|
The Lesson Of Appomattox
Alan Stang
Etherzone
Friday May 11, 2007
Recently, I walked across the battlefield at Manassas, where the
Yankees expected to win. They came out from Washington, some 25
miles, with picnic baskets and their women, expecting a day’s
entertainment. They would defeat the troublesome, uppity, amateurish
rednecks and go home, the preposterous idea of secession dismissed.
It was July 21st, 1861.
It didn’t work out that way, but it could have. The Confederate
forces were seriously outnumbered. General Bernard Bee’s Alabama
forces were retreating. They stopped when Bee, who died there, shouted,
“Form, form, follow the Virginians. Look. There stands Jackson
like a stone wall.” Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson
did stand like a stone wall. He still stands there, in the saddle,
his statue looking out across the battlefield.
Once in a while, often in battle, a man shows courage so sublime
it becomes something more than courage, an uncanny glimpse of the
divine. So it was here, with the impossible serenity under fire
that put Stonewall Jackson with the Immortals. The Confederates
held and the battle turned into a rout, ruining the Yankee picnic.
The federals retreated in wild disorder toward Washington, in what
historians call “The Great Skedaddle.”
Then the Confederates made a fatal but forgivable mistake. With
the advantage of hindsight, we now know that, however tired and
disorganized they were, they should have followed the federal forces
all the way home and seized Washington itself. Nothing could have
stopped them. Had they done so, they would have stopped the totalitarian
machinations of corporate front man Abraham Lincoln, our first Communist
President, who would have been arrested. The Confederates would
have saved the Union.
What? The Confederates would have saved the Union? But wasn’t
Lincoln making war to preserve the Union? Wasn’t that the
motive for everything he did? Wasn’t the South fighting to
dismantle the Union? No, Pilgrim. As usual, the truth is exactly
the opposite of what we all were told in the nation’s Communist
government schools. Remember that the winner writes the history.
What is a political union? What was the political union created
by the U.S. Constitution? It was a combination of independent, political
entities – states – which agreed to enter it to advance
their individual purposes. After the states created the Union, they
still existed, each one unique.
They were still the sovereign nations they had been, with each
of which the English king had made a separate peace; the Union they
had made consisted merely of their agreement to cooperate in certain
areas, to do which they surrendered a small part of their independence.
The states ratified the new Constitution and created the new federal
government. (Lincoln, typically audacious and insane, believed that
the federal government created the states.)
The alternative would have been to leave the Articles of Confederation
in place – in which the states still would have been sovereign
nations that had surrendered even less authority – or instead
to abolish the states completely, to junk the idea and form of union,
and amalgamate the nation into a single, centralized government
like one of the authoritarian, often dictatorial European countries.
Again, the supremely decisive point is that this latter arrangement
would not be a union; indeed, it would be the exact opposite of
a union.
A man is presumed to intend the natural consequence of his acts.
That is one of the basic principles of our system of jurisprudence.
If I hit you in the head with a shovel, the cops won’t buy
my explanation that I didn’t know blood and brain matter would
spatter all over your wife’s upholstery. As they put on the
cuffs, the cops would say they expected me to know that.
What has been the natural consequence of Lincoln’s war? Hasn’t
it been the very consolidation of power that is the very opposite
of union? Isn’t the federal government now so big that the
states in effect have become anomalies, almost useless appendages,
like the coccyx or appendix?
Yes, they still exist on paper, in the Constitution, on which federal
leaders spit – yes, at any time they could exercise their
powers – but as I write they are mere divisions of the federal
government, mere lines on a map. As in “The Invasion of the
Body Snatchers,” the form remains, but the substance has been
drained, leaving empty husks.
And since a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences
of his act, the present consequence must be what our first Communist
President and his successors wanted, a consequence that now has
further metastasized; now many commentators are talking about “American
Empire,” a symptom of which of course is the horror in Iraq
and the upcoming attack on Iran.
Which brings us to the weighty matter of what the war is called.
Because the victors do write the history books, our Communist government
schools call it the “Civil War.” But in a true civil
war, the contenders are trying to seize the government. The war
between the Reds and the Whites in 1918-1921 Russia was a civil
war. So was the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939.
But to call the American horror a “civil war” is another
lying Lincoln canard, the proof of which is the fact that Jackson
and the others did not seize the federal government when they probably
could have after first Manassas, had they wanted it. They didn’t
because they didn’t. Again, the mistake they made was that
they failed to treat it as a true civil war. What did they want?
They wanted to be left alone; they wanted to depart, which they
had the legal right to do.
Terminology kills. It is important to call things what they are.
There have been many righteous attempts to rename the “Civil
War,” from the “War of Northern Aggression” to
the “War for Southern Independence.” In a remarkable
coincidence, my favorite appellation is the one I have coined, which
I believe perfectly describes it: Lincoln’s Communist War
to Destroy the Union. Remember that the Confederate States of America,
which he destroyed, was a true union.
I said above that the Confederate mistake was forgivable. Why?
Because at First Manassas – before Lincoln’s Communist
closure of hundreds of (Yankee) newspapers, before his arrest and
deportation of Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham, before the
knowledge that many of his top officers were Communist terrorists
who had fled Europe after the abortive Revolution of 1848, before
the rape and robbery of Southern women in satanic monster Sherman’s
scorched earth march to the sea, and on and on and on – before
all that, it was still possible for Lee and Jackson to believe that
the Yankee leaders (notice that I don’t call them Union leaders),
some of whom they had been graduated with from West Point and served
with in the Mexican War, were as honorable and as Christian as the
Confederate leaders themselves.
Remember that when the true nature of the Yankee Communist horror
began to ooze out, Confederate military leaders asked President
Jefferson Davis for permission to retaliate in kind. The President
refused. And Lee did invade the North (Pennsylvania), but of course
for Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson to do what Sherman did to
civilians would have been unthinkable.
Eventually, Marse Bob did realize what the Yankee juggernaut was.
He is quoted as saying that had he known before the Appomattox surrender
what he knew after it, he would have fought to the last man. But
of course, his understanding came too late. Lincoln’s victory
in his Communist war to destroy the Union did exactly that. Because
of it, the federal government regulates almost everything you do.
The pottery now gives orders to the potter.
The question for us is: What’s our excuse? We know everything
Lee did not learn in time. And I fear that fearful times are coming.
We are presently in the middle of the Revolution to impose world
government; soon the climax will arrive. Remember why King Saul
lost favor with the Lord. God sent Saul to destroy Amalek and told
him to kill everyone, men, women and children and all the animals.
But Saul knew better; he did not kill king Agag and let the people
take the best animals. Samuel cut Agag into pieces and the Lord
transferred his favor to David.
Most of mankind’s problems (I am tempted to say, “all”
of them) originate in attempts to “improve” what God
says. But God does things for His own pleasure, not ours. Today,
we face the same enemy who conducted the “march to the sea.”
It would be comforting were there some “middle ground”
between us and that Satanic Monster. Sadly, there is not. We face
people whose nature it is to kill, in the same sense that it is
the nature of the hyena to rend, to tear apart. Yes, we are talking
about monsters like Lincoln and Sherman.
The Confederates should have treated the conflict as a civil war,
taken the nation’s capital and jailed the Communist monsters
they caught; should have exterminated the enemy as totally as God
told Saul to do to Amalek. They didn’t know that until it
was too late, but we do not have the same excuse. Unfortunately,
if you face an enemy with which you cannot negotiate or compromise,
an enemy that will not stop until it kills you – that lives
to kill you – then you can do only two things.
You can lie down and die, offer the enemy your throat. Or you can
stand and exterminate him. I wish I didn’t believe this and
hope I am wrong, but I think it will soon become ever clearer in
our country that it does no good to placate a hyena, a Lincoln or
a Sherman. You have to kill a hyena.
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
