frankenstein to life.  By the way, for those of you that are on the fence about this and think that I’m just making some of this up, [mocking] “You don’t know what you’re talking about, the cause of the Civil War.”  All right.  The definitive 20^th century work on the War of Northern Aggression and why it came about in the manner that it did, and about the slavery question, was written by historian Michael F. Holt.  The title of the book is, The Political Crisis of the 1850s.

If you read that book, and it’s a very difficult read because it’s written for eggheads by an egghead — I slogged through it so I could talk about it like this.  As a matter of fact, if you go to MikeChurch.com, type in “Holt” in the search box in the top right-hand corner of the page.  You’ll get to an article where I have read Holt’s conclusion on the subject that we just discussed.  Holt’s conclusion was that slavery was not the question that led to secession.  It wasn’t slavery.  I know that you’re supposed to say that it was if you don’t want Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews or someone else calling you names on late-night television.  Holt is an actual historian and spent years researching this.  It’s a thoroughly researched book.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

AbbyMcGinnis

See Full Bio