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.
But that was not my point of contention. I think I laid that out specifically.
But, again, I'm in agreement with you.
And what have you missed lil jimmy? For one, the slaves were auctioned off on Wall Street to be sent south. Slave trade is at the root of today's so called Wall Street. So what say ye now?
Often times, people like this engage in behavior that is downright absurd. They render themselves impervious to documented facts that do not exist consistently with their agendas and even contradict themselves between sentences as to their positions. When called on it, they run the other way and try to change the subject.
Keep up the good work in frustrating these types. They have only themselves to blame for their own ignorance.
Those 4 regiments made up 20% of the cavalry regiments and 8% of the infantry regiments. I hardly think that is a handful. And yes, with rare exceptions the officers were white. I fail to see your point in that. Are you suggesting that the confederate army had black officers?
Would a black man wishing to enlist in the army have been accepted?
Well, yes. The regiments were made entirely of black enlisted and NCOs. They weren't drafted, you know.
But go ahead and enlighten me. If my figure is wrong then you tell me how many slaves there were in Massachusetts in 1800, and what is your source for that figure?
The old quotes work just fine.
"To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."
George Washington to John Jay, 15 August 1786
Walt
No, they wanted Lincoln elected because they wanted to split. Look at Lincoln's resume. Not very impressive.
And yet look what he did. Awesome.
Walt
(I cut this out of your post for speed, I know you didn't say it.)
"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by theaction of the non-slaveholding States... They have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
--from South Carolina Decl. of Secession
"...[the Northern States] have united in the election of a man to high office of the President of the United States, whose opinions and purpose are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of thecommon Government, because he has declared that the `Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."
--Texas declaration of secession
And here is what Texans thought of the Republican party: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as anegro slave remains in these States."
--Texas Declaration of Secession.
The Mississippi secession convention began their declaration of causes with thestatement, "Our cause is thoroughly identified with the institution of Africanslavery."
Soon to be CSA congressman Lawrence Keitt, speaking in the South Carolina secession convention, said, "Our people have come to this on the question ofslavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am notwilling to divert the public attention from it."
And the slave holders went on and on and on....
The record is clear. The cause was slavery.
The Texas and South Caroliina documents are also riven with factual errors. And yet the neo-confederate hold these bums up as heroes.
Walt
hey, hey, HEY!
That's MY line. ;-)
Walt
That depends on your definition of 'secession'. These neo-confederates want to say that secession was legal and proper under US law, and the record simply doesn't support that. And even if it did, the rebels gloried in being -revolutionary-, of following in the footsteps of the heroes of 1776, which is an argument that would gag a maggot, to use a good old Marine Corps phrase.
If you define 'secession' as departing extralegally for overbearing oppression, then the so-called sceded states had every right to go, as that is revoliution for cause and everyone has a right to revolt, whether it is justified or not.
I don't expect African-Americans to care much about what a bunch of white guys in powered wigs were doing, that is, early US history might not be very compelling. But the Supreme Court made clear that the sovereignty of the whole country rested on the people of the whole country--as early as 1793. There is simply no way it is honorable or legal to wait 70 years and then say you can duck out. Legal secession under our system is a fraud now, it was a fraud in 1793, and it was a fraud in 1860.
And yes, Lincoln and Davis and the rest are all dead, but how we perceive our past will dictate how we move ahead. That is why these lame neo-confederate arguments need to be refuted.
Walt
Numbers.
Name the CSA black regiments that were mustered in. Give some contemporary accounts as to numbers. Despite anecdotal evidence of some blacks fighting, it had to have escaped the notice of Lee, Davis and the CSA congress. Their writings during the war make that plain.
But as President Lincoln observed, anyone who will fight to be a slave should be given every opportunity to be one.
Walt
Because when it comes to war the winners ALWAYS write the histories.
To find out anything but what the winners want you to know, you must dig further than a normal search will take you.
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.