Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arguing the Case for Southern Secession
Lew Rockwell ^ | 12/20/01 | Reviewed by Joseph R. Stromberg

Posted on 12/20/2001 4:01:19 AM PST by shuckmaster

Some reviewers have had a hard time with the present book. They imagine that there is a single historical thesis therein, one subject to definitive proof or refutation. In this, I believe they are mistaken. Instead, what we have here is a multifaceted critique of what must be the most central event in American history.

This is not Mr. Adams’s first book. His For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization (1999) lives up to its title and underscores the importance of a matter frequently ignored by conventional historians. Taxation and other fiscal matters certainly play a major role in Adams’s reconstruction of the War for Southern Independence.

Those who long for the simple morality play in which Father Abraham saved the Union (always capitalized) and emancipated the slaves out of his vision and kindness have complained that Adams has ignored slavery as a cause of the war. That is incorrect. Slavery and the racial issue connected with it are present; they do not, however, have the causal stage all to themselves.

In chapter one, Adams sets the American war over secession in a global context by instancing other conflicts of similar type. He plants here the first seeds of doubt that political separation is inherently immoral. Chapter two deals with Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s successful gamble to have the Confederacy “start” the war. Here one learns that the Fort was primarily a customs house – a nice bit of symbolism, especially since the South paid roughly four times as much in tariffs as the North did.

Given that, Lincoln was very concerned about his tariff revenues in the absence of the Southern states. After Fort Sumter, the (Northern) President unconstitutionally established a blockade of Southern ports on his own motion. Soon, Lincoln had robbed Maryland of self-government and was making other inroads on civil liberty – his idea of preserving the Constitution via his self-invented presidential “war powers” (of which there is not a word in the actual document).

In chapter four, Adams unfolds his revenue-based theory of the war. The shift from a pro-peace to a pro-war position by the New York press and key business interests coincided exactly with their realization that the Confederacy’s low tariffs would draw trade away from the North, especially in view of the far higher Northern tariff just instituted. There is an important point here. It did not automatically follow that secession as such had to mean war. But peace foretold the end of continental mercantilism, tariffs, internal improvements, and railroad subsidies – a program that meant more than life to a powerful Northern political coalition. That coalition, of which Lincoln was the head, wanted war for a complex of material, political, and ideological reasons.

Adams also looks at what might well be called Northern war crimes. Here he can cite any number of pro-Lincoln historians, who file such things under grim necessity. Along the way, the author has time to make justified fun of Lincoln’s official theory that he was dealing with a mere “rebellion” rather than with the decision of political majorities in eleven states.

Other chapters treat the so-called Copperheads, the “treason trial” of Jefferson Davis (which never took place, quite possibly because the unionist case could not have survived a fair trial), a comparative view of emancipation, and the problems of Reconstruction. The author’s deconstruction of the Gettysburg Address will shock Lincoln idolators. Adams underlines the gloomy pseudo-religious fatalism with which Lincoln salved his conscience in his later speeches. This supports M. E. Bradford’s division of Lincoln’s career into Whig, “artificial Puritan,” and practical “Cromwellian” phases – the last item pertaining to total war.

To address seriously the issues presented by Adams requires a serious imaginative effort, especially for those who never before heard such claims about the Constitution, about the war, or about Lincoln. Ernest Renan famously wrote that for Frenchmen to constitute a nation, they must remember certain things and were “obliged already to have forgotten” certain others. Adams focuses on those things which Northerners, at least, have long since forgotten.

What Adams’ book – with or without a single, central thesis – does, is to reveal that in 1860 and early 1861 many Americans, north and south, doubted the existence of any federal power to coerce a state and considered peaceful separation a real possibility. In the late 1790s, The Federalist Papers, for example, laughed down the notion that the federal government could coerce states in their corporate, political capacity. For much of the nineteenth century Americans saw the union as a practical arrangement instrumental to other values. That vision vanished in the killing and destruction of Mr. Lincoln’s war. Americans paid a rather high price for making a means into an end.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: dixie; dixielist; secession
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-315 next last

Aw,Shucks!


1 posted on 12/20/2001 4:01:19 AM PST by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WhowasGustavusFox;Libertarianize the GOP;caseyblane;unamused;Godebert;cowpoke;stand watie; basil...
cover
READ THIS BOOK!

2 posted on 12/20/2001 4:03:02 AM PST by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
Thanks Shuckmaster .Beautiful website .
3 posted on 12/20/2001 4:07:59 AM PST by Captain Shady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
I've already got the book, but here's a BUMP!

-CD

4 posted on 12/20/2001 4:08:58 AM PST by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
Some more of the "Lincoln = Satan" material that Lew Rockwell spends his time spewing. I find it amazing that some people still miss slavery. If you want to demonstrate real courage, why not go into Harlem or Detroit and loudly proclaim these beliefs. You should get an interesting reaction and the world will have one less libertarian traitor. A win-win situation.
5 posted on 12/20/2001 4:12:15 AM PST by LenS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
In the late 1790s, The Federalist Papers, for example, laughed down the notion that the federal government could coerce states in their corporate, political capacity

Bump for historical truth and an excellent book. I think what upsets most yankees about this book is that Adams quotes from documented historical sources that the lincoln propaganda machine covered up for so long. The truth will come out

6 posted on 12/20/2001 4:12:24 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LenS
"I find it amazing that some people still miss slavery"

What the people missed was their personal freedoms that had just been won in the Revolution. Now here we are with another "King George" wanting political worship just like all the kings to be before him.

