We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

Old School ^ | 6/8/21 | Patrick Rooney

[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.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: “You said Hitler.”

So, whatever else he may have been or not been, Davis was no Hitler, or more pointedly: Hitler was no Davis.

However, the two share a rare distinction as leading military powers who first declared war on the United States and then were forced to surrender unconditionally.

Now, we might argue which power we treated better — Germans or Confederates?
But doubtless best to steer clear of all that, too many uncomfortable parallels...

Posters here get banned for less.
Let’s drop it.

[jmacusa]

Thank you Bro Joe. I wasn't in anyway attempting to call to equate the Confederacy with the Nazis, per se as both entities (80 odd years apart from each other) my point was to point out the absurdity of calling Davis pro-Union and Hitler pro-German. In the aftermath of two wars each started, respectively in their own particular era, the results of their ambitions bought nothing but misery and death. Both however saw themselves as far above their own real self-worth and supremely confident in the belief they were the only ones who could lead their people to ultimate victory and self-determination.

Perhaps not the best example to use I suppose.

[BroJoeK]

I don’t know all of Jefferson Davis’ strengths & weaknesses, any more than I understand Lincoln’s.
But in attempting to compare either to any modern dictator, one key difference to keep in mind is that neither Davis nor Lincoln seized power by force.
So far as we know Davis was selected by the Confederate convention and accepted the job reluctantly.
Sure, in modern terms we’d be skeptical of such a claim, but I’ve never seen anything different argued in Davis’ case.
Unlike Hitler and other dictators, Davis did not shoot his way into power and so unlike many others, Davis did not pay for it with his life at war’s end.

As for whether Davis ruled dictatorially, near as I can tell: he used roughly the same war powers Lincoln had.
But where Lincoln is often decried a “dictator” by our pro-Confeferates, those same posters are “ho-hum” about Davis’ similar “dictatorship.”

If anything, Davis may have struggled more to herd Confederate “cats” than Lincoln did to direct his own thundering herd of stampeding... ah...Union bull elephants?

:-)

[jmacusa]

Jefferson Davis was an irascible, inflexible man convinced of is supreme self-righteousness. He had an explosive temper, possibly because of poor health(he was blind in one eye.)

He was a man who rarely courted popular favor and had a
positive talent for alienating associates and often engaged in public quarrels with them. When he was a senator from Mississippi some of his most bitter critics called him “Majesty Davis.

Revered and reviled by Southerners alike but never quite understood an associate called him “The sphinx of the Confederacy’’.

[DiogenesLamp]

No one cares what you regard.

Another characteristic of childishness.

[DiogenesLamp]

Someone who "did something" that contradicted the official narrative would not get their work shown to any meaningful degree to the public through the broadcasting/mass communications system.

Only one side is allowed to be heard in this nation, and that side is the Liberal side which Ken Burns is a part of.

[DiogenesLamp]

You can’t explain every single move in history with conspiracy.

You think what I have clarified for you is a "conspiracy"? I think it is axiomatic that wealthy and powerful men with influence in Washington DC will exert that influence to increase and protect their fortunes.

Ever hear of the "Deep State" or "Crony Capitalism"? Are you familiar with these terms? Have you ever heard of "influence peddling"? How about Hunter Biden and Burisma?

How did Joe Biden nobody get elected to government and become Joe Biden fabulously wealthy? Same for that Idiot con man Barack Obama? How did these pieces of sh*t suddenly become worth many tens of millions of dollars?

Do you think they earned it?

Is corruption in government a "Conspiracy"?

Freeing the slaves—however messy it was—was the right thing. Can anyone deny this?

The slaves should have been freed, but it should not have been done in the manner it was. The crimes they committed in the pursuit of the subjugation of the Southern states were just as bad or worse than slavery.

The evolution of time was showing slavery in the wane, and with more time, it would have dissolved naturally and without bloodshed.

But the civil war was not about slavery, it was about the Northern power barons losing their money and power.

[DiogenesLamp]

Noise. Skip.

[DiogenesLamp]

The right to life—codified in our Declaration of Independence, has plainly been ignored with millions upon millions of babies murdered in their mothers’ wombs.

Liberals play word games. They say an unborn child is "not a life." It's a "fetus", and it doesn't count as a human being until it's born.

They change the meaning of words. A Homosexual male dressing up like a woman is now a "girl."

Lincoln did this. A state would hold a peaceful election and their people would vote to separate from the Union, and he called this "Insurrection!" "Rebellion!"

He called a war mission with five or so warships a "supply" mission.

Liberals play word games to justify what they want to do.

[HandyDandy]

“Before you lies the future—a future full of golden promise; a future of expanding national glory, before which all the world will stand amazed. Let me beseech you to lay aside all rancor, all bitter sectional feeling, and to take your places in the ranks of those who will bring about a consummation devoutly to be wished—a reunited country.” J.Davis

Last public speech.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nice attempt at subterfuge. Davis's actions were treasonous and for what he had done Lincoln could have had him hung.

