Guest column: Dred Scott and Civil War 2.0

Many years ago, while we were driving down I-35 near Ardmore, my friend Joe, who drove trucks loaded with bombs during the Vietnam war, said, “this looks like a country at war.”

Not seeing anything unusual, I asked what he meant. He explained that driving down the roads in much of Vietnam, he didn’t see any evidence of the war, adding that, “things there looked a lot like they do here.”

Today, while many may not notice, many Americans are involved in “Civil War 2.0.” Sadly, today’s conflict still revolves around the 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott ruling that African Americans were not, and could never be, citizens of the United States.

This 165-year-old decision by the Court helped drive the nation to the 1865 Civil War and eventually led to the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

Nevertheless, the attitudes, systems, and communications inspiring and surrounding that offensive ruling, the Civil War, and those amendments continue to influence politics and culture to this day.

In 1896, the Supreme Court decided in Plessy v Ferguson decision that keeping African Americans “separate” was somehow "equal” to the treatment of Whites who were allowed to go, shop, eat, and learn wherever they chose.

Many would argue those attitudes drove the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which included Confederate battle flags, racial slurs and rioters telling Capitol policemen of color they are “not real Americans.”

The Dred Scott decision came to mind again recently when Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell responded to a question about African Americans who are concerned because they believe voting rights need to be protected.

McConnell famously answered, “The concern is misplaced, because if you look at the statistics, African American voters are voting in just as high a percentage as Americans.”

Many Americans may not have noticed that this statement by McConnell placed African Americans in a completely different category than Americans.

However, those advocating Civil War 2.0 and those working to avoid that war took note of his controversial comment.

Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers leader who openly advocates for “Civil War 2.0” and was recently indicted for seditious conspiracy for his role in the violent January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, likely saw that comment as encouragement for more violent attacks.

Their commitment to violent Civil War is driven by the same constant repetition of accusations, racist commentary, and conspiracy theories that drove many to reject the results of the 2020 election, and the basic principles of American democracy.

It is frightening that members of radical right groups such as the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and others have rejected the basic principles of our Constitutional democracy and openly advocate violence as an alternative.

However, it may be even more frightening that recent polls indicate more than half of registered Republicans reject the basic principles of American Constitutional government.

That is based on the percentage of Republicans who do not accept the results of the 2020 presidential election as legitimate.

That rejection necessarily includes a rejection of our Constitutional system of democracy.

For those who may argue otherwise, it is important to acknowledge that our Constitution established the judicial branch of government to make the final decision regarding such matters.

Complaints lodged in more than 60 lawsuits at every level of our judicial branch of government, up to and including the United States Supreme Court resulted a unanimous verdict that the 2020 presidential election was free and fair.

Virtually all of the complaints were lodged to prevent certification of votes in precincts with large black and minority populations, which points to a racial motivation for rejecting the election.

Even ultra conservative Oklahoma Republican Senator James Lankford publicly admitted that the focus on questioning the legitimacy of minority votes sent the wrong message after he was confronted by colleagues on the Tulsa Race Massacre Commission.

While Lankford made that concession, he has not taken the next logical step to explain to his constituents that rejecting the results of the 2020 presidential election is a rejection of our Constitutional system of government.

Lankford and Mitch McConnell seem to believe they can straddle the fence on the issues leading to an insidious march toward Civil War 2.0.

"It's important for candidates to remember we need to respect the results of our democratic process unless the court system demonstrates that some significant fraud occurred that would change the outcome," McConnell recently said in a CNN interview.

Sadly, McConnell and Lankford refuse to acknowledge that many of those who reject the results of the 2020 election do so believing the Supreme Court got things right in 1857.

Sadder still is the realization that opposition to legislation ensuring equal voting rights for all is leading us ever closer to an even more violent Civil War2.0

This article originally appeared on The Daily Ardmoreite: Guest column: Dred Scott and Civil War 2.0