We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

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.

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.

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.

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.

[jeffersondem #266] This was after he fought in court to return a fugitive slave.
[DiogenesLamp #322] You know he lost a slave case. And from what I remember reading of it at the time, it looked to me like he deliberately threw it.
[DoodleDawg #323] No, I didn't. The only case I'm aware of was his defense of Marvin Pound on the charge of harboring a runaway slave and he won that case. He also once represented a slave owner in a runaway slave case and he lost that one. So maybe you can provide the details of the case he 'threw'?

The famous slave case in which Lincoln assisted as counsel was the Matson case. It is the subject of a book by Charles R. McKirdy, Lincoln Apostate, The Matson Slave Case, University of Mississippi Press, 2011. McKirdy opines that Lincoln did not throw the case.

At 81:

“This then,” [Lincoln] explained, “is the point on which the whole case turns: were these negroes passing over and crossing the State, and thus, as the law contemplates, in transitu, or were they actually located by consent of their master? If only crossing the State that act did not free them, but if located, even indefinitely, by consent of their owner and master, their emancipation logically followed. It is, therefore, of the highest importance,” he continued, “to ascertain the true purpose and intent of Matson in placing these negroes on the Black Grove farm.”

At 82: [footnotes omitted]

Lincoln's argument shows that he completely understood what the case was all about. Nevertheless, contemporaries and historians alike have condemned Lincolns arguments as “feeble,” “pitiably weak,” “spiritless, halfhearted, and devoid of his usual wit, logic, and invective.” The criticism centers on Lincolns presentation to the court in which, laying the groundwork for his case, he stressed that if Jane and her children were merely in transitu, i.e., just passing through the state or, at least, not intended by Matson to be permanent residents, then Matsons claim to their continued servitude was a good one. On the other hand, he acknowledged that if Matson intended otherwise, they were free.
Lincolns critics maintain that in making this concession, “Mr. Lincoln gave his case away!” They contend that to prove his case that the slaves were in transitu, Lincoln needed strong evidence that he did not have. They argue that Lincoln had only the word of Joe Dean, “an ignorant, worthless fellow, who was easily and ruthlessly impeached.” They blast Lincoln for not realizing that the evidence did not support his case. One commentator goes so far as to speculate that Lincoln may not even have studied all of the evidence.
Lincoln’s performance does not deserve this criticism. A lawyer can only play the cards as dealt. The facts and law being what they were, Lincoln used “the only sensible argument which he could have advanced.”

At 83:

He had to convince the court that the operative factor in determining permanency was the masters (Matsons) intent. If there was no intent to establish permanent residency, there was no permanent residency. Therefore, Lincoln laid the groundwork for his argument and what he hoped to prove. Contrary to what his critics said, this approach was not “pitiably weak” and did not “ [give] his case away.” It was a painful necessity.
No less an observer than Lincolns adversary, Orlando Ficklin, maintained that, far from admitting away his case, Lincoln presented
his opponents [sic] points and arguments with such amplitude and seeming fairness and such liberality of concessions of their force and strength that it increased in his adversaries their confidence of success. . . . [B]ut his trenchant blows and cold logic and subtle knitting together and presentation of facts favorable to his side of the case, soon dissipated all hope that any advantage was likely to be gained by Lincolns liberal concession, but rather that he had gained from the court a more patient and favorable hearing and consideration of the facts on which he relied for success.
Lincoln apparently had a bad witness in Joe Dean, but he made the best of it. According to Ficklin, the facts relating to Matsons intentions “were plausibly, ingeniously and forcibly presented [by Lincoln] to the court, so as to give them all the effect and significance to which they were entitled and more.”
The real problem for Lincoln was the reality of the situation. That reality was that his client had brought Jane and her children to Illinois as slaves, they had remained in Illinois for two years as slaves, and they had worked for Matson in Illinois for two years as slaves. Matsons declarations aside, Jane and her children simply were not “in transit.”
Given this situation, Lincolns case was doomed from the start.

The slaves in the case were the Bryants.

