Rating: 
Summary: A Masterful Study
Review: "When in the Course of Human Events" is a masterful study of the War Between the States and the right of a state or people to secede from another.
Adams lays out the differences between the sections: tariffs, bounties(corporate welfare), fanatical abolitionism, slavery, and a commercial vs agrarian view of the world. Adams proves that the war was truly a tragedy for republican government and popular sovereignty. Abraham Lincoln, deified by the modern Republican Party and neo-conservatives, imposed martial law, arrested the entire legislature of Maryland, closed newspapers who disagreed with the war, suspended the writ of habeus corpus in violation of the Constitution, and allowed his generals to commit war crimes and atrocities on the Southern people.
A often overlooked take on the abolitionists is put forward. This take is their religious fanaticism and call for servile race war. On presbyterian minister in the East called for slaves to exterminate "men women and children". Adams shows how Great Britian and the South American nations all abolished slavery peacfully with compensation, but in America it was very different. The South, of course, was frightened by the talk of race war, and the abolitionists demand for immediate emancipation.
Adams also examines the tyranny imposed on hte defeated South by the fanatical and vicious Radical Republicans. Military dictatorships, "carpetbaggers", economic plunder, and disenfranchisement of white voters led to the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow.
If anyone wants a true review of secession, it is here also. Adams shows how secession was always an accepted American tradition. The thirteen colonies seceded from the British Empire,
and the South asked for the same. Also shown is the voluntary nature of the union and how it was a compact of several states. This is shown by the words of Jefferson, Madison, William Rawle, John C.Calhoun, etc.
If you want to see the REAL Abraham Lincoln, the REAL causes of the war, and the true right of secession, this book will not disappoint you.
Rating: 
Summary: History that the statist schools didn't teach us
Review: Adams demonstrates that the victors, unfortunately, write the history. He convincingly argues the case for Southern secession because: 1) If the South didn't have the right to secede, then the 13 Colonies didn't have a right to secede from Britain. 2) New York, Virginia and Rhode Island all ratified the Constitution with statements in writing that they could leave the Union at a later date if they wanted to. 3)There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits secession. 4) 20 other countries abolished slavery without going to war. The Civil War wasn't necessary. A MUST READ for every American interested in U.S. history
Rating:
Summary: Setting the Record Straight
Review: Anyone interested in the American Civil War simply MUST read this book! It debunks a lot of the myths that are propagated on the subject.
Rating:
Summary: Shatters U.S. History Dogma and Myth
Review: Charles Adams is an excellent author. I recommend his other books, "Those Dirty Rotten Taxes," as well as "For Good and Evil."This book taught me a lot, and in so doing revealed the lies and half-truths that I had learned in U.S. History. Although most Americans blindly hero-worship Lincoln, he was really a tyrant who destroyed our republic. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus, imprisoned or threatened Maryland legislators so that Maryland could not seceed, ordered the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for writing a controversial opinion, and in general, was a Very Bad Man. This book also reveals that the cause of the war was not slavery or "the Union," but about money and resources. To summarize, you should read this book. It is very revealing.
Rating: 
Summary: Reconstruction Still Needed
Review: I agree 100% with Mr. Adams on one point: the Civil War was not fought over slavery. But then we part ways, because while the war was not, techncially, fought over slavery, it was fought over whether slavery would be allowed to expand beyond the states where it already existed. With the election of Lincoln, the South seceeded because they realized that such expansion would never be permited and the South would thus become a powerless minority in Congress as more free states were admitted to the Union. And so the war came, a war to restore the nation conceived only 80 years earlier by what was the nation's first "greatest generation"--the heroes of the Revolution. The North was not going to stand by and let that nation, brought forth with the blood of their grandfathers, be torn apart. Read the soldier's letters. Read the newspapers. "The Union forever, hurrah boys, hurrah!" But with the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln brought to the forefront of the national conscience the heretofore suppressed root cause of the problem. It infuriated many Yankees who did not want to see themselves as fighting to free the niggers. But as the war wore on, even the soldiers began to see how secession and slavery were the same kettle of fish. Today's revisionist, apologist, South-will-rise-again sabre rattlers still cannot bear the fact that that South was destroyed over how this country would ultimately square the ideals of the Declaration of Independence with the 3/5 flaw in the Constitution (see Gary Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg). It galls the unreconstructed rebels to know that the South ended up on the ash heap of history not over the noble cause of state's rights, but over what to do with a bunch of nigger field hands. (The "N" word used, of course, in its proper historical context.) What a bitter pill to swallow. No wonder they still persist in their myths. It's the only way they can reconcile their most cherished beliefs in the face of both what the Civil War was ultimately fought over and, worse, that they got whupped so badly in defense of the worst of all possible causes, slavery. State's rights? Sorry folks. You brought on a war and your complete ruination in order to protect your peculair institution. Ouch!
Rating:
Summary: Reconstruction Still Needed
Review: I agree 100% with Mr. Adams on one point: the Civil War was not fought over slavery. But then we part ways, because while the war was not, techncially, fought over slavery, it was fought over whether slavery would be allowed to expand beyond the states where it already existed. With the election of Lincoln, the South seceeded because they realized that such expansion would never be permited and the South would thus become a powerless minority in Congress as more free states were admitted to the Union. And so the war came, a war to restore the nation conceived only 80 years earlier by what was then the nation's own "greatest generation"--the heroes of the Revolution. The North was not going to stand by and let that nation, brought forth with the blood of their grandfathers, be torn apart. Read the soldier's letters. Read the newspapers. "The Union forever, hurrah boys, hurrah!" But with the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln brought to the forefront of the national conscience the heretofore suppressed root cause of the problem. It infuriated many Yankees who did not want to see themselves as fighting to free the niggers. But as the war wore on, even the soldiers began to see how secession and slavery were the same kettle of fish. Today's revisionist, apologist, South-will-rise-again sabre rattlers still cannot bear the fact that that South was destroyed over how this country would ultimately square the ideals of the Declaration of Independence with the 3/5 flaw in the Constitution (see Gary Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg). It galls the unreconstructed rebels to know that the South ended up on the ash heap of history not over the noble cause of state's rights, but over what to do with a bunch of nigger field hands. (The "N" word used, of course, in its proper historical context.) What a bitter pill to swallow. No wonder they still persist in their myths. It's the only way they can reconcile their most cherished beliefs in the face of both what the Civil War was ultimately fought over and, worse, that they got whupped so badly in defense of the worst of all possible causes, slavery. State's rights? Sorry folks. You brought on a war and your complete ruination in order to protect your peculair institution. Ouch!
Rating:
Summary: A must for American History enthusiasts
Review: I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in American history and all the lies and distortions we are taught in school about "honest Abe". This book was a real eye-opener. It is good reading, not like an academic text. It also has lots of footnotes and a great bibliography for those wanting to explore the subjects of Lincoln as president and the events leading up to the southern war for independence in more detail.
Rating: 
Summary: A mixed bag
Review: I wholeheartedly believe that the confederacy did not secede over slavery, that the north did not invade over slavery, that there is a constitutional right to secession, and that slavery was declining very quickly. That being said, Mr. Adams' polemical work is not completely convincing. The first problem is that while he footnotes much of what he says, there are some fairly controversial assertions that he does not. Another problem is that he hardly tackles the very explicit statements from Davis, Stephens, The Declaration of causes of secession for Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas. The blatant statements of the reason for secession being slavery contained therein can be explained as political propaganda, much like the Bush adminstration's reasons for invading Iraq. Adams hints at this fact but does not pursue it. A huge problem, one that made me almost want to give the book 1 star, was his blatantly deceptive selective quoting. On pg. 95, Adams quotes an 1861 editorial in the New Orleans Daily Crescent as saying: " They know that it is their import trade that draws from the people?s pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests.... These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are as mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it." Problem is, the part in between "interests" and "These are" is critical, and runs contrary to Adams' thesis. Here is what the editorial really said there. "...and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. They know that it is the export of Southern productions, and the corresponding import of foreign goods, that gives profitable employment to their shipping. They know that the bulk of the duties is paid by the Southern people, though first collected at the North, and that, by the iniquitous operation of the Federal Government, these duties are mainly expended among the Northern people. They know that they can plunder and pillage the South, as long as they are in the same Union with us, by other means, such as fishing bounties, navigation laws, robberies of the public lands, and every other possible mode of injustice and peculation. ***They know that in the Union they can steal Southern property in slaves, without risking civil war, which would be certain to occur if such a thing were done from the independent South***" The relevant part is starred. Enough of the bad, now for the good. The brilliant discussion of Fort Sumter at the beginning shows conclusively that the Northern "attack" on it was to collect purposes. This alone is worth the price of the book. On pg. 75, Adams points out that the Fugitive Slave Act (runaway slaves caught in the north must be returned to the south) made the nation into one huge slave prison, thus increasing the profitability of slavery by decreasing runaways. It was for this reason that Stephons, as well as William Lloyd Garrison feld that slavery was safer in the Union than outside of it. Of course, Garrison felt the North should secede. Adams' explanation of the effects of the Tariffs is excellent. He also does a strong job of showing that, whatever the south's reasons for seceding, the north most definitely invade over slavery. In response to the review below in which the reviewer states that the Morrill tariff didn't pass until after the secession: Adams clearly documents how it was well known prior to secession that a Republican victory would ensure its passage.
