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.

[Cincinnatus.45-70]

I would not watch two minutes of anything by Ken Burns. Unless it took me that long to find the remote control.

Civil Wars are like burning at the stake. Nobody needs one, though there are a few who richly deserve it.

[Jan_Sobieski]

Lincoln’s decision to levy war against the states was controversial at the time and remains so today

It’s all academic now. The Democrats won the war, blacks are back on the plantation, and our Republic has been overthrown by LGBTQI Globalists. And half of the Freepers are kindred spirits, demanding children be forcibly vaccinated.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Ken Burns is probably a liberal. Yeh, no chit Sherlock.

[Jan_Sobieski]

You are ignoring how and where the Republican Party started; in small town Christian rural America (Wisconsin, Iowa, etc.). It was a reaction to the NE whigs who did nothing about the moral evil of slavery.

[DownInFlames]

The civil war of 1861 had nothing to do with slavery. It was the south seceding over loss of representation in the house. As more states were brought into the union, it was very apparent that the number of free states will be out voting the south. This was all about states rights and the right to secede from the union. Mr. Lincoln disagreed even though it is clearly documented that the right to leave is stated.

Down here in the south, it is still called the war of northern aggression.

[L,TOWM]

After Fort Sumter, the controversy pretty much ended. The opposition in the North afterwards was confined to dissent over the conduct of the war and in 1863 some pretty hard core riots to protest the first military draft in this nation... (good thing to protest in my book)

Your observation about not wanting “slavery” to spread is spot on and evidenced by the awful racial incidents between 1865-1930 in Northern or Border States, the rise of the KKK in the midwest (as a response to blacks moving into northern states to get factory jobs), and the ‘soft’ discrimination in places like Michigan and California.

[joma89]

Too late. CW II has already started just the nature of war has changed. Now lawfare and information warfare are the more preferred methods of the democrat party’s armies over guns and bullets.

[Seruzawa]

Stop it.

[Wallace T.]

Both the North and the South instituted military drafts. Punishment for desertion was harsh; the story line in the Civil War movie, Cold Mountain, included imposition of the death penalty on Confederate deserters by local authorities. State governments considered all free white males between 18 and 45 part of the militia and subject to conscription at wartime.

As you point out, the North and the West saw widespread discrimination. The 1863 New York draft riots degenerated into an anti-black pogrom. There were lynchings of blacks in such un-Southern places as Duluth, Minnesota and Wilmington, Delaware. Segregation of schools by race was not uncommon, and required by law in Indiana and counties in New Jersey. Racial covenants in housing were common outside the South, and effectively confined blacks, and sometimes Asians, to designated neighborhoods.

The rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the North and West was more motivated by anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism than anti-black sentiments. States like Maine, Colorado, and Oregon, where the Klan was strong in the 1920s, had few blacks. Oregon even attempted to close private schools, most of which were Catholic, in that decade, but the courts overruled the state's legislation.

[larrytown]

No sympathy for democrats or their propagandists.

Indeed. Past or present.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

And the destruction of states’ rights, which Lincoln started

What was the slave states forcing free states to allow their slave hunters across their borders and prosecute their residents for helping slaves who had crossed those borders if not a destruction of states’ rights?

It is sort of like the whining about segregation being about private property. The Jim Crow Laws were just that, LAWS.

You were forced to segregate in your own business. BY LAW. With legal punishment coming your way if you did not.

Why was that ok but desegregation by law is bad?

The answer is they both are bad.

But no one wants to bring that up.

Remove the beam from thine own eye.

[Iceclimber58]

I recommend reading the 3 volume history by Shelby Foote.

[freeandfreezing]

The rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the North and West was more motivated by anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism than anti-black sentiments. States like Maine, Colorado, and Oregon, where the Klan was strong in the 1920s, had few blacks. Oregon even attempted to close private schools, most of which were Catholic, in that decade, but the courts overruled the state's legislation.

Anti-Catholic bigotry was widespread, and often supported by Democrats. In many states the laws that banned spending public money on private schools were passed by those bigoted politicians when Catholic private schools began to appear.

The KKK was active in many places like Vermont where few blacks were present, bringing their bigotry and prejudice to bear against Catholics, Jews, and others they did not approve of. It was the Democratic party's thug branch then, just like Antifa is now.

[dynachrome]

He is also a pretty ‘punny’ guy

Civil War 2.0: Extreme And Inflate

https://wilderwealthywise.com/civil-war-2-0-extreme-and-inflate/

“May had (again) increased violence, but not as bad as it could have been as unseasonably cold weather kept other temperatures down. Again, none of the violence that I could see originated from the Right.

I’m holding May at 9 out of 10. That’s still two minutes to midnight. Last month I said that “ July or August could take us to a 10” and the reason is becoming clearer, as hot weather and economic woes will be showing up on the street.

I currently put the total at (this is my best approximation, since no one tracks the death toll from rebellion-related violence) up to around 800 out of the 1,000 required for the international civil war definition.

As close as we are to the precipice of war, be careful. Things could change at any minute. Avoid crowds. Get out of cities. Now. A year too soon is better than one day too late.”

[freeandfreezing]

Remove the beam from thine own eye.

Or just support efforts to reduce the scope and influence of government in general. Less government equals more freedom for everyone.

[nathanbedford]

One very great lesson for those of us who wish to maintain the rule of law as laid down in our Constitution ought to reflect on the issue of race/slavery as it motivated abolitionists of the North and as it motivates the Marxist left today with their misguided institutional racism.

Woodrow Wilson, a rank segregationist born in Staunton, Virginia propounded 14 points as a lesson to the world to be drawn from The Great War. Among them was the principle of the self-determination of peoples. Did that principle come from Wilson's experience in the Shenandoah Valley is a lad during the Civil War or its aftermath? Wilson never believed that African-Americans were entitled to the rights of white Americans and therefore their interests need not be calculated when the people of the South sought to determine their destiny for themselves and seceded.

In 1861 and especially after the Emancipation Proclamation, the abolitionist cause galvanized the American North to sustain and inflict grievous casualties upon themselves and their fellow citizens in the cause of abolition. Yet, that motivation was tempered by a strong, some say stronger, desire to maintain the coherence of the union. Today, we are faced with an abolitionist like fervor arising out of a misplaced emotional repugnance of institutional racism but this time it appears that there is no tempering concurrent desire to preserve the union.

The abolitionists of the 1860s were not prepared to dissolve the union in order to abolish slavery even as they were determined to frustrate the efforts of white Southerners to achieve self-determination but the woke Marxists of today apparently are quite prepared to lose the union in order to save their ideology. Perhaps, they might be even eager to lose the union in order to fulfill their ideology.

Whatever the state of derangement of the left, whether motivated by an abolitionists' fervor to right wrongs or merely cynically invoked to exploit race in order to undo our constitutional system, it is interesting that race is the emotional elixir that permits us to discard our way of life, to wage war upon one another, to dispense with due process, indeed, to discard the Constitution. When it comes to race, we don't need no stinkin' Constitution.

Nathan Bedford's interminably repeated first maxim of American politics: all politics in America is not local but ultimately racial

[jmacusa]

The South undertook a violent secession to preserves slavery and opened fire on Ft. Sumter.

They started a war and lost.

The North wanted new territories admitted as free states, for everyone. The South wanted them admitted as slave slaves, all the way to California.

[dynachrome]

What you want and what you get are two very different things, many times.

[Jim Noble]

Everywhere we see the rise of “tribal chiefs”–those who benefit via money and power from fomenting DIVISION amongst us

+1

[shotgun]

The docuseries on Baseball was pretty good.