Our most recent King George W. looks like he is headed in the same direction. Here is what the war was really about.:

"Given that, Lincoln was very concerned about his tariff revenues in the absence of the Southern states. After Fort Sumter, the (Northern) President unconstitutionally established a blockade of Southern ports on his own motion. Soon, Lincoln had robbed Maryland of self-government and was making other inroads on civil liberty – his idea of preserving the Constitution via his self-invented presidential “war powers” (of which there is not a word in the actual document)."

7 posted on 12/20/2001 4:32:31 AM PST by tberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LenS
I find it amazing that some people still miss slavery. If you want to demonstrate real courage, why not go into Harlem or Detroit and loudly proclaim these beliefs

How does trying to discover the truth about one of the most pivotal events in U.S. history amount to "missing slavery"? Virtually no one misses slavery. However, to blindy ignore a growing body of evidence that slavery was not "the" reason for the war, and may not even have been a primary reason, is to misunderstand history.

Since a good reason for understanding history is to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past...

And speaking of Harlem and Detroit, do you really believe that the problems in those areas is caused by a dying idea from 150 years ago? Is it at least possible that these areas are byproducts of the welfare state and increased federal control? Both of which are traceable back to the War Between the States.
8 posted on 12/20/2001 4:38:54 AM PST by babyface00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: babyface00
problems in those areas is caused

Oops, should have been "are caused". Sorry.
9 posted on 12/20/2001 4:40:08 AM PST by babyface00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LenS
If you want to demonstrate real courage, why not go into Harlem or Detroit and loudly proclaim these beliefs

Trying to incite a riot, eh? Problem is, many of those people cannot face the truth about the War.

Read the book. Mr. Adams addresses slavery and the causes of the War. I was impressed by his use of documented references - it's all there.

Give it a look - it's well done.

PS: Charles Adams is from the North.

10 posted on 12/20/2001 4:47:45 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: LenS
why not go into Harlem or Detroit
No thanks! Why not stay there yourself instead of bringing your bogus liberal puke bigotry South?
12 posted on 12/20/2001 4:53:56 AM PST by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LenS
why not go into Harlem or Detroit and loudly proclaim these beliefs

Can I take with me quotes from Frederick Douglass commenting on the number of blacks in the Confederate Army? How about documented Confederate army rolls with blacks on them, or black professors that have on their own mind you documented the importance of the black man within the Confederate Army? How about northern newspapers of the day condemning lincoln's actions? I'll even take the all holy Emancipation Proclamation, which if you would bother reading instead of blindly following a lie, didn't free anybody!! What about lincoln's quotes about not wanting to be painted with an 'abolitionist brush' or from his first inaugural address stating he would not try to block the original 13th Amendment making slavery perpetual?

Oh, yes, lincoln is my hero < /sarcasm>

13 posted on 12/20/2001 4:56:33 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: billbears
The truth will come out
14 posted on 12/20/2001 4:59:33 AM PST by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LenS
To be honest Im always amazed and a little irritated at the amount of people willing to fight the Civil War over. However, I am a supporter of states rights, and the issue is very relevant to alot of legislation and programs that are being debated currently, so I do feel some points on that should be made.

The Civil War, though it acheived the positive goal of ending slavery and furthering the goals of freedom, was never actually fought because of the cause of abolition. Rather it was fought to keep the southern states inside the union because they were a signifigant source of capital.

I dont agree with the authors thesis that there is a legitimate case for southern secession. This has been argued before and the Constitution very clearly weighs in favor of the Union of States.

However, dont dismiss all of Rockwells writings so easily. He has, in the past made very interesting points on Federal/State-Local power sharing. And his writings, as well as the extensive Rothbard files he has on his website are worth further reading.

15 posted on 12/20/2001 5:07:16 AM PST by cascademountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
Even the Northern newspapers argued for letting the South go peacefully. It wasn't until they understood that their monopoly on shipping would disappear, thereby devastating the Northern economy.

Of course, some folks think that the South leached off the North, and fought a war to keep us leaching off them. Makes sense to me. < /sarcasm >

16 posted on 12/20/2001 5:18:09 AM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: shuckmaster

Great Post! But of course your die hard butt-sucking Yankees will always want to ignore the truth! Like Len S does! He thinks its about slavery, when it was about rights! Pay him no mind, he probably lost his smarts because of all the Yankee Bovine Scatology he has been fed throughout the years.

18 posted on 12/20/2001 5:34:14 AM PST by Colt .45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tberry
What the people missed was their personal freedoms that had just been won in the Revolution.
Except for those folks who didn't have any personal freedoms because they were owned by the people to whom you are referring?
19 posted on 12/20/2001 5:49:48 AM PST by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy, lens
Speaking for myself, I'm tired of most rational discussions of the War Between the States being filled with innuendo that to question the popular historical story is akin to promoting or endorsing slavery.

My personal research into this subject has convinced me that the South certainly had no illusions that slavery wasn't a dying institution and they certainly weren't fighting to preserve it per se. Lincoln's words indicated he wasn't intent on abolishing slavery, at least at the beginning of the war. There's documentation that slavery existed in the North and certainly in the West and that the Emancipation Proclamation did nothing for those slaves. There is documentation that riots in NYC broke out to prevent Union troops being sent to the South.

Lets see some documented facts, from the period just before the war or at its immediate start that bolsters any contention that the war was caused solely, or even mostly, to end slavery.

Why is the "slavery card" always pulled out instead of some cold hard facts?
20 posted on 12/20/2001 6:12:24 AM PST by babyface00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-315 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson