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.
Nobody plays more outrageous word games than DiogenesLamp.
DiogenesLamp: "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!" "
And here's a typical example.
The truth is that Lincoln did not officially declare an insurrection or rebellion until after Confederates began to insurrect & rebel at Fort Sumter.
Then it is pure Lost Causer word games to claim something different.
DiogenesLamp: "He called a war mission with five or so warships a "supply" mission."
Because it was a supply mission, war ships only there in case Confederates started war at Fort Sumter which, of course, they did, despite their own Secretary of State's warning:
“Necessities of war are not ‘crimes’ even if committed by Union forces. ‘Contraband of war’ was legally recognized and necessary for Union victory.”
Your argument, and the way it is used, brings to mind William Pitt the Younger: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
And yet “Contraband of war” was not a “crime”, even when committed by Union forces.
Your argument may have some ironic complications that you may not be aware of.
It goes over his head - even when he’s standing on a chair.
That is an interesting comment.
An ironic complication in 1983 may have not been either in 1783.
With northern blue state culture in ascendancy now, irony - and the complicated founding fathers - are being canceled entirely.
And . . . Abraham Lincoln took an oath to defend and uphold the pro-slavery United States Constitution. Twice. This was after he fought in court to return a fugitive slave.
Think about that.
Well... it turns out...if you think about it: Lincoln did defend the "pro-slavery" Constitution in those States & regions which remained loyal, until slavery was formally abolished by the 13th Amendment after Lincoln's death.
So, in which year did that become "ironic"?
And...it turns out...if you think about it: Lincoln used the laws of war regarding "Contraband" to destroy slavery in States & regions in rebellion against the United States that were also under control of the U.S. Army.
In which year did that become "ironic"?
Indeed, having thought about it I'd say jeffersondem should post his own little "timeline of irony" in which he spells out the years & dates special events first became ironic and then later passed from irony into some other status.
Wouldn't that be helpful?
And he proves it time and again.
Jeffersondem. The Rodney Dangerfield of Lost Causers.
“No respect”.
No respect I tell ya! I told my wife “Don’t laugh behind my back!’’ She said “I won’t. The funny parts are in front’’.
Your posts are usually such a finely aggregated mixture of insoluble ignorance and bold lies that a casual reader would hardly what to make of them, but I know that even *you* aren't stupid enough to believe this. Every significant Northern voice of the time very clearly expressed the intention of turning the Northwest into a purely White "workers' paradise" in keeping with the Marxist and Darwinist thought driving 'progressive' Northern politics. You've been force-fed quotes from Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan, et al for years, now, and know better.
The 1860s Democrats didn't have torch-waving, brownshirt "wide awakes" stormtroopering all over the polls to help folks get their thinking right.
Indeed, when it was all over, unlike Democrats, Republicans united behind their nominee...
INDEED, when the conflict is over it's over, and it's not a conflict anymore. See, it's almost tautological in its insipid circularity.
I wouldn't mind if you would skip reading all of my messages.
I take it you’ve never read anything significant regarding the 1860 Chicago convention.
I do not know how you can define the nation as a nation of free men when every single state had slavery when the nation was founded.
No, in the beginning of the new nation, Virginians and other Southerners were at least willing to entertain the idea that slavery would eventually be abolished or replaced. Fewer and fewer dared think or say that in later decades.
Before 1792, there was no great demand for slaves. Washington wrote that he had difficulty finding enough work for his slaves to do that was sufficiently profitable to be worth the trouble of doing it. All that changed in 1792. Someone figured out a way to make slavery very profitable, though that was not at all their intention when they began.
Ironically, the South did exactly what they claimed was immoral about the North. They subjugated people against their will.
The difference you see, is that this was not contrary to their principles, but was very much contrary to the claimed principles of the North. But who are we kidding? The North was just fine with slavery, so long as they were profiting from it. This is how the Corwin amendment passed the congress.
...Northerners self-righteous hypocrisy, but in 1861, the hypocrisy of slaveowners would have been far more glaring and obvious.
What was their hypocrisy? I'm trying to understand what you are getting at here.
You have a very strange definition of "attacked."
I think anyone who commits the first belligerent act, is the attacker.
In the case of the Civil War, it was and is generally believed that the assault on Fort Sumter was the initial aggression.
That is the official narrative forced on the public by the man who would lock up people who wrote things he didn't like. But his sending warships with orders to force their way into Sumter was the first belligerent act taken by the new government.
But the Charlestonians regarded Anderson's seizure of the fort as the first belligerent act of the war. Holding their harbor hostage was also seen as a continuous act of belligerence.
I was wondering the same about you.
And I assume that you also believe lawyers who defend murderers support murder?
Burden is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly the tariffs impacted Southern taxpayers far more than Northern tax payers. This is because the Southern taxpayers were responsible for the vast majority of trade with Europe.
The Southern states were long Democrat after the Civil War and ardent supporters of the New Deal.
I have read accounts which clarify this. Their land and communities were destroyed and they would take anything they could get to survive, including government handouts.
Saw this the other day.
DonReynolds
"Of course, the civil war was not fought in Iowa. The good people in Iowa had to ride hundreds of miles on horseback to get to a small town, a few miles from my house, where they wintered..... living with the people of Waldron, Arkansas. When winter was mostly over, the Iowa Cavalry was given orders to move on. That was when they burned Waldron to the ground..... every house, and business, and church, and school. The people of Waldron were left exposed to the weather, left to starve, and robbed of their town. There was no war in Waldron until Iowa Cavalry brought it to them and the helpless civilians were treated to a sample of Iowa down-home values and decency. And they still wonder why WE hate them so much."
The northern invasion and destruction set them back economically at least 50 years. The seizure without "due process" of their slaves, represented a confiscation of 5 billion of their wealth. It's as if the government seized their bank accounts and their land, because that was where most of their money was tied up.
Yes, all the economic destruction and loss of population was their fault for daring to believe they could become independent from Washington DC's corrupt power structure.
You claim that politics is all about self-interest but you overlook how supportive Southerners were of big government when they thought it was in their own interest.
They were not advocates of government largess until after everything they had was destroyed. You cannot overlook the effect of government action on a population and it's psyche.
And while social conservatism is a good thing, it isn't hard to oppose change if you are worried that any change might lead to a slave revolt. There was strong self-interest involved there as well.
Ignoring for a moment the wrongess of forcing someone to labor against their will, I thought it was very foolhardy to allow their slave population to become so large.
If the Northern states had simply remained in their states, there would not have been 750,000 casualties.
And you think Jeff Davis is somehow responsible? The only man that could control whether or not there was going to be a war was Lincoln, and he decided to start one when he sent his fleet of warships to force their way into Sumter.
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.