They tried. Federal Prosecutors worked on the case for months. They finally decided to give it up when they talked with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase about the matter, and he told them that Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. Justice Chase told them that if they put Davis on trial, they would very likely lose in court everything they had won on the battlefield for secession is not treason.

I spent quite a lot of time a year or so running down these quotes. Yes, Justice Chase did say that, but it's hard to find.

The Federal prosecutors let him go, and it had absolutely nothing to do with "binding up the nation's wounds." It had everything to do with the fact that the Federal Prosecutors were very likely going to lose the case.

And as I was thinking about it, it occurs to me that expatriation is not treason either. If a man decides he wants to become a citizen of another nation, this nation recognizes his right to do so, and does not call him a "traitor" if he exercises his right to become a citizen of another nation.

Secession is just expatriation of an entire state. If we have a right to do this individually, we should have a right to do it collectively.

[DiogenesLamp]

We had compromised with slavery from the beginning, so nobody had perfectly clean hands.

You have it backwards. The vast majority of slave owning states compromised with those very few states that wanted to abolish slavery. The default position at the nation's founding was that the entire nation was a slave nation.

The abolition side grew, and the slave holding side waned.

That would entail making compromises and accepting half measures...

Protecting slavery until the very last state willingly gave it up is hardly a half-measure. It's pretty much whole hog.

...but it wouldn't be immoral, certainly not more immoral than the pro-slavery side was.

If your asserted moral principles are against it, it is quite immoral to do it. Those who see nothing wrong with it may be asleep, but those who are wide awake commit the greater sin.

If you believed, as Lincoln did that the United States was the last best hope of mankind, then yes, to save the union and keep the country together was in its way a moral stance.

I see no great moral crises in allowing states which voluntarily joined a Union to voluntarily leave it. You aren't entitled to hold other people under your control against their will. Ironically the North did exactly what they claimed was immoral about the South. They subjugated people against their will.

And that's if you believe Lincoln had good intentions. If you start wondering "Cui Bono?" then his motivations start to look a lot darker.

We see it today. Who benefited when the Keystone Pipeline was shut down? Can you say "Warren Buffet"? Why is Biden approving Russia's pipeline, but canceling ours? Who benefits?

Who benefits from a lack of border control?

We weren't ever going to assimilate those countries. And they didn't attack us.

Neither did the Southern states. Lincoln attacked them. Also, at the time the Philippines and Cuba weren't as much of a threat to the wealthy Northeastern establishment as were the Southern states.

"Alleged grievances in regard to slavery were originally the causes for the separation of the cotton States, but the mask has been thrown off, and it is apparent that the people of the seceding States are now for commercial independence. . . The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah are possessed with the idea that New York, Boston and Philadelphia may be shorn . . . of their mercantile greatness by a revenue system verging upon free trade. If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon imports, no doubt the businesses of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured."

Boston Transcript, March 18, 1861.

They realized what was going to happen.

[HandyDandy]

Evasion.

[DiogenesLamp]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who let a powerful hatred blind them to the differences between one age and another.

The past doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. The Republicans of 1860 were the "Mercantilists" who believed in big government, high taxes, big government "projects", and government manipulation of economic conditions.

They occupied roughly the same parts of the Nation that are heavily Democrat now, and heavily Labor Unions too.

The Democrats of that era were mostly Rural, mostly Southern, laissez faire on economics, conservative about societal changes, and occupied the land that is now mostly Republican. They wanted low taxes and a government which mostly left them alone.

[DiogenesLamp]

Chronological complexities are just part of what makes your explanation inexplicable.

Chronological contradictions are no problems for people who defend the Northern actions in the Civil War. They are in fact a necessity, for they would have us believe that the war was fought over a goal (ending slavery) which wasn't announced until nearly two years after the war had began.

[DiogenesLamp]

I oppose virtually every government agency except The Department of Defense.

Which is pretty much the only thing the government should be doing. You and I agree here. Sorry about that. :)

[HandyDandy]

Typical diversionary tactic. The issue is Jeff Davis. Not George Washington. You guys can’t handle cold hard facts so you revert to your inane analogies. Common ploy of yours. By the way, you posted two double-posts back there. That’s got be hard on a person of your self esteem.

[HandyDandy]

Poke salad.

[DiogenesLamp]

one key difference to keep in mind is that neither Davis nor Lincoln seized power by force.

Are you forgetting all the "bully boys" Lincoln sent by railcar to intimidate delegates at the Wigwam convention in Chicago?

Thousands of them, and they pushed and shoved and threatened anyone who they saw as a problem. It was a Guido style of convention.

[HandyDandy]

Too bright and colorful. Skip.