Rating:
Summary: Highly recommended.
Review: Most Americans (and some book reviewers) are victims of the myth that the Civil War was fought over slavery. While slavery is reprehensible, history books have misled Americans to believe the war was started to free slaves. The Southern states had already won the slavery issue without firing a shot. The North had given the South every concession toward slavery. The infamous Supreme Court Dred Scott decision in 1857 had declared slaves as property. Lincoln and Congress had approved a constitutional amendment protecting slavery forever. Lincoln didn't campaign on abolishing slavery in the south, but rather the opposite. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued 2 years into the war and was done to help keep Northern support behind the war because the North had been losing battle after battle. It also did not proclaim all slaves free, only the slaves in areas that the South controlled. Border states on the union side and parts of southern states that the union forces controlled were specifically excluded from the proclamation. Secession is unquestionably the cause of the War Between the States. Slavery was not the reason the South seceded from the union. They seceded because of taxation, specifically, the Merrill Tariff of 1861. Unlike the slave issue, the tax issue was nonnegotiable on both sides. Just as with the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and many other conflicts and rebellions, oppressive taxation was the root cause of the War Between the States. The North had 23 states with 22 million people and the South had 11 states with 5.5 million whites and 3.5 million slaves. In 1860, those 11 states paid almost 80% of the total federal revenues, which were largely spent in northern states. The Tariff Acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariff's of Abominations," were the precursor to the War Between the States and the first southern rebellion. South Carolina called a convention to nullify those federal laws. There were better political leaders in 1833 and lowering the tax averted that crisis with the great Compromise of 1833. By 1860, the South had abandoned nullification and leaders promoted secession as the preferred method to stop the tariff. The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was passed which effectively doubled the 1857 import taxes and were triple the rate of the 1828 tariff that caused the first southern rebellion. Tax rates were at an all time high. The doubling of the 1857 tariff was the cornerstone of the Republican platform on 1860. This was the payoff to wealthy Northern industrialists who supported Lincoln. The high tariff would mean that southern states would buy goods from northern states instead of the less expensive European goods, or pay a tax. Either way, the north benefited. In Lincoln's supposed conciliatory inaugural address, he promised there would be "no bloodshed or violence" and "no use of force" against the seceding states. Even the mail would be abandoned if not wanted. But taxes were another matter. Lincoln stated he would "collect the duties and imposts, but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no use of force against or among the people anywhere." The South could secede as long as they paid the taxes to the North! The South didn't want to be vassals paying taxes for the Northern states. Lincoln didn't fight to save union, but rather to save the tax base and financial interests for those who supported him. With the South seceding, the federal government would have lost 4/5 of their tax revenue. The free ports in the southern states would mean that northern states would lose at least half of their commerce. This would devastate the northern states economically. It was not a coincidence that the first shot in the war was at Fort Sumter, a customs house for collecting federal taxes. Lincoln did campaign on opposing slavery in new territories, not for moral reasons but for economic and political reasons. He was appealing to white free laborers who didn't want to compete against slave labor in new territories. The American Civil War wasn't a civil war at all. A civil war is competing political group fighting to take control of a government. Was George Washington fighting to take over London? Of course not! The Revolutionary War was a fight for independence. Was Confederate President Jefferson Davis trying to take over Washington D.C.? Of course not! The South was fighting for freedom from oppressive taxation. Did the South have the right to secede from the union? Well, just as much right as the original colonies had the right to secede from England in 1776. The Declaration of Independence states that the people retain the inalienable right to "alter or abolish" a government "destructive" to their liberties. Forty counties in Virginia peacefully seceded from Virginia in 1861 and formed West Virginia. Did they have that right? Did the southern states have a right to secede from the union? Did the 13 colonies have the right to secede from England? Whoever wins the war, writes the history books. History books tend to portray Lincoln as a great president when he and the Republican Party pushed the South to secede with oppressive taxation. Then Lincoln is credited with "saving the union." Lincoln was the most powerful and tyrannical president the nation has ever seen. He spawned a new era of uncontrolled despotic acts of a tyrannical central government. He was often brutal. He tried civilians in military court to deny them a jury trial. He locked up dissenters without a trial. He even tried a Democrat politician in a military court in Ohio who criticized the war effort. By destroying the states' right to secession led to the unrestrained repressive federal government we have today. The myth of Lincoln promulgated in government-run schools and textbooks are one of gigantic proportion, on a par with one of the most dangerous myths of all, the myth that the U.S. is a democracy.
Rating:
Summary: Every year a book comes along that shatters common myths
Review: 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!
|
