The Course of Human Events

This is classic McCullough -- especially good because McCullough's speech is recorded and we get McCullough himself. No historian, in my estimation quite compares with McCullough, especially his writing in his books in which he takes you into the narrative almost as a participant. He is five star in my estimation.

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.
Also I highly recommend The Real Lincoln, by Thomas DeLorenzo.

The winners write the history...
It is a well known maxim that the 'the winners write the history'. This does not apply to the Adams book. He correctly identifies that the very high tarrifs where the cause of the war. He also points out various comments by Lincoln on slavery and that the issue did not appear in the North until the THRID YEAR of the war when support for it was lagging. The reviewers who panned the book are victims of the history that was written by the Northern winners. I claim the the republic defined by the founders died at Bull Run. There is evidence that the New England states considered secession twice prior to the war of Northern agression. When they did so, NO ONE argued that secession was unthinkable. The South was no military threat to the North; they simply wanted to be left alone to go their own way. It was Lincoln's obsession that the big federal government sought by the Hamilton branch of the founders had to be preserved that led to the war. The small government - in the vein of the Jefferson branch of the founders - suffered its first blow at Bull Run, and was finished off by Wilson and FDR. NOTE: A 'civil war' is one between two factions striving to control a country. This was NOT the case with the War of Northern Agression. The South wanted the right to a government of their choice guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. FURTHER NOTE: I am an EX-yankee who has seen the light.

I love David McCullough and thought this was a great price on what I thought was a book. I should have read the reviews. It was a great speach, but I wouldn't have bought it at that price if I had known what it was. I will read reviews in the future.

An excellent look into the reasons that caused the civil war and not the the history written by the north.
We have been taught in history books it was all over slavery but that is far from the truth. It was caused
by taxes and money the same as all wars even today. very good reading ! rem

Charles Adams, a Northerner, gets the history of this War of Northern Aggression right! His history is spot on....this history should be required of all History Teachers in America and all high school students. Mr. Adams also wittingly or unwittingly shows how utterly ruthless one has to be to win wars.

Incredible book. The real reasons for the Civil War are so overwhelmingly clear in this book, heavily supported by other resources and testimonies from the time period. If you want to understand the real reasons for the Civil War, and why the more satisfying narrative of a war for slavery has gained hold, this will explain it all.

Like most of the world, I grew up thinking Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents. In one respect, perhaps he was. He maintained the "Union" but at the
cost of disregarding the Constitution and being ultimately responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

This book will open your eyes and make you ask questions. Certainly there is a bias involved. There is also documentation involved. All I got in the history classes so long ago was a bunch of impressive quotes and the evils of slavery. There is a lot more.

Prepare to have your predispositions challenged. History is written by the victors. Sometimes their causes are misrepresented and their methods are brutal.

Among the hundreds of books and articles I've read over six decades on the subject of the War to Prevent Southern Independence, this one is arguably the very best. The prose is imminently readable and the logic is superb. If anything, Mr. Adams leans over backward to try to give some credence to the north's decision to make war. The negative reviews simply expose the bias imposed by more than a century and a half of yankee propaganda and post-mortem deification of Lincoln. If you want to read one book to get a very balanced view of the causes and the impact of the war, this is the one.

This book has a not-new thesis, beloved by Marxists and Charles Beard: that economic reasons were the real driver behind the Civil War. Actually, Charles Adams tells us that only one economic reason was the sole driver—increased tariffs dictated by the North. As with all ideologically driven analysis, this ignores that all complex happenings have complex causes. Compounded with Adams’ numerous gross falsehoods, obvious ignorance, and bad writing, the result is Not Fresh.

I cannot speak with any authority to how much economic reasons had to do with the Civil War, although I can say with certainty that was only part of the reason the Civil War erupted. I suspect few rational people would argue that economic reasons were irrelevant. But I can speak with authority on legal matters and the structure of the American legal system, an analysis of which Adams heavily relies on to support his thesis, and in that regard Adams is comprehensively ignorant in a dishonest way.

