Apollonian
Guest Columnist
Book Review: "Lincoln Uber Alles"
(Apollonian, 14 Dec 16)
(Apollonian, 14 Dec 16)
John Avery Emison's book, "Lincoln Uber Alles: Dictatorship Comes to America," Pelican Publishing Co. Inc., Gretna, La., 2009, 320 pp, 300 text, notes, index, is outstanding work of exposition for the horrific turn in American politics which took place in the 1860s, the people tolerating a great war of mass-murder and extermination and the dictatorship which necessarily accompanied--how did it happen? For the sociologic circumstances had to have allowed for this tragedy--war was generated far too easily.
Thus the USA had become throughout the 19th cent. a tremendous, bustling economic juggernaut, and even a run-away vehicle of production and manufacturing. Lots of people were afforded the opportunity of getting rich, quick. How could the people of the south not want to play along? Thus the war took 4 yrs to getting over the initial political bumbling and then to extinguishing the upstart southern Confederacy of about 5.5 million whites by the northern 22 million, the economy of the north seeming barely to feel any substantial resistance or even slow-down as the nation continued westward expansion, all at the same time as the war was prosecuted.
And of course, the war was not really a "civil" war, defined as factions vying for control over a political entity, the Confederacy only working to separate. The war was prosecuted by federal forces exterminating the states, esp. the southern states, but necessarily including the north as well--little did the fools there grasp. Exterminating the white southern opposition was mere part-parcel to Plains Indian extermination which was going on much at the same time and then immediately after the war, which all thereupon and soon enough culminated in the overtly imperialist Spanish-American War of 1898.
Emison eloquently derides Lincoln's legal rationalizations and especially his excuse for "preserving the union"--what total psychopathic insanity--who could possibly fall for it? For the union was by necessary essence a voluntary union. It's impossible the states and people would voluntarily sentence themselves to slavery whence they could not un-do such union (see below expo on "unmistakability," etc.). So the word, "preservation" is utterly nonsensical and meaningless, mere euphemism for genocide, terrorism, and mass-murder, and the wonder is so many utterly brainless little lobotomized morons would even seriously entertain such idiot notion, "preservation" of a failed marriage, which "marriage" metaphor Emison well emphasizes and notes in several places.
The southern leadership totally mis-judged the situation, esp. political and cultural, and grossly under-estimated the great and overwhelming odds they were up against, everything considered. For not only was the south without a navy; it wasn't even armed w. sufficient fire-arms in way of rifles for the soldiers. And the south was not prepared for the determined military effort which was to be made by the north in horrific mass-murder and devastation to be wreaked upon the southern people.
The author, Emison, is a Ph.d environmental scientist, but does the finest work for laying down the basic legal principles involved which are not covered in any other work I know of. For the establishment consolidationists like to insist there was no right of secession; Emison brilliantly and simply refutes these claims, and shows why and how secession was perfectly within the rights of the states.
First, there's "unmistakability": the states were sovereign before joining the union, without any doubt, and never lost this sovereignty, and the law requires this "unmistakability" for any possible giving-up of sovereignty--which never happened, never even remotely. For it would have been absolutely impossible for states to joining any union if they knew they'd be required to giving-up sovereignty.
Then there's "entrenchment": a law by one legislature or session cannot bind another or later session of legislature fm un-doing or rescinding that law or any law. So if a state by act of legislation joins a union of other states, a later state legislation can un-do the original act.
Finally, there's the "equal footing" of the states by which states which came into the union later, formed fm territories which had belonged to the union, were equal in footing, able to secede no less than the original states which formed the union. Emison does excellently in fully documenting, demonstrating, and expositing these concepts even though he's not a lawyer himself--perhaps it's because he's not a lawyer that he does so well in his exposition.
So Emison's work is outstanding on that one, basic, central, and extremely important, issue of legality and law, but his work also covers other historical matters too, including the very interesting issue of the German influence regarding political refugees fm Europe and the various revolutions of 1848 which were so heavily socialistic, favoring highly centralized government. Lincoln's election was highly dependent upon these socialist-inclined Germans, and in several states which Lincoln only barely won, his margin of victory was provided by heavy support fm the German element. For note Lincoln only got 39 % of total pop. vote, bare pluralities in some of the states he won.
Emison very well covers the nature of the horrific and grim warfare which was inflicted against the civilian population of the southern states whence people were too often murdered by union troops and forces, and civilian property was wantonly destroyed. Emison shows how this warfare was done, especially by Gen. William T. Sherman, and others too, who understood the very morale of southern civilians had to be destroyed. For there was no moving through an area leaving the civilian property intact as it would and could be used by the Confederate military later--everything had to be destroyed, and it was under the union military leadership, esp. as the war continued through and after 1863.
Emison also brilliantly covers one other issue in his most excellent work, the issue of race, and he does this by pt-ing out how the union effort was certainly not for improving the lot of blacks who were most certainly NOT WANTED by the white population of the north. Blacks were not allowed to vote or give evidence or testimony in most areas of the northern states. Indeed, the racial attitude of the people, esp. of the north, was hostile to the blacks, and such racial animosity was well-reflected in the exterminationist attitude directed towards the Indians before, during, and after the war when the Plains Indians of the west were so ruthlessly dealt with.
The propaganda pushed by the northern and establishment (evermore Jew-owned, managed, and dominated) press, controlled during the war by Republican political administration, and regarding blacks, was primarily directed by Republicans working to using blacks to maintain a political hegemony, not allowing the whites of the south to joining w. Democrats and taking-over control of the governments, state and federal. Republicans thus showed they ran the war for benefit of Republicans, and Republicans were determined the war would reap political dividends not to be easily or soon given-up. Thus we see the situation of today, the centralized, socialist, welfare-state controlled by the same basic political influence, originated by the Lincoln Republicans.