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.

[DiogenesLamp]

You ignore what Chief Justice Salmon P Chase said on the matter.

And no, Davis isn't responsible for the deaths. The invaders were responsible for the deaths.

[DiogenesLamp]

So you say, but actually, it had a lot to do with "binding the nation's wounds." Chase wanted a policy of leniency towards the South. He also wanted to be president, and there could have been a connection between the two desires.

It is always a safe bet to look at profit and personal interest, but the legal argument he made stands on it's own merit.

Very interesting. I did not know that. I assume this must have been in the 1850s.

[DoodleDawg]

I assume this must have been in the 1850s.

Chase's first run for president was in 1860 and the idea of a Republican teaming up with a Democrat is ludicrous at best. Prior to that Chase was not seen as a presidential candidate; it would have been Davis who would have had the national recognition from his time in the Pierce administration and he would have been seen as the more likely candidate for the top of the ticket. It was more likely a hail-mary from the 1864 campaign by some fringe group of Democrats desperate to end the rebellion.

[Brass Lamp]

You have a very strange definition of "attacked." In some wars, it's clear who attacked whom. In others it's more ambiguous. If Mexicans fired on American soldiers who thought they were in Texas while the Mexicans thought they were in Mexico, who attacked who? Did Nasser's mobilizing troops and closing a waterway constitute an attack on Israel, or was the Israel destruction of his air force an attack on Egypt. In the case of the Civil War, it was and is generally believed that the assault on Fort Sumter was the initial aggression.

In 1842, the Russians sold Fort Ross to the US. If, in 1860, the Russians had invaded Californian, refortified Fort Ross, and threatened passage of American shipping to Bodega Bay (which supplied Santa Rosa, at the time), refused all demands to quit the occupation, had lapsed a few threatened "redline" deadlines, and kept supplying the fort with armed warships, the US MIGHT have eventually attempted some sort of intervention, there. Who would you consider to be the aggressor in that scenario?

The US was doing in Charleston Harbor in 1860 EXACTLY what it has just done in 1853 in Edo Bay, and for pretty much the same reason.

[jeffersondem]

“And I assume that you also believe lawyers who defend murderers support murder?”

That is your assumption. You admit that much.

In fact, I was on a scavenger hunt with Brother X cataloging ironic complications.

[HandyDandy]

Re: I wouldn't mind if you would skip reading all of my messages.

Who was it that recently said, “People who spew crap never want to hear a reply because they prefer that people just believe their crap and not question it.“ I’ll give you a hint: initials “DL”.

You are one very conflicted mixed-up ball ‘o confusion. Please consider that I almost always read your posts, or at least scan them. I am mainly interested in catching your lies (that can be a handful). I don’t like seeing a distorted view of reality being advanced by your ilk (lost Lost Causers). Especially your Lincoln bashing. There was not one man in the CSA that was the equal of Abe Lincoln. I know he lives in your head rent free and it is driving you crazy.
Most of my replies to you aren’t for you. I only hope they might show other readers an opposing view to your historical fiction. As an example. I use BJK’s replies to you as a great source of learning.

[Nifster]

Not find out about the White League and the Knights of the White Camellia

The democratic south promised that they would do anything to prevent Lincoln from becoming president during the 1860 campaign. The rest is history

The Democrat party has always been the party of rebellion

[mcshot]

When is the test and how many credits? :>)

[jeffersondem]

“The democratic south promised that they would do anything to prevent Lincoln from becoming president during the 1860 campaign.”

That is an interesting comment.

May we see your data?

[Nifster]

Read the papers of 1860

[jeffersondem]

“Read the papers of 1860”

When you wrote the South said they would do “anything” to prevent the election of Lincoln I thought you knew of something drastic they were planning . . . I mean other than voting against Lincoln and for someone they liked.

[HandyDandy]

Re: “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.“

This is beyond the pale. Even for you. I am sorry to witness your completely going over the edge. Every sentence is total BS. And now you can’t even bring yourself to utter Lincoln’s name. Anderson didn’t seize Sumter. It was empty federal property which he simply moved into when he noticed an increase activity of confederate patrol boats. He also noted the massive build-up of artillery around the harbor. Maybe that was the first belligerent act of the War? The “Charlestonians” actually provided provisions for the men in Sumter. You are coming apart at the seams. Anderson’s men were allowed to shop in town, ....until they weren’t. Maybe that was the first belligerent act. You have now convinced yourself that Anderson held their harbor hostage? I’ve told you all this before. Sumter itself was virtually under siege. Abraham Lincoln learned on the very night of his inauguration that Sumter needed provisions. And here you are spouting that Abraham Lincoln forced this narrative on the public. You’d better get a grip. What the h*ll are you reading? What the the h*ll are you smoking? You are making a public spectacle of yourself. Please stop.

[HandyDandy]

I am sure that you recall when Pinkerton had to sneak Abe into DC due to “rumors”. And there were other attempts on his life prior to Fords Theater.

[jeffersondem]

“I am sure that you recall when Pinkerton had to sneak Abe into DC due to “rumors”. And there were other attempts on his life prior to Fords Theater.”

Are you saying these things were part of the South’s attempt to prevent the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860?

Or are you just scrolling through a potential list of grievances rumored to have occurred after the election?

[jmacusa]

Sorry Poindexter but the South started the was an Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee were the chief architects of the slaughter that followed. After the Battle Of Gettysburg it should have been clear to both Lee and Davis the the "Cause'' was hopeless but instead they continued the the bloodshed for another two years.

[jmacusa]

Funny that the same line of bulls**t Stephen Douglas used in his debate.

That the North should mind it’s own business and let the South to undertake secession and continue the slave trade.

[HandyDandy]

I’m saying that they would have been in 1860’s newspapers before and after he “took office”. Can you tell me for certain there were no plots against Lincoln prior to his election?

[jmacusa]

I’m ignorant? Marx and Engels saw the war as a way to workers, black and white to end chattel slavery.
Something the South went to war to preserve.

Even a a Lost Causer like you can’t argue the South didn’t want to preserve slavey.

Or are you really a dumbass Reb?

[Nifster]

There were talking secession and rebellion

If you are a democrat do your own research

If you’re just trying to be snarky …. Do your own research. It’s there

Hell the democrat party ran two candidates because the north and south were so divided

[HandyDandy]

Were it not for snark, he’d have nothing.