Customer Reviews

When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession

5 star:		(53)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

This is that book.

I'm an Army veteran. My history classes were immersed in the depths of Lincoln worship. I knew the reason for the Civil War: Abolition of slavery...I would not be easily swayed.

Until I read this book.

Before my reaction, a brief note on the style: This book has excellent primary source documentation. It draws not only from Antebellum but Reconstructionist writings. Not just North, but also South. Not just U.S., but also foreign. Not just political, but military and civilian as well. This is a well-rounded historical presentation of the events surrounding the Civil War.

More on technique: The bad stuff. The only negative criticism that I have is that not all subordinate assertions are documented. The major themes are well presented and end-noted, but arguments supporting those major themes are not well established. That's it. That was the only bad thing I have to say.

Well not really. I have a lot of bad stuff to say about Lincoln's misbehavior, lack of military ethic, civilian atrocities, theft of personal property, imprisonment of the political opposition in the North, fixed elections, disallowance of Free Speech, constitutional negation (the trampling of all Amendments), invasion of a foreign country, forfeiting State's "sovereign right" to govern themselves, suspension of due legal process and ethnic cleansing.

Lincoln even tried to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for publishing an opinion that demonstrated Lincoln was in error for suspending the right to trial.

Lincoln forced the South into their situation. For what purpose? As Charles Adams demonstrates, it was for not for the preservation of the Union, but the preservation of the Northern economy (which would not exist if the South were a foreign nation).

If you presently disagree with this summary of only a few of Adams' points, please do get this title. Check his end-notes for accuracy. Whateve you have to do, but do read this book!

Too many fail to realize that the secession-crisis was far older than the slavery-debacle, going back to 1832 regarding the Nullification-crisis-- whereby President Jackson claimed that the federal government held supreme national authority over the states, even though the Founders and Framers-- particularly Madison and Jefferson-- claimed that the states were individually sovereign in being able to nullify federal law and/or secede from the union entirely.

This issue was over tarriffs on imports such as Whiskey and sugar-- not slavery, and eventually grew into the Civil War when nullification became secession.

While slavery was listed as a cause of secession by some states, this was not a protest of a federal act, so much a protest of northern states' violating Constitutional fugitive-slave agreements, by using THEIR sovereign power to nullify these laws, and refusing to comply with them by sending slaves back; some southern states seceded over this contractual breach by other states.

Secession only became war, because the federal government declared it illegal; the South did not WANT war, but would not give up their claim to sovereignty without a fight. Therefore the war was not over tariffs or slaves, but the right of secession; the union invaded to prevent that, not to free slaves or collect tariffs!

Adams is wrong, however, that "secession's legality should have been determined by the courts;" for unilateral secession could be justified only by state sovereignty-- and federal courts cannot HAVE jurisdiction over a sovereign state, only a subordinate one.

Therefore by this argument, Adams harms his own premise, since this implies that the states were subordinate, not sovereign-- and thus had NO inherent right of secession.

The winners write the history...
It is a well known maxim that the 'the winners write the history'. This does not apply to the Adams book. He correctly identifies that the very high tarrifs where the cause of the war. He also points out various comments by Lincoln on slavery and that the issue did not appear in the North until the THRID YEAR of the war when support for it was lagging. The reviewers who panned the book are victims of the history that was written by the Northern winners. I claim the the republic defined by the founders died at Bull Run. There is evidence that the New England states considered secession twice prior to the war of Northern agression. When they did so, NO ONE argued that secession was unthinkable. The South was no military threat to the North; they simply wanted to be left alone to go their own way. It was Lincoln's obsession that the big federal government sought by the Hamilton branch of the founders had to be preserved that led to the war. The small government - in the vein of the Jefferson branch of the founders - suffered its first blow at Bull Run, and was finished off by Wilson and FDR. NOTE: A 'civil war' is one between two factions striving to control a country. This was NOT the case with the War of Northern Agression. The South wanted the right to a government of their choice guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. FURTHER NOTE: I am an EX-yankee who has seen the light.

This is the book I wish The South Was Right!, considered the gospel of modern Southern nationalism, had been. That book, although it contained much useful and(for the unreconstructed Northerner)embarassing information, was repetitive, occasionally poorly-argued, and overly polemical.

Adams' book, on the other hand, is a concise lawyer's brief. He argues that the South seceded primarily for economic reasons. Adams puts a number of disinterested European third parties on the witness stand, notably Charles Dickens, to buttress his case. And he demolishes the arguments of John Stuart Mill, the "prosecution's" star witness and the man who said the whole thing was about the protection and expansion of slavery.

