Doubt not: we're fighting now the VERY SAME war, same issues, for same reasons as heroic South in 1860s--they never lost, but for the battle....

Book Review: "Northern Opposition To Mr. Lincoln's War"
(Apollonian, 13 Mar 16)

How did the South manage to lose the war of the 1860s?--one must scratch one's head. For truly, the fact is we're fighting precisely the very same war against the satanistic oligarchs today as the south was fighting back then in the 1860s--against the consolidated large, tyrannic and centralized empire, but which is now collapsing before our very eyes for the utterly corrupt and failing currency and hence economy. Thus it took, as we now see, a century and a half for the horrendous consequences to manifest so definitively.

Prices in USA are going to double very soon now, probably within the year, and that will be disaster, bringing food-shortages and civil un-rest in many parts of the country. ZOG (Zionist occupation gov.) is and will un-doubtedly rely upon the United Nations (UN) to provide enforcement, and then entire USA will suffer like the southerners of old, the UN being the natural and logical following to the consolidated Jew S A which emerged in the 1860s.

But regardless, it's most interesting and notable to pt. out a new book (published 2014), "Northern Opposition to Mr. Lincoln's War," edited by D. Jonathan White, Abbeville Institute Press; Waynesboro, Va.; 295 pgs, containing nine generally excellent essays, w. a short Intro by the editor, White. The book covers activities of the northern opposition to Lincoln's and Republican's amazing, horrific revolution of consolidation and utter destruction of the Constitutional republic which thereupon conquered w. great slaughter, the eleven southern states which had seceded.

The opposition consisted essentially of the Democratic party which remained loyal to the principles of Jefferson and which had largely opposed and resisted the consolidationist efforts for most of the seventy-two yrs preceding the 1860 election, especially the paper-money schemes, even if not as successfully other increasing inroads of the central gov. For note the rest of the states, even in the south, did not support South Carolina in the great Nullification Crisis of 1832-3, precursor to the decisive conflict. Even the cowardly and aging former President, James Madison, much repudiated his own theory given in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798-9.

Thus Lincoln illegally and un-Constitutionally removed Habeas Corpus, among other measures, and waged a nearly genocidal war against the southern people which killed up to a million white people in the south, including strictly battle casualties (according to Lochlainn Seabrook), out of the original 5.5 million, and perhaps up to another million of the black folk, out of 3.5 million, who were utterly dependent thereupon--and amazingly loyal to the Southern cause, as Seabrook documents, no less than 300,000 blacks serving in military and other capacities (see Seabrook's, "EVERYTHING You Were Taught About The Civil War Is Wrong: Ask a Southerner!: Correcting the Errors of Yankee "History").

One of the most interesting chapters of the book, by John Chodes, covers the amazing Governor of State of Indiana, Oliver P. Morton, who, mirroring Lincoln, declared he was "the state," in fashion of French Emperor Louis XIV, and who dismissed the state legislature and courts, and received funds directly fm Wash. DC for the state expenditures, not wanting to entertain the pesky demands of the legislators. After all, there was a war to be fought. Of course, the legislators and Democrats reacted vigorously, but Morton, backed by the US Army, was able to ignore and even to suppressing them. But thereupon ensued serious conspiratorial activity, and Morton responded w. arrests, spies, and sentencing to deathly concentration camp, esp. the notorious Camp Morton near Indianapolis where the death-rate was as bad as Andersonville in the south.

Another good and useful chapter is the first one, by Marshall DeRosa, on the excellent, even heroic, under the circumstances, 14th President, Franklin Pierce, who suffers for reputation for the simple fact he was even-handed in his treatment of the southern states, and most scrupulously respected the rights and interests of the states, including the South. It was under Pierce that Jefferson Davis, the future Confederate President, served as Sec. of the War Department, since re-named, Defense. And of course, Pierce bitterly opposed the war begun by Lincoln and Republicans.

For the sad fact must be faced that the general success of the USA had achieved run-away proportions, the two sections had grown apart, the north dominated by industry and manufacturing, the south by agrarianism based upon the slave labor. Thus the north emphasized interests of free labor of the white working class in contempt of the slave-labor of the south, and there were serious problems w. the fugitive slave provisions of law and Constitution which, ironically, saw the "interposition" of the northern states in opposition to federal enforcement.

Illustration of the divergence of the two sectional interests, north and south, is best given in amazing fact that even though the erstwhile extremely productive and wealthy south had been horrifically destroyed and gutted during the war, yet the overall economic production of USA was hardly affected as the population simply moved west as the tremendous industrialization continued to thrive and even increase--the south was essentially forgotten and ignored by the northern powers and interests which dominated the nation, the GDP (gross domestic product) tripling by WWI, the south not recovering 1860 levels until the 1880s (see Higgs' "Transformation of the American Economy, 1865-1914").

Yet the South was a tremendous nation in its own right at the outset of 1861; how could it have lost to the utterly corrupt and ponderous incompetents and criminals of the Northern leadership? For our book, "Northern Opposition...," well-demonstrates there was serious potential and active opposition to Lincoln's and Republicans' psychotic, tyrannic, and genocidal policies. My own conclusion is the southerners took far too passive a military stance, merely reacting in defensive fashion--their only chance, especially as we look-back in hind-sight, was to strike vigorously w. more active defensive sallies in the north just as heroic Stonewall Jackson recommended. Thus the hardships of warfare would have been brought more poignantly to people of the north who would have been even more motivated to removing and rectifying the criminal leadership.

"Northern Opposition..." is excellent work of scholarship and info, though the editing could and should have been much better for the rather numerous typos and other problems. Chodes' chapter on Morton, for example, was extremely interesting for the facts, as I tried to note, but is rather poorly written, hardly proof-read for the often clumsy phrasing. But don't hesitate to get and read the book, so necessary in face of the mass of northern-friendly lies and prop.