When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession [ILLUSTRATED] (Hardcover)

~ Charles Adams (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Booklist

In case anyone doubted Garry Wills' argument in A Necessary Evil that the peculiar myths and distortions surrounding the nature, formation, and meaning of the U.S. regularly stir movements committed to myth rather than reality, Adams, a historian of taxation, delivers a polemic that proves it. The Civil War, Adams argues, was not about slavery or the Union; it was about tariffs! The Southern states had a right to secede. Slavery would have ended at some point, but Lincoln did not particularly threaten it. It was, Adams maintains, the "dueling tariffs" of the Union and the Confederacy that caused the war. Within his states' rights argument, Adams maintains secession's legality should have been determined by the courts, and slaveholders should have been compensated for the property they lost through emancipation. Adams relies heavily on the European press; he asserts, but does not prove, that U.S. abolitionists were a fanatical lunatic fringe. The author clearly anticipates controversy; it should not be long in coming. Mary Carroll

Product Description

This bold and thought provoking book is a must read for anyone interested in a fresh perspective on the causes of the American Civil War.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 272 pages
• Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; illustrated edition edition (January 1, 2000)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0847697223
• ISBN-13: 978-0847697229
• Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.1 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (88 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #524,357 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

201 of 233 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Every year a book comes along that shatters common myths, June 29, 2000

By	Reformed Library "Reformed Library" (Vancouver, WA USA) - See all my reviews

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!

60 of 67 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The winners write the history..., June 28, 2002

By	M. L. Graham "mlgraham" (West Columbia, SC USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.

28 of 29 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Secession is not a cause for war, August 21, 2006

By	Patricia Armstrong "Legal historian" (Chicago, IL, USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.