Liberia, The Condition and Prospects of that Republic; Made From Actual Observation; by Elder S. S. Ball; Alton, Ill., 1848. Available free online at Googlebooks as Report on Conditiions and Prospects of Liberia. Elder Ball relates the story of the Bryants after they emigrated to Liberia via the Colonization Society. At pp. 13-14:

I saw a family of six while in Monrovia, the Rev. Anthony Bryant, wife and four children, who were sent from the State of Illinois in the fall of 1847, by the Rev. J. B. Crist. They were truly in a deplorable situation. The old gentleman told me that he left Coles county, Illinois, without means, with the promise that means would be raised on the way to St Louis for him; but he says he only received $9.00 from Coles county to New Orleans, and that he got it the colored church in St. Louis. Every cent of this, of course, he had to spend in New Orleans for light stores, to serve them on the passage across the ocean; and they arrived in Liberia without one dollar. They were placed on the outskirts of the town, and were all going through the fever. They all shed tears on seeing me, and began to represent their distress. They informed me that they had upon one occasion sent all around Monrovia to beg a chicken, and could not get one; but were told that if they had the money they could get one. The old gentleman wanted the three Kentucky Delegates and myself to try to raise as much money as would bring him and his family back to the U. States, but this we could not do: he then wished us to bring him and his little boy back; but this was out of our power.

You want how many names? ...5? .....7? You can go look up all the names you want for yourself. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 against Dred Scott. Read it and weep.

I want five opinions, of the nine filed, that support the nonsense claims of your anonymous Wikipedia source. Correct page citations from the official opinions in U.S. Reports would nice. Even Wikipedia's footnoted source, as I quoted from, shows the article to be full of crap.

It is apparent that you are just too lazy to actually read the court opinions, and you do not know what you are talking about. You take a case that was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by a majority of the Court, and fantasize all nature of specious holdings by a minority of the Court. In the history of the Court, no minority has ever issued a holding on anything. A three or four judge minority, no matter how much you like what they said, cannot speak for the Court on any matter.

The Opinion of the Court by Taney begins at 60 U.S. 393. The other opinions follow that of Taney.

For Scott's ownership by Congressman Chaffee of Massachusetts, Chaffee's quitclaim deed to Taylor Blow of Missouri, the collection of Scott's wages held in escrow by Congressman Chaffee's wife, and Scott's emancipation by Taylor Blow, see below. Read it and weep.

LINK

Boston (MA) Herald, “Dred Scott,” March 14, 1857
DRED SCOTT. It is stated that by the decision of the Supreme Court, Dred Scott and his family will legally become "the chattels" of Dr. Chaffee of Springfield, one of the Massachusetts delegation in Congress, that gentlemen having married the widow of Dr. Emerson of Missouri, the master of Dred Scott, who carried him into Illinois.

LINK

New York Times, “Emancipation of Dred Scott and Family,” May 27, 1857

The following text is presented here in complete form, as it originally appeared in print. Spelling and other typographical errors have been preserved as in the original.

Emancipation of Dred Scott and Family.
ST. LOUIS, Tuesday May 26.
DRED SCOTT, with his wife and two daughters, were emancipated today by TAYLOR BLOW, Esq. They had all been conveyed to him by Mr. CHAFFE, of Massachusetts, for that purpose, as the law of this State on the subject requires, that the emancipation shall be performed by a citizen of Missouri. ...

LINK

26 Saint Louis Circuit Court Record 2631
Tuesday May 26th 1857
Taylor Blow, who is personally known to the court, comes into open court, and acknowledges the execution by him of a Deed of Emancipation to his slaves, Dred Scott, aged about forty eight years, of full negro blood and color, and Harriet Scott wife of said Dred, aged thirty nine years, also of full negro blood & color, and Eliza Scott a daughter of said Dred & Harriet, aged nineteen years of full negro color, and Lizzy Scott, also a daughter of said Dred & Harriet, aged ten years likewise of full negro blood & color.

LINK

Wednesday May 27th 1857
Dred Scott.
vs. )
Irene Emerson. )
On motion of defendants attorney it is ordered that the Sheriff of St. Louis County do render his account to the court of the wages that have come to his hands of the earnings of the above named plaintiff and that the said sheriff do pay to the defendant all such wages that now remain in his hands, excepting all commissions and expenses to which the said Sheriff may be legally entitled.

