I sent you this by e-mail:
I did read part of the book and found this guy totally clueless:
From the ACW newsgroup:
My copy of "When in the Course of Human Events, Arguing the Case for Southern Secession", by Charles Adams just arrived today.
I haven't read all of it yet, but I'll make a few comments on what I have seen.
In general, it is a more mean spirited book than either "The South Was Right!, or "Southern by the Grace of God." Compared to Charles Adam's book those two are positively "warm and fuzzy."
More importantly it is based on a very odd set of sources.
Looking though the "Bibliographic Thoughts" to find the primary sources on which the work is based I found:
Northern Editorials on Secession, Perkins, 1942
Southern Editorials on Secession, Dumond, 1962
Union Pamphlets on the Civil War, Freidel, 1967
Southern Pamphlets on Secession, Wakelyn, 1996
Lincoln's first and second inaugural addresses
and most oddly, a series of British periodicals, including The Times.
But he begins the book by dispensing with most of this evidence:
"Men will not willingly, and with zeal, die for an economic purpose, but they will die for some 'cause' that has a noble purpose. Governments, when engaged in way, have to keep a patriotic 'cause' alive and motivational, and cover up the economic realities that are the true reason for the conflict." p. 3
"So Southerners' proclamations--from the housetops so to speak--that they seceded for slavery was political cant." p. 4
All those editorials, and political speeches, apparently, were the work of fools or liars.
So as far as primary sources, we are left with the British periodicals for an "honest account of the war." That's it.
Most outrageous was a mention of a secondary source written by Philip Foner:
". . .The New York Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict. If money makes the world go around and is the heart of war and the blood of governments, then the Foner book explains more about the Civil War than any other study."
I don't have that book by Foner, but I do have his History of the Labor Movement in the United States, vol. 1:
"Late in February, 1861, shortly before Lincoln's inauguration as President of the United States, a convention of slave owners set up a provisional government. . .Knowing that their movement to destroy the Union was unpopular among the majority of the southern white population, the secessionists refused to put the question even before a restricted southern electorate. "We live under an oligarchy," said the Mississippi Natchez Courier of February, 1861, "that has not yet dared to trust the people as to a say to its consent.' While the slave oligarchy was engineering secession and preparing for war, President Buchanan did nothing but pray that all would be well in the end, and northern businessmen, worried over tumbling markets and repudiated debts, were urging Congress to grant the slave holders any concession that would bring them back into the Union." p. 297
Two point contradict Adams:
1. It was a slave oligarchy that took that South to war, not some tax revolt.
2. The Northern businessmen were for appeasement not war.
I can only imagine what Eric Foner would do to Charles Adams if he should ever "get ahold of him." [end]
Walt
Adams also quotes many recent publications and studies.
Two observations of the person who posted this - (1)he has not read the book; why comment of the book you have not read? The guy has already decided he disagrees with the work. (2) He does not understand the importance of studying editorials of that period (ie. public opinion).
C'mon Walt, you're posting opinions about a book this person has not even read.
I see nothing odd about including third party observations on the War. Most especially comming from such a cultured society as the Britts.
If you insist on name calling, something I have not done, the discussion will terminate, for my part.