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. Adamss 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 Adamss 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 Lincolns 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 Confederacys 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 Lincolns 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 authors 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. Bradfords division of Lincolns 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. Lincolns war. Americans paid a rather high price for making a means into an end.
At any rate, I shall not argue either pre-war Southern attitudes to black or Northern ones, and neither will I decide whether slavery was the worst offense in American history or merely a poor idea.
I will say that the Federal means of ending slavery was terrible. It could have hardly been handled any worse. The North used the black man very well, and created conditions of animosity that would impact the South for over a century, indeed, up to the present day. Please click on my screen name and read the quotes from Patrick Cleburne (CSA), and perhaps get one of the biographies on that man. His words predicted what would happen after the war between blacks and whites down to a tee.
In short, it does not matter if you hate slavery or not: the way it was ended was perhaps worse than slavery itself, or at least if contrasted with a gradual ending done by the individual states. The ends shoudl not justify the means, in this case especially.
And lest you believe the North considered the Civil War to be over slavery, consider the plantations the Yankee army maintained, using former slaves who were promised pay-merely promised. Or that the colored regiments were disbanded after the war (when they could no longer incite Southern population anyway), and blacks esentially excluded from the ranks for years. Or just the attitudes of Northern soldiers on why they were fighting.
That would come as a hell of a surprise to the men in the 9th and 10th Cavalry regiments and the 24th and 25th Infantry regiments. Or haven't you ever heard of the 'buffalo soldiers'? All were created in 1866, all the soldiers and NCOs were black, and all served with distinction into the Korean War.
ROTFLMAO - you forgot to roll your eyes and faint!
I don't mind bumping the threads but just wish there would be honest discussion rather than false, and goofy D.S. replies to the statments of those who have actually tried to understand why the War happened. Since I don't keep canned responses handy and don't link it takes me far more time to actually respond to individual responses. Your side posts the same refuted arguments and throws in paragraph after paragraph of irrelevencies and out-of-context misinformation or outright lies time after time.
The "revisionism" is all on the side of the D.S.'s; the original traitors all admitted the War was fought by them for one reason- to protect slavery. That was the only States' Rights they cared about and were honest enought to admit it unlike their latter-day cheering section.
There is probably not ONE public school in the country where one cannot get a decent education IF THAT IS YOUR GOAL. All the rest is mere blame making and excuses.
The problem with public schooling in the ghettos is neither the teachers nor the curriculum, it is with the PARENTS of the children. With 80% of the black children there is no two parent family and no value placed on education. They would be doing the same thing in private schools- not learning and being proud of it.
Did it never cross your mind that the reason Blacks support the federal government so much is because it was the one which stood up for them against the Slaveowners and their completely owned States before and after the war? This is the reason they support Big government because they saw State governments take away their rights as humans first and as citizens later. Terrorism against them, their leaders and their communities were SOP in the South until well into this century.
When they disabuse themselves of this love of government and strike out on their own initiative Blacks succeed just like anyone else in this nation. Distancing themselves from the Democratic Party will accelerate this success. After all it was always the Democratic Party which supported slavery, fought against allowing the Blacks their rights and used the States against them. In fact, it was the incredible stupidity of the Dems which allowed Lincoln to be elected in the first place. The Slaveocrats were not satisfied with the moderate stance on slavery adopted by the nominee of the national party so they split the party and it wound up running two Democratic nominees allowing Lincoln to win with a minority of the popular vote.
Talk about a dumb lie!
By golly, you guys are already on your way to making a nation, since you have forgotten more history than most people ever learn.
The idea that the war was about secession or state's rights, Southern rights or the Southern way of life, or Northern aggression is appealing at first, but it's an evasion. When you ask why the war happened when it did, and why it did not happen at other times in our history, and why "Southern rights" was so important at this point in history, you do have to address the question of slavery. It may not be the only reason. Wars and historical events seldom have only one cause or reason, and that's especially true of civil wars, but slavery can't be ignored in studying the period.
So many people want a sanitized Southern history in which all of one's ancestors are exactly like one's self and pass all the contemporary tests of political correctness. That's a delusion as well. We know that North and South, virtually no Americans in this period had 21st century attitudes about race and racial equality. In all these debates we are told over and over again that Northerners of the 1860s were not model citizens of the multicultural world of 2001. What rarely gets mentioned is that the same was true of the Southerners of these years. Once we acknowledge that we might get somewhere. When we recognize that not believing in racial equality didn't mean supporting slavery, we can move a little further in our understanding. But people are more concerned with having a clear conscience than in letting the chips fall where they may. To understand causes, you have to let go momentarily of the ideas of guilt and innocence and go to the sources.
Adams's emphasis on the tariff is an answer to provide that unknown quality behind state's rights or secession or Southern rights that made the war a fighting matter. But it's a red herring -- a deliberate deception. There was no reason for the increase in the tariff but the secession of the lower tier of states, and no reason for Lincoln's election, but the anger of Southern Democrats that the Northern wing of their party was insufficiently supportive of the right to bring slaves into the territories and the free states. You can't remove slavery from the equation and account for the passions that were aroused.
Seeing that my forefathers were slaves, what "personal freedoms" are you talking about?
This is what kills me about people who will not allow the Civil War, War Between the States, or War of Northern Aggression to die. When I hear people speak of the times before this war as some sort of utopia I cannot help but become extremely perplexed.
These people speak as though slavery didn't exist at all. Please! Keep your talk of freedom and liberty when there were people held in chattel slavery. That is hypcocrisy to the utmost!
The Civil War is over. Get over it. How can you live life and go forward by perpetually looking in the rearview mirror? Lincoln is dead. Davis is dead. Lee is dead. Grant is dead. Forrest is dead. That was the 19th century. We now live in the 21st.
Get with it! And save your hypocrisy on your so-called "liberty." Speaking of "liberty" while people were in chains?
Lord help me!
That tells me all I need to know about your pretense to research on the subject you too often pretend to be an expert on. Let me ask you a couple of simpler questions. How you you think the slaves in America got here & in what currency do you think they were bought?
I'll give you one clue. It wasn't Confederate money.
The argument ends when you take your own advise... It's the 21st century & revisionist historians don't have an argument that will stop Southern people from proudly waving their flag of independence. Free your mind & stop living in the past.
Being a lover of history I do like to read the Civil War/Lincoln threads but almost never comment about them. In a way, my ancestors (black folks) weren't in a position to have much of a dog in that fight.
At the same time, the Confederacy did have a few legitimate points and I do believe Lincoln's presidency represented a major step in the direction of big government that has not done our nation as a whole much good. Yeah, most Confederates preferred to keep us as slaves as long as it was profitable, but that doesn't keep me from seeing the good in them where it exists.
I'm in the 21st century. Maybe you, of all people, should join me in the present.
Wave your flag and/or wipe your backside with it. Matters none to me. But like I said, do not speak of that time as some utopia of liberty while holding others in chains.
Like it or not, that's hypocritical, and I will pull your coat and call you on it each and every time.
Ya dig?
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.