Monday, June 7, 2021

It Can Happen Here. It Already Has.

 by Joe Siano



 Any family court in the land will accept “Irreconcilable differences” as a valid reason to amicably dissolve a marriage.  These differences commonly include:

1.    Disagreements on finances and debt problems

2.    Loss of trust in the relationship

3.    Work that causes protracted long-distance separation

4.    Lack of sexual intimacy

5.    Personality conflicts

6.    Communication difficulties

7.    Failure to help in the household

8.    Differing political opinions

9.    In-law and familial involvement

10.  Growing apart due to different life goals and interests

Irreconcilable differences, “a long train of abuses and usurpations”, precipitated the divorce of Great Britain’s American colonies from the Motherland.  The split was anything but amicable.  The Brit’s tried to maintain possession of their colonies by force of arms.  Nonetheless, the Colonists prevailed.

America’s Southern States voiced similar complaints when they opted out the of Union in the 1860s.   These included frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States”.  Once more the incumbent government  contested cessation by force of arms.  In this instance, the aggrieved party lost and was forced to remain in the relationship.

Both the Colonists and the Confederates felt that they were laboring under Irreconcilable differences.  They saw no political means to redress their grievances.  The Colonies had no representation the British Parliament. The Southerners faced an insurmountable demographic and electoral disadvantage relative to the North.

However, to say that the Union preserved unity by “force of arms” is a gross understatement.

Military historians note that the Union was not content with military victories on the battlefield.  The Union committed to a campaign of “total war” – a war of annihilation and subjugation of the rebellious population.  Historian Lance Janda elaborates:

“…if "total war" is defined as using ‘military force against the civilian population of the enemy,’ then the          Civil War stands as a watershed in the American evolution of total war theory. The application of force against an enemy's noncombatants      and resources, the central tenet of total war, had been used since the dawn of civilization when it suited political and military ends. But Union Army commanders were the first in American history to use these tactics on a widespread scale, and they played a crucial role not only in the subjugation of the South, but in the conquest of Native Americans as well.

 

A doctrine that was anathema in 1860 emerged from the Civil War as the weapon of choice on the frontier, and by 1880 total war theory dominated the mainstream of American military thought.  To early Civil War leaders, these destructive tactics seemed revolutionary, for they contradicted codes of behavior developed during the        Enlightenment; codes which attempted to spare civilians the travesties of war.

 Northern commanders, however, faced with a defiance unprece
dented in American history, turned to total war because no other strategy held the promise of ultimate victory.

 As one pillaging soldier explained in South Carolina: "Here is where treason began, and, by God, here is where it shall end!" Union generals did not invent the tactics or the rationale behind total war; these had been present for centuries. But they did rediscover them …. and lent to them vigorous prosecution and eloquent justification.

 

Bringing the Southern states back into the Union required the complete subjugation of the Confederate people”

 

Our Pledge of Allegiance asserts that America is “one nation under God”.  I don’t accept the “one nation” part anymore.  Marxism, multiculturalism, Critical Race Theory and history denying Cancel Culture have frayed the ties that bind to the snapping point.  The differences between Red State and Blue State Americans seem irreconcilable.  Political resolution is unlikely as the soft coup is well underway in D.C.  Restraints on single-party rule are being dismantled.

 

In any other enterprise, be it a romance, marriage, a business or employment situation, normal folks would take the Dave Mason solution, acknowledge that we “just disagree” and negotiate a civil separation.   

 

The top dogs of the United States government are not regular folks.   America’s governing class has a demonstrated preference for  the John Lennon option.  They would rather see their citizens dead than living happily under a new government of their own choosing.  They implemented this policy with extreme prejudice in the past.  One would expect the same response if challenged with state secession once more.

 

If the “under God” portion of our Pledge is true, let’s pray that in His mercy, he allows Americans to settle their differences amicably, particularly if separation is in the cards.

 

Anticipating that worse may come to worst, Americans are buying guns in record numbers.  The Feds are armed to the teeth.  The United States boasts the world’s largest regular armed forces.  In addition, Washington D.C. has armed Federal law enforcement agents such as the FBI, the ATF, the DEA and Homeland Security to call upon.  And finally, our mail carriers and 75 other Federal non-law enforcement agencies are also heavily armed for no apparent reason.

 

Let’s hope that when push finally comes to shove, the prospect of brutally suppressing a heavily armed populace and the attendant international PR nightmare will dissuade D.C. from pursuing the path that it chose in 1860.

 



Related Articles:

Impeach The Imperial City

Burn The Constitution - Today

 

Go back to:  2 Percenter Home      Article Archive

Connect through:
Facebook     Twitter     E-mail    

"Half the people are stoned and the other half are waiting for the next election.
Half the people are drowned and the other half are swimming in the wrong direction."
 
- Paul Simon

No comments:

Post a Comment