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.

[GOPJ]

The only civil right legislation protecting blacks passed from the end of the civil war - up until the mid nineteen sixties was supported, written and passed by Republicans.

To think that’s nothing is nuts.

Democrats didn’t join the civil rights movement until it had been won... and then they ran to the head of the parade as if they had always been there.

The democrat party was the party of George Wallace (who stood in the school house doors to stop black children from going to Alabama’s all white schools... and yes GEORGE WALLACE WAS A DEMOCRAT. Bull Connor was a democrat... Conner and is dogs and fire hoses were used against MLK...

The longest holding Senate Leader was a KKK recruiter AND a member of the democrat party... Biden praised him when he died - as did Obama. The KKK and White Citizen’s Councils were made up of white democrats... many who still active a few years ago...

[Wallace T.]

The Democrats had their Northern and Southern wings. The Southern wing of the party was unremittingly pro-segregation, whether they were conservative Democrats or New Deal supporters. In Texas, for example, there were Democrats as pro-small government and laissez faire as any Republican, e.g., Coke Stevenson and Pappy O'Daniel, and liberals like Lyndon Johnson and Ralph Yarbrough. The Northern wing was a different story. Big city Democratic bosses saw blacks as another ethnic group, like the Irish, Italians, or Poles, and established political clubs for blacks as they did for other ethnicities. The Northern states, by and large, had relatively few legal restrictions, public accommodations were mostly integrated, and there were no restrictions on voting. Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, both Democrats, started to recognize the power of the black electorate. The former required equal opportunity for defense contractors; the latter integrated the armed forces.

In the period between Reconstruction and the civil rights era, the GOP did not strongly pursue voting rights or public accommodation laws. Part was due to the limited government philosophy of the conservatives, the Taft-Goldwater wing. Another reason was pragmatic. The border states, along with Tennessee and Oklahoma, were competitive for the Republicans. These states had Jim Crow laws similar to the Deep South, and advocacy of civil rights would result in a loss of states like Kentucky, Maryland, or Missouri. During the civil rights era, almost all Democrats from the Northern states supported civil rights legislation. While a majority of Republicans supported the civil rights laws, the conservative wing of the party, represented by Barry Goldwater and William Buckley, opposed them, not because of belief in white supremacy, but in their laissez faire beliefs. In 1964, Goldwater the first Republican to receive the votes of the Deep South states since Reconstruction.

Lyndon Johnson, an old school segregationist, changed his tune upon entering the national stage. While the Southern Democrat, George Wallace, stood in front of the schoolhouse door, the U.S. attorney general, Northern Democrat Nicholas Katzenbach, demanded entry, with the full backing of LBJ. Whether Johnson said "I'll have these n_____s voting Democratic for the next 200 years" or not is irrelevant. He recognized political realities and acted decisively.

[freeandfreezing]

Democrats have been killing Republicans for a long time, particularly Republicans who support and include African Americans in politics. This article describes one series of attacks by Democrats.

"In September 1868, Southern white Democrats hunted down around 200 African-Americans in an effort to suppress voter turnout"

"The summer of 1868 was a tumultuous one. With the help of tens of thousands of black citizens who finally had the right to vote, Republicans handily won local and state elections that spring. Henry Clay Warmoth, a Republican, won the race for state governor, but the votes African-Americans cast for those elections cost them. Over the summer, armed white men harassed black families, shot at them outside of Opelousas (the largest city in St. Landry Parish), and killed men, women and children with impunity. Editors of Democratic newspapers repeatedly warned of dire consequences if the Republican party continued winning victories at the polls."

The violence against Republicans by Democrats we have seen in 2020 and 2021 is a part of a long history, and their attacks on black conservatives are nothing new.

[freeandfreezing]

The Northern states, by and large, had relatively few legal restrictions, public accommodations were mostly integrated, and there were no restrictions on voting.

But the racism was palpable. It really isn't realistic to claim that the northern states were somehow free of racism or prejudice. Many northern liberals and Democrats are and were racists.

[shotgun]

I get all that.

I actually enjoyed the section on blacks as my dad played with several of them, although he was white, so it was good to see the faces of the names he would talk about. He actually caught a few games for Satchel Paige.

[Wallace T.]

President Grant dealt effectively with Southern white resistance through the use of Federal troops. The first Ku Klux Klan was mostly suppressed, as were like organizations. However, finances and weariness with continued occupation of the South took its toll. Had Lincoln not been assassinated, he probably would have followed Andrew Johnson's conciliatory policies. Earlier in his career, Lincoln supported the repatriation of American blacks to Africa. As long as the Southern states promised loyalty to the Union, he would have let them alone in imposing the Black Codes.

There were three reasons for GOP failure to pursue civil rights from the end of Reconstruction to the civil rights era:
* Laissez faire philosophy, including states rights.
* The need to be competitive in the Border states.
* The rise of "scientific" racism based on a distortion of Darwin's evolutionary theory. Blacks were supposedly an inferior race, thus "deserving " discrimination.

Starting with Democratic urban political machines in Northern cities and the New Deal, the Democrats started to wean blacks away from the GOP. With post Reconstruction Republicans paying at most lip service to civil rights, black voters started switching to the party that initiated Jim Crow laws.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Re-reading the second volume now. He started writing it less than 100 years after the war, so it was much more part of the common knowledge.

[Pelham]

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

There were something like five living ex-Presidents who believed that Lincoln’s actions were illegal.

