How Can We Amicably Separate?

Authored by Eric Peters via EricPetersAutos.com,

The subject of civil war comes up a lot lately. How about an amicable separation instead?

People do this all the time in their personal relationships. You have two people who loved one another once and maybe still do but just can’t live together any longer. At least, not without some sort of accommodation that neither can agree to.

And so the parties agree to separate.

One party does not (usually) try to force the other party to remain in the relationship and rarely tries to kill the other party when a separation is asked for. Most people understand that while it hurts to say goodbye, it’s wrong to hurt the other party for saying it.

Why can’t this work on a political level?

The answer is simple. It is why there was what was not a civil war in this country, 1861-1865. There was a successful attempt to prevent a separation. The slavery thing is a non sequitur told to young people to avoid them asking impertinent questions – such as why the “union” was inviolable (as Lincoln said it was) when that clearly conflicts with the idea of government by consent (which Lincoln had the gall to say he was defending, by forcing the states of the Southern Confederacy to submit to a government they did not consent to).

The issue that was resolved – by force – was whether states (and so the people) had the right to separate themselves politically from a “union” they no longer wished to remain within. Lincoln’s government – and armies – forced the Southern states to return to the “union” and submit to its government. This is “consent”in the manner of a woman who is unable to fight off her rapist.

The Confederacy never sought to gain political control over the states north of the Mason-Dixon line. They sought to be independent of them.

It is a lie, accordingly, that what occurred during 1861-1865 was a “civil war.”

Why is this lie told to school kids? For all the obvious reasons. The main ones being to portray the South as the bad guy and to portray the North as the good guy. This squelches questions about forcing people into a “union” they’d rather not be part of. How many people would consider getting married if it were made clear to them they could never (no matter what) leave the marriage?

Circling back to our situation.

It is similar in at least one way to the situation in this country in 1861 in that – like the Southern states – about half the people living in this “union” would like to peacefully separate from it. For reasons of irreconcilable differences, which is the generally accepted criteria for the dissolution of personal unions when they are no longer mutually agreeable. It is interesting that the criteria almost everyone accepts for the dissolution of a marital union is considered unacceptable when it comes to political unions.

Wait. That is not actually correct. What happened in 1861 – and what may happen again – is that one side of the “union” refused to allow the dissolution. How bizarre! Everyone – almost everyone – would regard it (correctly) as criminal and even psychotic to force someone to remain in a marriage they wanted out of. The reasons why are beside the point. Marriage – any such commitment – ought to be done voluntarily and for love. Using force to maintain the relationship is the antithesis of loving someone because it is the relationship of owner and slave.

But it does explain why political separation is not permissible. One side refuses to let go of their ownership claims over the other side, though this honest if evil motive is never declared.

In the context of our time, the reason why is the same as it was in that other time. One side needs the other side – in the manner of a leech that needs the warm blood of another creature to maintain its existence.

Most of you reading this are probably willing – eager – to agree that you want nothing from the Left (that is, from people who are socialists/communists) than to be free of them. More to the point, you don’t want their freedom. Or their money, either. The Left cannot survive without yours. It is like a spouse that does not work but demands you do in order to meet their needs, which always wax. A spouse who carries a .45 and makes it clear that you’d better go to work – and come home after work. And then give her a massage before bedtime.

It is really important to understand this. We do not need them – but they need us. They have to have us, just the same as the Northern states (more finely, the mercantilist interests that controlled the North and so the “union”) had to have the resources possessed by the South. Lincoln – for all his serial lying- admitted this prior to the outbreak of the war to force the South back into the “union.” He stated he would agree to any accommodation with the South regarding slavery – so long as the South continued to pay federal taxes (tariffs) and remained in the union. In other words, it was not the relationship that really mattered.

It was the relationship of owner to owned that did.

This is why those of us who wish only keep what is ours and to be left alone – are not going to be left alone by the people who believe what’s ours is theirs and who are genetically incapable (so it seems) of leaving other people alone. We are in the position of a spouse married to someone who sees us as their property and who will never let us go without a fight.

It is a depressing and daunting thing to come to terms with.

But the sooner we do, the better.