Although I'm not completely comfortable with Adams' argument(slavery seems to have been far more important in Southern thinking than Adams makes it out to be, and with good reason. Black people were a reality in the South but an abstraction in the North), it is difficult to disagree with it entirely. Slavery, after all, was still legal in the North and would remain so until 1865. The North ADDED a slave state during the conflict(West Virginia)and Mr. Lincoln countermanded TWO emancipation orders during the war. Thomas Jefferson was not overly terrified by the idea of secession. And Mr Lincoln himself, in 1848, admitted that any people dissatisfied with their government, had the right to form one that suits them better.

Adams portrayal of Lincoln's actions early in the war(suspension of habeas corpus, illegally calling out the militia, shutting down opposition newspapers, arresting the Maryland legislature, etc.)is devastating. Although Adams does get off track now and then, When in the Course of Human Events is highly recommended for anyone interested in history as it really was. Devotees of the cult of St. Abraham, though, may want to avoid it.

When In The Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams is a clever and well written work that argues the case for secession of the Southern states. In much the same way as Thomas DiLorenzo in his book The Real Lincoln, Mr. Adams illustrates the tyrannical tactics of the Lincoln White House. Shortly following the bombardment of Fort Sumpter, Lincoln and his cabinet started suspending habeas corpus. With habeas corpus suspended, the administration could now put its opponents behind bars.

Adams tells the story of Justice Roger B. Taney. By the orders of General George Cadwallder, a man by the name of John Merryman was imprisoned at Fort McHenry after being arrested one night in his home. Merryman petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus from Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. Taney granted the writ and set a date for the hearing, but neither General Cadwallder or Merryman showed up. Instead, the general sent a letter to the Chief Justice explaining his actions and citing the decree by President Lincoln suspending the writ. This meant Merryman could languish in prison if the general so decided with no right to trial or an inquiry into whatever charges the general decided to make. After a couple of unsuccessful attempts to get justice for Merryman, Taney wrote a blistering opinion and sent it to Lincoln himself. In this opinion he stated: "...the people of the United States are no longer living under a Government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty, and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found." President Lincoln ignored this rebuke. Not only did Lincoln ignore Taney's opinion, he also wrote a standing order for the arrest of Taney who was in his eighties! Fortunately for the Chief Justice, his arrest never took place for one reason or another. However, there were plenty of men like him who stood up and spoke the truth about what Lincoln was doing who were arrested.

Mr. Adams also relates the story of Clement Vallandigham. Democratic Congressman Clement Vallandigham had been a thorn in the President's side for almost two years. He attacked Lincoln's war policies while a member of the House of Representatives. Vallandigham even introduced a bill to imprison the President if he continued to make illegal arrests through military tribunals. Vallandigham later stated: "I have the most supreme contempt for King Lincoln." He should not have been surprised when soldiers battered down the door of his home in Dayton, Ohio, and took him to Cincinnati for trial where a military tribunal could quickly convict him and put an end to his critical speeches. Vallandigham and Justice Taney were just two of the many who were under the threat of arrest because they demanded justice.

I enjoyed Mr. Adams's book. I would not agree with everything he says, but I believe he offers a comprehensive view of what took place during the war. Charles Adams gives his support to the Southern cause; however, he is honest about its short comings. Overall I would highly recommend this book to any avid Civil War history reader.

First, I am a Southerner. I state this fact as a warning that my review may be a bit skewed. As most Americans, I was taught one version of the Civil War....the version of the victors. And it is not unusual that the victors wrote our history. Over the years, I have further researched my heritage and learned that many things I was taught in mainstream America were questionable. Certainly, I am ashamed of the history of the South with regard to slavery, but Charles Adams book clearly and thoughtfully sheds a true light on the causes and motivations of the worst war in this country's history. This is a must read for any Southerner; it may offer some vindication. But, more important, this is a book for ALL Americans. Jeff Dantre', Peabody Award Winning Producer and Journalist.

I'm 50 years old, and since I was a teenager, I've been trying to discover the real reason for the 'Civil War'. Many answers I was given were either just plain wrong, or they didn't make any common sense. Why would so many Americans leave home and family and sacrifice life and limb? For slavery? No, I don't think so - and this is bore out under close scrutiny of events and newspaper editorials of that day and time. Is the reason complicated? No, it isn't, but discovering it is. The reason was TAXES! Isn't that why there was an American Revolution (which was basically a secession from British rule?)