Adams, at the beginning of the book, spends a lot of time establishing the supposed illegitimacy of Lincoln’s behavior, unoriginally casting Lincoln as a Julius Caesar-type dictator. Adams puts great weight, 10% of the entire book, on a discussion of Ex Parte Merryman. This was an 1861 case in which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney, acting as a circuit judge (i.e., explicitly not in his Supreme Court role), granted a writ of habeas corpus to a man imprisoned in Maryland by the military for sedition. The military, and Lincoln, refused to comply, with Lincoln explaining the legal basis for his reasons to Congress a month later.

Adams repeatedly and shrilly claims that Lincoln’s failure to obey Taney’s writ meant that Lincoln was undermining the entire system of American constitutional government by “refusing to obey a decision of the Supreme Court.” For many pages, Adams goes on in this vein, comparing Lincoln to Caesar crossing the Rubicon at least ten times and never acknowledging that there could be any doubt about the legal conclusion involved. But Ex Parte Merryman was NOT A SUPREME COURT DECISION. It was the act of a lower court judge acting “ex parte”—that is, without hearing from the parties involved. This is typical for a writ of habeas corpus, but an ex parte opinion from the Supreme Court itself has limited precedence, and the opinion of one justice of several, not even acting as a Supreme Court justice, has no Supreme Court precedential value at all.

But Adams flatly denies all this, or does not understand it, and even bizarrely claims “Today, Taney’s opinion is studied in law school as one of the great decisions on constitutional law, with no dissenters.” Nothing could be farther from the truth—in fact, the core legal question involved (whether it is Congress, the President, or some combination of the two can suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which suspension is explicitly allowed in the Constitution) has never been settled by the Supreme Court. Lincoln, unsurprisingly, took the position that the President had that authority, which was not and is not an illegitimate position. Then Adams tells us that Lincoln’s response was to order the arrest of Taney, who only was not arrested because of the discretion of the arresting officer. But this is a conjecture supported by no historians at all; there is no evidence such a thing ever happened except the word of one man years later. It is the Civil War equivalent of claiming that the government is warehousing aliens at Area 51. Adams doesn’t say that—he treats the supposed arrest warrant as an acknowledged fact, though from his defensiveness you can tell that there is something wrong. In sum, the atrociousness of the facts and analysis in this chapter cannot be overstated.

The rest of the book has some interesting sections—for example, on the British press’s reaction to the Civil War. But given the total falsehoods and biased selection of evidence related to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, there is no way for a non-expert to tell whether the rest of the book is similarly filled with falsehoods and cherry picking. But the rest of the book is undoubatedly filled with tendentious writing, constant propagandistic phrasing favoring the South, unbalanced analysis, and vitriol unbecoming in a supposed historian.

For supposed historian is what Charles Adams is. He self-describes himself on the blurb of his book as a “the world’s leading historian of taxation.” I am not a slave to academic qualifications, but Adams appears to have none. It is hard to find information on him, but according to a 1993 newspaper article, he is “a former California lawyer who is a research historian at the University of Toronto,” and before that “taught history at the International College of the Cayman Islands.” The book prominently notes that it is the “Winner of the 2000 Paradigm Book Award.” I can find no reference to such an award except in connection with this book. The back cover has positive blurb quotes from four people from Emory, Auburn, USC and Florida Atlantic University. The first two are not from historians, but from a philosopher and a trustee who is not a teacher at all. The third is from an elderly historian who is a founder of the League of the South, a neo-confederate organization. The fourth, a short and anodyne quote, is from a historian about whom I can find little information. But none of this increases my trust in this book. I’m sure there’s a case to be made for some of Adams’s opinions, but he does himself and his positions no favors with this book.

Simon and Schuster is getting a bit greedy here. The McCullough lecture for $8.99? Come on. It is available online for free at the National Endowment for History website. NEH.gov under the Jefferson Lecture. the store needs to be more stern with these publishers and stop this kind of thievery.

In 2003, historian David McCullough delivered the Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities in Washington, DC. Released as an audiobook in 2005 as The Course of Human Events, this speech is a 45 minute love letter to the field of history itself, and a joy to listen to for those who share McCullough's passion.

My first encounter with McCullough was his audio book reading of his Revolutionary War history 1776, so I already knew going into The Course of Human Events about McCullough's great oratorical skills and his mastery of the subject. As he notes in the speech, when he delivered The Course of Human Events he was working on 1776 at the time, and a great many - though not all - of his examples and stories come from the Revolutionary era.

One of the themes the McCullough builds in this speech is that none of the famous figures of the past lived in the past. In fact, they all lived in their present, and the success of their struggles was anything but certain at the time. By learning about how they overcame the challenges of their present, we can find courage and learn to overcome the challenges of our present. It's a powerful theme, and McCullough makes a strong case for it.

McCullough also discusses how he discovered his own joy of reading and of history, and cites some of the books that influenced him, as well as books that inspired and influenced the Founding Fathers. This is a great resource for history fans, and I've already requested some of these books from my library to discover for myself.

This speech is just that, a speech, and not a full book. But if you're a fan of McCullough, you'll be delighted anyways, and motivated to read more of his work, as well as those works he mentions in the speech.

If you're a history fan, you'll love McCullough's eloquent tribute to the field with The Course of Human Events. If you're not a history fan, you might just be after you've listened to this speech.

Charles Adams is a man possessed: possessed of hatred for Abraham Lincoln, the North, and the United States of the 21st century. That the book is not history is proven by its subtitle: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession. An historian would not argue a case for or against any historical event. Like his counterpart Thomas DiLorenzo, Adams is an unhappy man who feels driven to trash the entire American historical scene with incomplete, anachronistic arguments. Neither man delves deeply enough into history, although Adams is the better of the two in that regard. Suffice it to say that if you truly want history, Adams and DiLorenzo are not the men to deliver it.

Some here (maybe from Yorba Linda?), who expect others to admire their analytical skill and knowledge of history, don't seem to be able to spell the word 'secession'. Might I suggest that ones knowledge and opinion of this act is highly suspect when that same person doesn't even come close to the proper spelling.
That being as it may, might to refer all readers to an old book entitled 'A View to the Constitution of the United States' by William Rawle, 1829. (reprint available on the 'net). Mr. Rawle was, in his time, a most highly admired and respected expert on the U.S. Constitution. In this book, even though he says that secession should be used in a last resort, he asserts that it is (was) legal and how it should legally be done. His outline was followed, 90% by the seceding states!
Also, Abe Lincoln once said 'If I can save the Union by freeing all the slaves, I would. If I can save it by freeing half the slaves, I would. And if I could save it by freeing none of the slaves, I would do that too'. He is also quoted as being highly concerned with the loss of revenue to the US Treasury (no income tax then, btw) if the South stayed out of the Union. A New York shipping merchant is quoted in a major New York newspaper as saying 'if the South stays seceded, there will be grass growing in the streets of New York harbor within the year!'.
Ft. Sumter and Ft. Pickens (in Pensacola) were, in the mid 19th century, being used as 'revenue forts' or custom houses to enforce very high import tariffs on goods of foreign manufacture. Much of the money raised from these tariffs, mostly paid by Southerners who imported more goods, went to subsidizing Northern industries like textiles, iron, and fishing. Much also went to subsidizing northern improvements and railroads, with very little being allocated in the South.
For a thought provoking 'what if', consider the fact that the reaper was invented in the early 19th Century, but the mechanized cotton picking harvester was not invented until 1944! Imagine if you will the impact on our culture and history if simply the timing of these two inventions had been juxtaposed?? Might the north have seceded from a Southern Union due to having to use slave labor to harvest their grain?

David McCullough is an unbelievable author and presenter. This 45 minute presentation is a very interesting piece and one that even folks with little interest in history may find interesting only because of the angle that Mr. McCullough provides on the early history of the U.S. He packs quite the punch into a few moments and it honestly left me wanting to hear more even though he really gets all his points across. I wish he was the voice for all of his work--having enjoyed Johnstown Flood as a book on tape. Well worth the download or purchase.

Many of David McCullough's books are about the United States of America. This is the kind of reading that should be read in our schools, not the sex trash that some are forcing on our children (without parential permission). We should all learn about the sacrifices that were made by men (and women) who, tho imperfect made in order to form the US. We are not perfect. But there is nothing better. I could go on ....and on.

A friend asked me to read this book. I approached it with skepticism. I begin by saying it is very well written and readable. The author continually repeats his themes, which I found helpful in staying on track with his message. I was absolutely amazed at the new information and insights I received regarding the actions of Abraham Lincoln. Adam's argument for the real cause of the Civil War was most believable and contrary to much of what I thought I knew. The book seems honest, well documented, and extremely insightful. His main point, for me, was that the Civil War was not about a smokescreen noble cause such as the abolition of slavery, though that was a noble cause, but about greed and power on both sides. Like all wars, Adams makes the point that there is almost always a better way to resolve issues, other than war, and that the reason for the Civil War, and most wars, has more to do with economics, greed, and power. I totally agree, and it reminds me of the Iraq war of our time. This is a great read, and I recommend it for any open minded person willing to take a second look at one of the most destructive events in American history, the Civil War.

"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.

A short lecture from McCullough on his methods and fascination with history. As a lover of history, it is wonderful to have passionate and skillful writers such as McCullough to write excellent books for all to read.

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, it 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.

What happened to the American Experiment?

Who lost? [all live-and-let-live people on the planet]

Who won? [the fascists and their trickle-down fascist gophers in YourTown]

Please read and carefully consider the quotes that follow this brief review.

And please make it your business to force the representative bodies of the United States to come clean on, and END, the Un-Constitutional so-called "income tax". THAT, my friend, is the only way to get the Banksters off your children's backs and end the perpetual wars and make-work economic expansion [for the sake of the criminal corporations] that are blighting the planet.

[Please don't misunderstand me - I am NOT saying that ALL politicians, bankers, businesspeople etc. are crooks - just most of them - whether passively or actively]

If you care about what happens to future generations of Earthlings you will want to read the following 3 books in order to understand the pivotal period of American and World history known erroneously as the "Civil War" and correctly as the "Second War for American Independence".

Then watch, if you haven't already, these documentaries: THE CORPORATION ... and ... AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM.

When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession - CHARLES ADAMS
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War - JEFFREY ROGERS HUMMEL
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War - THOMAS DILORENZO

---------------------

THE TELLING QUOTES:

"the status of slavery embraces every condition, from that in which the slave is known to the law simply as a chattel, with no civil rights, to that in which he is recognized as a person for all purposes, save the compulsory power of directing and receiving the fruits of his labor." --Supreme Court Justice Curtis in his dissent on the Dred Scott decision; 1856

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." --LORD ACTON

"I saw in States' Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy . . . I deemed that you [i.e., Lee] were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo." --Lord Acton in his first letter to General Robert E. Lee

"Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail." --John C. Calhoun, 1831

"What was once a Constitutional Federal Republic, is now converted in reality into one as absolute as that of the autocrat of Russia, and as despotic in its tendency as any absolute government that ever existed." --John C. Calhoun, Southern Statesman and visionary, 1850, in his last speech to congress

"Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be always a child. If no use is made of the labors of past ages, the world must remain always in the infancy of knowledge." --Cicero

"While serving in Congress, Lincoln was an outspoken supporter of the Marxist/socialist revolutions in Europe going on at the time. In 1861, Honest Abe sought to free the South from itself. Four years, billions of dollars in property loss and debt, and 600,000 lost lives later, Lincoln got his wish and our modern day federal government in Washington is the fruit of his labor. Don't everybody cheer at once." --MATTHEW CHANCEY

Forget the apolgetics pro and con about slavery and secession and consider a fresh, well-researched, cogent and rational approach. If this sounds like your cup of tea this is the book. Lincoln the lawyer said in 1848 "Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government and form a new one that suits them better.This is a valuable, a most sacred right." Twelve short years later his behavior was that of an emperor rather than an elected official. It is the author's development of the taxation issue which is most compelling however. Taking advantage of the departed Southern states in March 1861 the U.S. Congress enacted the largest tariff in US history (the Morrill Tariff),increasing the tariff from 20% to 47%. The South responded by declaring itself in effect a free trade zone. Wall Street tumbled & immediately abandoned their "let them depart in peace" mantra to a cry for war. A free trade zone on the southern part of the continent would have ruined the northern economy.The issues which were later developed as supposed justifications are exposed and largely destroyed. The preceeding reviews are quite correct. This is groundbreaking. It has moved to the very top of my recommended book list with Time on the Cross (Fogel) and To Die in Chicago (Levy).

