by Joe Siano
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
unprecedented 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:
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