The auther, Mr. Adams, is the world's leading scholar on the history of taxation, AND he is a northerner to boot!

It seems the British writer John Mill is the one who provided the North with a convenient 'excuse' for an UNJUST war, and that excuse was slavery. Charles Dickens said this wasn't the reason, and the real record agrees with him.

Southern planters had to sell their cotton to England, and they usually received payment for this cotton in like valued manufactured goods. However, when they brought these European goods back to the US, the Federal government charged them a 20-30% import tariff! So, $100 worth of cotton yeilded them $70-$80. Then, to make matters worse, this tax (which the South was paying the most of) was used by the Northern controlled congress to lavishly subsidize NORTHERN industry - even including the northern fishing industry!

I suppose not very many people realize (and for sure were never taught) that New York threatened to secede from the Union after the passage of the Morrill Tariff in 3/1861? They threatened to secede so that they would not have to levy the 50% tax that this act required, and so they could establish a 'free port' free from Federal mandated import taxes. This was exactly what the Southern states did do! New York didn't because Lincoln gave them a war instead. READ THIS BOOK! OPEN YOUR EYES! Read the the raping of our constitution by Lincoln and why our constitution today is NOTHING like the one our forefathers intended!

Adams, like the majority of Americans, was raised on the Worship Lincoln, Free The Slaves emotional history created by the Civil War's victors. Me too. As I studied and became more critical, I realized there were important Civil War facts not being taught in my California schools and colleges. Adams nails it, and very objectively. He is not a Lincoln hater, but read about how Lincoln signed a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice of The U.S. Supreme Court. Or read Adam's logical analysis of the Gettysburg Address. A rare book. A must for those who would understand the history of our country.

It seemed odd that a government so benevolent toward human rights would, on one hand, go to war for four years to end slavery, then turn around and try to wipe out the American Indian so the West could be settled. I was looking for something that would shed light on this contradiction and felt the answer may lie with the economics of the situation. I found this book and that is exactly what is addressed. The motives behind the War were financial and it is very well documented. It also gives the perspective of Europeans during the War which is a fresh look to what has been taught in textbooks and classrooms. This makes more sense then "to free the slaves" or "States rights" and I hope it becomes the textbook used in classrooms very soon.

I am a northerner, whose grandparents immigrated to the U.S. between 1895 and 1914. I was taught that Lincoln was the greatest president in U.S. history because he preserved the Union. So when a friend suggested that I read this book, I was intrigued. I will try to present the book's strengths and weaknesses in an objective manner.

There are two significant weaknesses, and they are obvious. The author states on page 52 that Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and that over 10,000 people were arrested and held without trial. He cites many sources of people who complained about the arrests. But Mr. Adams names only two (Messrs. Merryman and Vallandigham) and the Maryland state legislature and its Southern sympathizers (51). This total of 53 is less than 1% of 10,000. Mr. Adams would have solidified his argument if he had quoted several references to help him reach 10,000.

Similarly, the author states that Lincoln shut down over 300 newspapers that opposed his policies. But on page 41, Mr. Adams names only 16 specific papers. He does quote one source that said, "scores" were shut down, but scores could be 100 (five score). Where are the rest? There are no references.

The second weakness is that the book repeatedly wanders from the topic. Chapter 1 discusses the history of secession, but the 10th Amendment is mentioned only in Chapter 12 (page 181). There are others: Chapters 2 and 4 cover tariffs and trade (the main reason for the war), but specific statements in Chapters 5 and 6 should have been mentioned in Chapters 2 or 4, and then referenced in the later chapters.

But these weaknesses are overwhelmed by the book's strengths.

The book's greatest strength is its list of references, both old (1862) and new (1998). There are more than 100 references, which support some of the more shocking facts in the book. The author makes a very strong case for the South's right to secede, citing both U.S. and world precedents.

These references adequately support the author's insistence that Lincoln was a tyrant, such as Lincoln's order to arrest the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Adams cited two specific references, of which one was a first-hand account.

The author supplies many references to show that the war was started over money, not slavery. (Read Lincoln's First Inaugural Address.) Ironically, it was an English writer (John Stuart Mill) who was the first to write about slavery as the real reason for the war, in February 1862.

The book is by no means disjointed. I could not have written it, but I think its organization could have been better.

There were some statements with which I strongly disagreed, but they aren't relevant here. The two main points that I learned were: 1. states have the right to secede, and 2. Lincoln was a tyrant.