When In The Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams is a clever and well written work that argues the case for secession of the Southern states. In much the same way as Thomas DiLorenzo in his book The Real Lincoln, Mr. Adams illustrates the tyrannical tactics of the Lincoln White House. Shortly following the bombardment of Fort Sumpter, Lincoln and his cabinet started suspending habeas corpus. With habeas corpus suspended, the administration could now put its opponents behind bars.

Adams tells the story of Justice Roger B. Taney. By the orders of General George Cadwallder, a man by the name of John Merryman was imprisoned at Fort McHenry after being arrested one night in his home. Merryman petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus from Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. Taney granted the writ and set a date for the hearing, but neither General Cadwallder or Merryman showed up. Instead, the general sent a letter to the Chief Justice explaining his actions and citing the decree by President Lincoln suspending the writ. This meant Merryman could languish in prison if the general so decided with no right to trial or an inquiry into whatever charges the general decided to make. After a couple of unsuccessful attempts to get justice for Merryman, Taney wrote a blistering opinion and sent it to Lincoln himself. In this opinion he stated: "...the people of the United States are no longer living under a Government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty, and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found." President Lincoln ignored this rebuke. Not only did Lincoln ignore Taney's opinion, he also wrote a standing order for the arrest of Taney who was in his eighties! Fortunately for the Chief Justice, his arrest never took place for one reason or another. However, there were plenty of men like him who stood up and spoke the truth about what Lincoln was doing who were arrested.

Mr. Adams also relates the story of Clement Vallandigham. Democratic Congressman Clement Vallandigham had been a thorn in the President's side for almost two years. He attacked Lincoln's war policies while a member of the House of Representatives. Vallandigham even introduced a bill to imprison the President if he continued to make illegal arrests through military tribunals. Vallandigham later stated: "I have the most supreme contempt for King Lincoln." He should not have been surprised when soldiers battered down the door of his home in Dayton, Ohio, and took him to Cincinnati for trial where a military tribunal could quickly convict him and put an end to his critical speeches. Vallandigham and Justice Taney were just two of the many who were under the threat of arrest because they demanded justice.

I enjoyed Mr. Adams's book. I would not agree with everything he says, but I believe he offers a comprehensive view of what took place during the war. Charles Adams gives his support to the Southern cause; however, he is honest about its short comings. Overall I would highly recommend this book to any avid Civil War history reader.

I am a northerner, whose grandparents immigrated to the U.S. between 1895 and 1914. I was taught that Lincoln was the greatest president in U.S. history because he preserved the Union. So when a friend suggested that I read this book, I was intrigued. I will try to present the book's strengths and weaknesses in an objective manner.

There are two significant weaknesses, and they are obvious. The author states on page 52 that Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and that over 10,000 people were arrested and held without trial. He cites many sources of people who complained about the arrests. But Mr. Adams names only two (Messrs. Merryman and Vallandigham) and the Maryland state legislature and its Southern sympathizers (51). This total of 53 is less than 1% of 10,000. Mr. Adams would have solidified his argument if he had quoted several references to help him reach 10,000.

Similarly, the author states that Lincoln shut down over 300 newspapers that opposed his policies. But on page 41, Mr. Adams names only 16 specific papers. He does quote one source that said, "scores" were shut down, but scores could be 100 (five score). Where are the rest? There are no references.

The second weakness is that the book repeatedly wanders from the topic. Chapter 1 discusses the history of secession, but the 10th Amendment is mentioned only in Chapter 12 (page 181). There are others: Chapters 2 and 4 cover tariffs and trade (the main reason for the war), but specific statements in Chapters 5 and 6 should have been mentioned in Chapters 2 or 4, and then referenced in the later chapters.

But these weaknesses are overwhelmed by the book's strengths.

The book's greatest strength is its list of references, both old (1862) and new (1998). There are more than 100 references, which support some of the more shocking facts in the book. The author makes a very strong case for the South's right to secede, citing both U.S. and world precedents.

These references adequately support the author's insistence that Lincoln was a tyrant, such as Lincoln's order to arrest the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Adams cited two specific references, of which one was a first-hand account.