DiogenesLamp: "The South started the war by threatening the rice bowls of the powerful men who controlled the US government; "

And yet again, another total lie.
In fact, there was no civil war so long as only the North's "rice bowls" were threatened.
Civil War resulted only after Confederates:

Seized dozens of major Federal properties including forts, ships, arsenals, mints, lighthouses, railroad equipment & military weapons, etc.
Threatened Federal officials, fired on Union ships, demanded Union forces surrender.
Assaulted Union troops in Union Fort Sumter, resulting in its surrender and subsequent wounding & death of several Union troops.
Issued letters of marque against Union commercial shipping.
Sent military aid to Confederates fighting in Union Missouri.
Repudiated Confederate debts to Union banks.
Formally declared war against the United States, May 6, 1861.
Authorized 400,000 Confederate troops for 3-years, ordered 6 warships from abroad.

In all that time not one Union troop had marched into a single Confederate state, and not one Confederate soldier had been killed in battle.
But in May 1861 all of that was about to change.

DiogenesLamp: "Deep state crony capitalism is a legacy of Lincoln."

Noooo... In Lincoln's lifetime, just as today, the Deep State and its crony capitalist partners were all Democrats, especially Southern Democrats.

jmacusa: ""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."

DiogenesLamp: "Lie.
They already had it.
It would remain legal with no secession, claiming they went to war to preserve it is just a lie."

Only DiogenesLamp is lying here, because he well knows the truth of this matter and yet utterly refuses to acknowledge it.
In fact all the Confederates' early "Reasons for Secession" documents tell us protecting slavery was their major concern, and for some it was their only concern.
Sure, some documents mention other issues -- i.e., bounties to fishing smacks -- but to ignore the overwhelming importance of slavery to 1860 secessionists is simply to lie about history.

DiogenesLamp: "Slavery lasted in the Union for 8 months longer than it did in the South."

Another lie -- slavery was not legally abolished in Southern states like Kentucky and Delaware until ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (Jan 1863) was enforced by the Union army in Confederate states as it became able to.

DiogenesLamp: "Even then, they couldn't have abolished it without the corrupt gun pointed at people's head coercion fake ratification con they pulled."

Nonsense -- the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments were all ratified by eligible Southern voters, which did not include Confederates since they had declared themselves to be non-citizens.
So there was nothing corrupt, coerced or fake about it.

And, as it happened, when more ex-Confederates did begin voting again (after 1876), they effectively nullified the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments for nearly 100 years, but not one saw fit to revoke their previous ratifications of those amendments.

woodpusher: "Fort Sumter was being supplied by a local merchant, McSweeney under a contract pre-existing the troop movement to Fort Sumter.
Buchanan and Lincoln set afoot a mission to reinforce Fort Sumter (and Fort Pickens), not to resupply."

Both Forts Sumter & Pickens were Federal forts occupied by Federal troops, so the Union was free to resupply or reinforce them at will, just as we do today at, for example, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
But secessionists began demanding Fort Sumter's surrender and threatening assault, firing on Union ships in December 1860 and January 1861.
President Buchanan responded by saying Fort Sumter would not be surrendered without a fight.

On April 5, 1861 the Navy Department's orders to Capt. Mercer, commanding the ships, included:

"The primary object of the expedition is to provision Fort Sumter, for which purpose the War Department will furnish the necessary transports.
Should the authorities at Charleston permit the fort to be supplied, no further particular service will be required of the force under your command, and after being satisfied that supplies have been received at the fort, the Powhatan, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane will return to New York, and the Pawnee to Washington."

So the US Navy's orders to its mission commander did correspond to the language President Lincoln sent to SC Governor Pickens.
Of course, it's all irrelevant since, by the time any actual Union warships arrived in Charleston Harbor, Confederates had already begun their assault on Fort Sumter, thus delaying either resupply or reinforcement and forcing Maj. Anderson's surrender.

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.