White House Cites Lincoln on Secession But Lincoln’s Abolitionist Buddies WERE Secessionists

todayJanuary 14, 2013 2 2

share close
  • play_arrow

    White House Cites Lincoln on Secession But Lincoln’s Abolitionist Buddies WERE Secessionists TheKingDude

VIDEO/AUDIO: Mike Church explains how the history of secession cited by Obama’s henchmen cannot possibly be correct

  • play_arrow

    White House Cites Lincoln on Secession But Lincoln’s Abolitionist Buddies WERE Secessionists TheKingDude

Mandeville, LA – By Mike Church – When the White House responded to Michael E.’s “Peaceful Secession from Union” petition they quoted Lincoln as the historian of record for the view that “there is no right to walk away” [from the Union]. That’s a historically ignorant statement seeing as how abolitionist Yankee Senators and citizens alike who ultimately would call Southerners “traitors”, agitated for and promoted “secession as a duty” as late as 1861.

From Albert Bledsoe Taylor’s magnificent work “Was Davis A Traitor” we find the following passages related to the question that Lincoln allegedly settled.
William Lloyd Garrison led the way.'”In the expressive and pertinent language of Scripture,” said he, the Constitution’was a covenant’ with death, and an agreement with hell,’ null and void before God, from the first moment of its inception-the framers of which were recreant to duty, and the supporters of which are equally guilty.”* Yet, how strange! the men of this school enlisted in the ranks, and fought under the banner of 3Mr. Lincoln; who was bound by his.oath to support that “covenant with death and agreement with hell!” Did they fight for the Constitution? Did they heartily join in the cry for the Union? Again, he said, “the motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom is, no Union with slave-holders”!
* * * *

What Lincoln Killed Preview: The Timothy Pickering Story of NORTHERN Secession in 1803-15

  • play_arrow

    White House Cites Lincoln on Secession But Lincoln’s Abolitionist Buddies WERE Secessionists TheKingDude

“Our motto is, no Union with slave-holders, either religious or political.”I [I am holier than thou!] “In withdrawing from the American Union, we have the God of justice with us.“~ Did this man, then, or his followers, fight for the Union? “Circulate,” he cried, “a declaration of DISUNION FROM SLAVE-HOLDERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. Hold mass meetings-assemble in Conventions -nail your banners to the mast.” II Did these men, then, take down their banners, trample its motto in the dust, and join the loud war-cry for the Union of the fathers? If so, then it was not because they hated that Union the less, but because they hated Southerners the more.

Now this man William Lloyd Garrison was an honest fanatic. He just came right down with a direct sledgehammer force on all slave-holders, and on all the poor, pitiful, pulling hypocrites, who pretended to desire to preserve the Constitution and the Union; and who, to that end, labored to explain away the provisions of that “sacred compact,” as they delighted to call the Constitution. ‘ Those provisions,” said they, ” were meant to cover slavery,” yet “as they may be fairly interpreted to mean something exactly the reverse, it is allowable to give them such an interpretation, especially as the cause of Freedom will be thereby promoted.”

An engraving promoting emancipation from the Anti-Slavery League

In thus stating this hypocritical position, Mr. Garrison must have had Mr. Sumner in * his mind’s eye. But with honest scorn and contempt he tears the mean fabric to tatters, and scatters it to the winds! “This,” says he, “is to advocate fraud and violence to one of the contracting parties, whose co-operation was secured only by an express agreement and undertaking between them both, in regard to the clauses alluded to; and that such a construction, if enforced by laws and penalties, would unquestionably lead to civil war, and the aggrieved party would justly claim to have been betrayed, and robbed of their Constitutional rights.”* “No honest use can be made of it,” says he, “in opposition to the plain intention of its framers, except to declare the contract at an end, and to refuse to serve under it.” It is of no use to lie, said he, the Constitution is “a contract” between the States; an “express agreement and undertaking” between the North and the South.

He will not have this “express agreement” explained away. “It is objected,” says he, “that slaves are held as property, and therefore, as the clauses refers to persons, it cannot mean slaves. Slaves are recognized not merely as property, but also as persons,-as having a mixed character-as combining the human with the brute. This is paradoxical, we admit; but slavery is a paradox- the American Constitution is a paradox-the American Union is a paradox-the American Government is a paradox and if any one of these is to be repudiated on that ground, they all are. That it is the duty of the friends Of freedom to deny the binding authority of them all, and to secede from all, we distinctly affirm.” I Such were the sentiments of Mr. Lloyd Garrison, in 1844, delivered in their annual address to the Anti-Slavery society of America, as its president. Precisely the same sentiments were entertained by the two learned secretaries of that society, namely, Wendell Phillips and Maria Weston Chapman, as well as by all its leading members.

