Posted on 06/08/2021 7:16:33 AM PDT by rebuildus
I’ve been watching documentary filmmaker Ken Burns’ classic series The Civil War , and I’m loving it! Since coming to the South, my interest in the horrific fight between Americans has increased dramatically.
I’ve also read Bill O’Reilly’s / Martin Dugard’s book Killing Lincoln, which I also enjoyed immensely.
Watching The Civil War, I heard Frederick Douglass quoted many times, which piqued my interest too, so now I’m also reading his autobiography! I definitely highly recommend this one. Too many have white-washed Slavery with an image of happy slaves joyfully singing spirituals. This is the other side, from the perspective of an ex-slave.
In times past, I may have watched The Civil War with a jaundiced eye, suspect that it originally aired on liberal PBS, or that Ken Burns is probably a liberal.
But I’m watching it with an open mind, and though I’m sure some people may tell me that it’s biased and is missing this or that key fact, I find it even-handed, and just as important–HUMANE.
In our mad desire to “win” in the political and cultural arena, I find a severe shortage of humanity among us (“right” and “left”). No, I will not equate the two, and pretend that humanity is equally lacking in the two sides. Many leftists are out of their minds with rage and destructive impulses. Yet, I see too little love on the right side of the spectrum as well.
That’s a problem.
As I watch The Civil War, I’m constantly struck by the good and bad on BOTH sides:
The North stood against the evil of Slavery (that’s a HUGE mark in their favor). Yet, life in northern cities could be de-humanizing, particularly in contrast with more natural and healthy rural living, which the South personified.
And the destruction of states’ rights, which Lincoln started, opened the door to today’s full-on ASSAULT against these rights. Yet nobody can rationally say that any state has the right to sanction the buying and selling of human beings against their will.
The South had a healthy distrust of the corrupting power of the federal government. Unfortunately for them, this distrust was so great that it impeded them from coming together sufficiently within their OWN government to maximize their chances for winning the war.
That so many Americans were essentially okay with a system that treated other Americans as PROPERTY is unsettling, to be frank. Of course, things have not changed all that much: the WHOLE country (North and South) permits the slaughter of unborn children in the womb. So are we any better than the slave-holders?
My point here, is that our hatred for our fellow man blinds us to the GOOD that resides within him. If the North and South COMBINED the good aspects of each, there never would have been a Civil War, and Reconstruction would have gone much better for all concerned, particularly the ex-slaves.
This principle is true of virtually EVERY division we have: black vs. white, right vs. left, rural vs. city, vegan vs. carnivore, “internal” vs. “external” martial arts, calisthenics vs. weight training, etc.
Tribes rule what was once the UNITED States of America, and this same phenomenon is playing out worldwide.
Rise of the “Tribal Chiefs”
Everywhere we see the rise of “tribal chiefs”–those who benefit via money and power from fomenting DIVISION amongst us. We see it all over the Internet–“influencers” who get clicks by insulting people who don’t agree with them.
You probably watch some of them. We all do.
Think about it–is this really productive? Does this place us in a more or less united position? Many of the people doing this call themselves “Christians.” Is this Christian?
Tribes are typically led by “chiefs” who are charismatic, have a way with words, are bold, and insatiable for attention. They cater to our worst instincts. It reminds me of one of my favorite old quotes…
"The palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise"--Thomas Paine
Tribalism is killing our unity, and thus killing our nation and the civilized world. We must overcome it or perish!
I believe healing starts when we recognize the part we are playing in this deadly game. This site will continue to promote the best in natural health, success, and freedom, and it will continue to point out those who are enemies of these, but it will not indulge in gratuitous insults to build our readership.
And I have no illusions–we will not ALL unite. Only those of goodwill, despite our differences. But I believe that will be enough to save our countries, or at least to safeguard those of us who trust God’s grace and the power of a people united.
Patrick Rooney is the Founder of OldSchoolUs.com. He communicates clearly and fearlessly during perilous times about natural health, success, and freedom. To reach Patrick, email him at info@oldschoolus.com.
You are referring, of course, to the president's use of the navy in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
I meant to say, the Fort Sumter Incident.
What South Carolina did is now known as “Stand Your Ground.”
South Carolina was under no obligation to retreat when U.S. warships were sent on the prod.
Southern independence was wholly in keeping with the settled theory of American government: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”
Our side is in the right. Of that we have no disagreement. But the hypocrisy of the right creates the left to begin with. Where do you think they come from? And don’t say they are indoctrinated. They are. But they need to be ripe for indoctrination. They are.
Was the Emancipation Proclamation a lie too? Lincoln didn’t mean it?
My point is not on whether or not Lincoln himself was a hard core Christian believer that'd be the best person to lead a Sunday school class. IMHO his faith or lack thereof is a lot like Trump's. Trump wasn't popular among Christians for any great essay he wrote over the theological differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. Both Lincoln and Trump were popular among Christians because they promised to do like the Christians wanted (at least in Lincoln's case, up to the RNC in 1860).
It’s not so easy to tell the sides on this one. You going to ask for an investment portfolio. Are we at war - yes. Who is against who is the question.
Blm, antifa, China, and all their enablers I’d say.
“Grant’s side was right - Lee’s side was wrong.”
In every way, or just in one way?
And if it be the latter, what way was that?
“Was the Emancipation Proclamation a lie too? Lincoln didn’t mean it?”
It took the London Spectator to accurately describe Lincoln’s EP:
“The government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the . . . conflict. . . . The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.”
So the state dissolves? Hell no. There will be state militias then armies. You read to much Bracken...
“Would people be shocked if Biden cited Lincoln to justify his action?”
No.
I’m not shocked that any Dem would use Lincoln.
Dems love Lincoln, because “he’s all about black victimhood”.
Ye shall know them (Lincoln) by their fruits (modern Dems).
Did either of those Republican Governors ever go out and beat or kill somebody?
But sure... slave holders are a very special class of snowflake.
Lincoln brought it up in his First Inaugural. A must read.
That has nothing to do with the fact that they voted for it, and fully intended to make it happen just to keep the Southern states under the control of Washington DC.
Yes, the nasty, evil, horrible thing they tried to do didn't happen, but it still points out what sort of nasty, evil, horrible people they were.
“particularly in contrast with more natural and healthy rural living, which the South personified.”
Do some research. Malaria, Yellow Fever, Ringworm, and tuberculosis were rampant in the antebellum south. People were lucky to live until 50. And it was common to lose half your children before they reached the age of 5.
L
That thing where he "freed" all the slaves that were in areas not under his control, and refused to free any of the slaves that were in areas under his control?
Sounds like a con to me. I'm not the only one who thought so either. His own Secretary of State (William Seward) had this to say about it.
"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
The London Spectator was even more brutal.
"The Government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in the coming conflict....The principle asserted is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."
There you go again, lying through your teeth. You are as thick as a brick.
I take it you did not bother to read the actual words written in the US Constitution on this particular point. I will make it easy for you by looking them up and quoting them here for you.
Article IV, Section 2.
"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
This wasn't a mere law. This was a constitutional law.
"Person held to service or labor" means slaves.
Built right into the US Constitution, and all the states agreed to it.
They told the public they were against slavery, but they cut deals to keep the slaves in bondage just so long as they kept getting all that money the Slave states were bringing in, most of which ended up in New York and Washington DC.
Same corrupt bastards controlling the nation today.
He even went so far as to send personal letters to all the governors, including those of the seceded states to inform them that the amendment to keep slavery going had passed the congress and would they pretty please remain in the Union under Washington DC control so he could spend all the money they were bringing in to fund his big government projects?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.