Imagine Biden calling up a 75,000 man army by executive order and burning down suburbs in States that defied him over a woke issue that half of the country doesn’t share.

Would people be shocked if Biden cited Lincoln to justify his action?

[Pelham]

Most people are surprised to learn that Margaret Sanger was a prominent member of the Tucson Republican Women’s Club. History isn’t quite what talk radio imagines it is.

[freeandfreezing]

The Democrat thug brigades worked then like they work now:

"The groups managed to achieve their ultimate purpose, as was borne out by the results of the November presidential elections. Even though Republican nominee Ulysses Grant won, not a single Republican vote was counted in St. Landry Parish. Those who oversaw the election felt “fully convinced that no man on that day could have voted any other than the democratic ticket and not been killed inside of 24 hours thereafter.”

[rebuildus]

I agree, that only our side “has it right,” at least technically. But the larger question is, “What kind of people are we?” Are we a good example to our families, are we providing leadership in our communities? It’s easy to be against something, but what are we FOR? We’ll say “freedom,” perhaps, but do we really understand what the word means and the duties in entails?

[DiogenesLamp]

"The North stood against the evil of Slavery ..."

No it didn't. That is a lie that has been repeated so often, the majority of people now believe it.

The "North" had absolutely no intentions of doing anything about slavery when they invaded the South. Indeed, all the Northern congressmen had just voted to pass the "Corwin Amendment" which would have preserved slavery indefinitely. Lincoln supported this effort to pass the Corwin Amendment.

The War has been successfully portrayed as an effort to end slavery, but this is an absolute coverup for it's actual purpose. It's real purpose was to protect the finances of the same greedy corrupt influence peddlers that still run Washington DC today.

The War being about slavery is propaganda. It is an oft repeated lie. The North was more evil than the South because they murdered people to protect their own finances, and then pretended they were killing people for human rights.

All a lie.

[DiogenesLamp]

The current Americans versus liberals conflict is something completely different.

It is the exact same thing. The Civil War never ended. Liberals have been using it as a tool to keep power in Washington DC ever since 1860.

[sauropod]

.

[gitmo]

The rats are hell-bent on having one.

[gitmo]

The rats are hell-bent on having one.

[GOPJ]

I’m not saying the other issues don’t matter - during the civil war or in our time.

I’m saying the core issues - slavery and Marxism are defining.They’re the black and white, the good and evil - that matter.

As far as ‘what kind of people are we’... Grant was a drunk. Robert E. Lee was a gracious gentleman. Grant’s side was right - Lee’s side was wrong. On the larger issues the ‘what kind of people’ question doesn’t matter. You can be a good person on the wrong side or a bad person on the right side.

[Pelham]

“the very next year the Christians won the 1860 election in the U.S. (Lincoln)”

That claim would surely have amused Lincoln. Two of Lincoln’s closest friends, William Herndon and Ward Hill Lamon, insisted that Lincoln was a skeptic just like they were. Lincoln never professed the Christian faith and never belonged to a church. He could quote Scripture, but as William Shakespeare noted, so could the devil

The anti-slavery movement in America originated among Quakers who believed in peaceful means. The abolitionist movement of 1860 was violent and driven by Transcendentalists out of Boston.

[DiogenesLamp]

The problem I have with it is that it almost completely ignores the Christian abolitionist movement. There would have been virtually zero calls to free the slaves without the growing Christian abolitionist movement making it the number one issue to deal with.

The abolitionist movement was considered the kooks of their day by the vast majority of the population. No one was serious about freeing the slaves until it became politically useful to them to do so. When the war started, the intentions of the North was to leave the slaves exactly where they were. It was only because the South put up a much bigger fight than they expected that this idea was later advanced for reasons of military benefit and political advantage.

The North didn't free their own slaves until 8 months after they had forcibly and illegally freed the slaves in the South.

The war was fought over the great amount of money which would have been lost to the Northern power barons if the South had been able to engage in it's own trade with Europe without interference from Washington DC.

The Northern congressmen voted for the Corwin Amendment, which would have made slavery virtually permanent. They really did not care about freeing the slaves, but they very much cared about the Southern states trading directly with Europe because that would have destroyed their businesses.

Charles Dickens got it exactly right in 1862.

"I take the facts of the American quarrel to stand thus. Slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it, in any kind of association with any generous or chivalrous sentiment on the part of the North. But the North having gradually got to itself the making of the laws and the settlement of the tariffs, and having taxed South most abominably for its own advantage, began to see, as the country grew, that unless it advocated the laying down of a geographical line beyond which slavery should not extend, the South would necessarily to recover it's old political power, and be able to help itself a little in the adjustment of the commercial affairs.

Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. For the rest, there's not a pins difference between the two parties. They will both rant and lie and fight until they come to a compromise; and the slave may be thrown into that compromise or thrown out, just as it happens."

"As to Secession being Rebellion, it is distinctly provable by State papers that Washington, considered it no such thing – that Massachusetts, now loudest against it, has itself asserted its right to secede, again and again – and that years ago, when the two Carolinas began to train their militia expressly for Secession, commissioners sent to treat with them and to represent the disastrous policy of such secession, never hinted it would be rebellion."

And Charles Dickens was a vociferous Abolitionist. He was absolutely against slavery.

[Nifster]

The dems promised that if Lincoln were elected they would go to war

He was. They did