An intriguing prospect for the infinite union promoters of our day might be to take my work, based on Bledsoe and produce denunciations of Anti-Slavery Leaguers as “traitors” or for “agitating treason”. I have not exhausted the historical record to proclaim that this did not happen but it does not appear in the contemporary publications I have read. maybe those folks were too busy designing “Lincoln Logs” for their children to make model prisons to lock Southerners up in? Bledsoe continues his expose of the Garrison, ASL et al.

They proclaimed the duty of secession from the Constitution, from the Union, and from the Government of America. They wished to have nothing to do with slave-holders. In the mild and conciliatory language of their president, they longed to get away and to live apart from those “incorrigible men-stealers, merciless tyrants, and blood-thirsty assassins.” * Such was the gentle and persuasive language, and such were the loyal sentiments, of the abolitionists from 1844 to 1861.

The following resolutions were passed at a meeting of the American Anti-Slavery Society:
Resolved,’That secession from the United States Government is the duty of every Abolitionist, since no one can take office or deposit ‘his vote under the Constitution without violating his anti-slavery principles, and rendering himself an abettor to the slave-holder in ‘ his sill.’

Resolved,’ Th-at years of warfare against the slave power has convinced us that every act done in support of the American Union ‘rivets the chain of the slave-that the only exodus of the slave to ‘ freedom, unless it be one of blood, must be over the remains of the ‘present American Church and the grave of the present Union.’

Resolved,’That the Abolitionists of this country should make it ‘one of the primary objects of this agitation to dissolve the American Union.’

Hear the story of the United States AFTER the Constitution like you’ve never heard it before

Yet of all the war-spirits in the country, these very men were the loudest and fiercest in their cries for a war of coercion to put down secession, as rebellion and treason. In its burning hate of the Union, the Tribune had become poetical, and addressed THE AMERICAN FLAG as follows:

Tear down that flaunting lie!
Half-mast the starry flag!
Insult no sunny sky
With hate’s polluted rag!

But, all on a sudden, that “polluted rag” became the most sacred ensign of freedom that ever floated between heaven and earth! The cry has gone forth: “This Union is a lie! The American Union is an imposition.
* * * I am for its overthrow. * * *
Up with the flag of disunion, that we may have a glorious Republic of our own.”

The photograph of Bledsoe used comes from the archives of the “Law Office of Abraham Lincoln” where we learn that for 5 years Bledsoe & Lincoln were law associates & friends in Springfield, IL! “Bledsoe resided in Springfield at the Globe Tavern where Lincoln, after his marriage to Mary Todd in 1842, also lived. Until his departure from Springfield in 1847, Bledsoe was a friend and associate of Abraham Lincoln. Later on, however, Bledsoe became critical of Lincoln and served during the Civil War as the Confederacy’s Assistant Secretary of War.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
author avatar
Host of the Mike Church Show on The Veritas Radio Network's CRUSADE Channel & Founder of the Veritas Radio Network. Formerly, of Sirius/XM's Patriot channel 125. The show began in March of 2003 exclusively on Sirius and remains "the longest running radio talk show in satellite radio history".

Written by: TheKingDude

Rate it

Post comments (2)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lucas Stoudt

As always, very well said Mr. Church. I love listening to the insightful wisdom that you provide during my morning commute. Below, you will find the response I typed and sent to the White House in response to their response on the secession petitons.

In Response to the Secession Petitions’ Response:
It was wrote that “they did not provide a right to walk away from it.” I would suggest that the administration read about the convention that created the Constitution and the ratification debates from the States. The Constitution was not written to provide citizens with rights, it was written to limit the powers of the federal government. The Bill of Rights was added by the first congress due to the fears of the States that the new federal government would overstep their powers. It simply clarifies and specifies things that the federal government should not have control over. The greatest one of those initial 12 amendments, only 10 of which were finally ratified and came to be known as the Bill of Rights, was the 10th Amendment. In layman’s terms, it states that any power not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is left to the States or the people. It covered the States in case they left anything out. Nowhere in the Constitution is secession mentioned, therefore the 10th Amendment applies and the power is reserved to the States. Finally, one simply needs to look at the words of George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, or any number of men that wrote of the need and importance of what came to be the 2nd Amendment to understand secession. Our founders included the 2nd Amendment to ensure that the people had a way to stand up to the government if it ever became tyrannical like they felt the British had become. Why would our founders insist the people have the power to stand up to tyranny from within if they also didn’t think the people had the power to walk away from the tyranny? In other words, secede, just as our fledgling country seceded from the rule of the British. Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War did nothing to alter the meaning of the Constitution. The words of our founding fathers mean the same today as they did at the time they were spoken and written. The outcome of the Civil War proved nothing other than that the northern states had a stronger army than the South. The right of a State to seced has always been around and always will be. I can only surmise from your response that the next time a State attempts to peaceably secede you will respond with force, as did Lincoln, in an attempt to stomp out any attempt of the people to secure true freedom and liberty.

Lucas Stoudt

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x