The author supplies many references to show that the war was started over money, not slavery. (Read Lincoln's First Inaugural Address.) Ironically, it was an English writer (John Stuart Mill) who was the first to write about slavery as the real reason for the war, in February 1862.

The book is by no means disjointed. I could not have written it, but I think its organization could have been better.

There were some statements with which I strongly disagreed, but they aren't relevant here. The two main points that I learned were: 1. states have the right to secede, and 2. Lincoln was a tyrant.

This was a very enlightening book. I had always heard that the civil war was not about slavery, but could never get a good explanation of why. This book most emphatically gives it!

It also answers the embarassing questions that my teachers could never answer like:

If the South seceded because of slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves until two years later? It can't be because of Congress since it was an executive order.

If Lincoln was about freeing the slaves, why did he only free them in the South initially?

Why is Sherman so greatly reviled in the South and why is it said that the South is still fighting the war?

The answer to this last question ties in with all the civil oppressions in history and why places like Northern Ireland, the Basque regions of France and Spain, Chechnya, etc. never have been and never will be assimilated. A small section of the book describes how no secessionist movement in history has been successfully put down without complete destruction and demoralization of the rebelling population.

And just to put the finishing cap on these atrocities, the northerners sent the freed slaves back into the South to implement their oppressive policies thereby guarenteeing the extreme racism that still reverberates in America today.

All in all, a very enlightening book, although a little rough in the editing. Still very readable.

From my earliest history lessons I was fortunate to have been taught the so-called Civil War was not waged strictly over slaves. It was called back then "States Rights" and "Constitutional Rights". Since then I have read many period newspaper accounts, diaries, reports, and books covering 1850-1870. Some years back I had already come to the conclusion that the war was over Constitution and taxes. Mister Adams's book condenses much of what I have read over the years into 1 or 2 evenings reading. Though missing some documentation as in local newspaper articles to show the South's frustration over the taxes before the war. Most points raised and documentation are certainly adequate. If one wants to tear apart his work I suppose he can try. However, most references are easily verified.
A must read for anyone truly interested in history, and Constitution. Captain Ashe's book would be another early account drawing much the same conclusions as Mister Adams. Some nice illustrations from around the world in Mister Adams book as well.

Without doubt slavery was a factor in the South's decision to secede, but the act of secession does not have to produce a war. Mr. Adams does an excellent job explaining why Lincoln and friends felt that the South could not be allowed to leave in peace. Lincoln and Grant repeatedly denied that the war was over slavery. So why did Lincoln go to war with the South? In a nut shell, Lincoln went to war at the bidding of his wealthy, industrialist supporters who had come to realize that Southern secession would spell economic ruin for the North.
Lincoln always insisted that the war was only to maintain the Union. Was maintaining the Union more important than the founding principle of self-determination? Was it more important than the principle of constitutional government? Was it worth thousands dead and a region destroyed? Why was it so damn important to keep those 11 Southern States in the Union? Mr. Adams provides the well-researched answer: Money.

1. Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy's Vice Presisdent and leading intellectual, stated that "Our new government...rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man.""the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization..was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."...
2. The South's desire for free trade was directly caused by its slave economy, which hindered economic development and kept it an agricultural backwater dependent on imported goods.
3. Libertarians like Adams seem to ignore the fact that the tariff system that the South hated is precisely what allowed the US to go without the hated income tax for most of its history.
4. Particularly laughable is Adams' attempt to cast the South as a heroic bastion of American liberties. No mention is made of the antebellum censorship of abolitionist tracts, the banning of "Uncle Tom's Cabin", or the arrest of those who dared to express antislavery opinions on the grounds that they were inciting slave riots.
5. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (which is explicitly provided for in the Constitution) is condemned, but the lynching of pro-union Texas legislators immediately after secession is overlooked.
6. The march through Georgia is condemned, but the enslavement of free Pennsylvania blacks by the confederate army during the Gettysburg campaign is also overlooked (See "When War Passed This Way" by W.P. Conrad, and Nolan's "Lee Considered"). Also forgotten is the encouragement of civilian murders and terrorism by Confederate "raiders" such as Quantrill, who routinely executed union prisoners. Let's not forget the attempt by the Confederate government to consider the use of black soldiers a war crime punishable by death and enslavement.
7. Adams blathers on about the evils of centralized government, but ignores the fact that just about every rail line, major interstate road and fort in the South was created with federal assistance and money. He also overlooks the fact that upon succession, the southern states ransacked and stole FEDERAL property in the south for their own use, without even the pretense of compensation. Yet Adams and his ilk are furious that slaveowners were not compensated for the loss of their slaves! If the South had a right to secede, it had an obligation to compensate the United States for the millions of dollors invested in Southern roads, forts, etc. by the federal government. (These, of course, were funded using the same tariffs that the South condemned!) (See point 3)
It is simply amazing the sheer blindness that some people will gladly incur to support their views. 'Bleeding Kansas', John Brown, the Great Compromise, "Uncle Tom's Cabin", the Dredd Scott decision, the Fugitive Slave law...none of this happened, apparently, since of course it shows that slavery was the bedrock of the Confederate cause. Nope, it was all about those darn tariffs, everything else be damned.
The American Revolution occurred when Americans were explicitly stripped of their democratic and legal rights by Great Britain. The South was never deprived of any right. It lost the 1860 election fair and square and decided to leave because they didn't like the result. As Lincoln saw, such an act ('If I don't get to be quarterback, I won't play!') would in fact destroy the very concept of democracy, hence his belief that the war was being fought to see if "[democratic] government...could long endure." Thank God, Lincoln and the Union won. Because the book points out oft-ignored issues in the North-South dispute, I'll give it two stars instead of one. But this attempt to sanctify the anti-Union cause fails miserably.

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.

As we enter the 21st century, the "Lincoln Myth" seems to be finally dead.
The magificent new book _The Real Lincoln_ (Dilorenzo .. 2002) is another nail in the coffin of the Lincoln Myth
The Lincoln Myth is finally gone ... Lincoln was a digsuting, sickening racist. He was the man who slaughtered the plains Indians. Lincoln the dictator, Lincoln the genocidist, Lincoln the man who invented total war, bringing war to civillians. Lincoln the Great Liar, the man who's most famous statements are his most lying and conniving from a stunning career of legalistic lying in public. Lincoln -- the man who simply imprsoned tens of thousands of newspaper editors to drive through his insane war that everyone, north and south, was opposed to. Lincoln, who invented secret police. Lincoln, who gave every constitutional right to the wind.
As always on the store reviews, you can immediately tell a sound, rational fact-filled book by the reviews.
Socialists hate and loathe sound, rational, fact-filled books such as Charles Adams' _When in the course of human events_.
Socialists breathe for, exist only because, the major socialist dictators of history such as Lincoln .. since socialists are devoid of ideas or philosophy, they can only - like Lincoln -- succeed by simple brute force, exactly as Lincoln did.
Every single negative review of the wonderful Adams book simply elevates the book in greatness.
Buy it and enjoy the truth and fresh air: Adams' book is one of the most important early steps against the insane Lincoln Myth.

This is a recording of McCullough's 2003 lecture at the Library of Congress. It isn't a researched historical treatise. He has many really insightful and useful perspectives on the value of studying history and it is well worth a listen just for that. But the joy in his work he conveys, quietly stated, is wonderful salve in our enervated, histrionic world and I've listened to it many times to remind myself of the true value and rewards of scholarship and inquiry.

Adams, like the majority of Americans, was raised on the Worship Lincoln, Free The Slaves emotional history created by the Civil War's victors. Me too. As I studied and became more critical, I realized there were important Civil War facts not being taught in my California schools and colleges. Adams nails it, and very objectively. He is not a Lincoln hater, but read about how Lincoln signed a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice of The U.S. Supreme Court. Or read Adam's logical analysis of the Gettysburg Address. A rare book. A must for those who would understand the history of our country.

Adams challenges the blind assumptions that too many Americans have about the Civil War. For example, he shows the fallacy in the view that secession was unconstitutional - instead showing Lincoln to be the one with the lack of respect for the Constitution. His knowledge on the topic is obvious, and even if you don't agree with his conclusions (though I think you might!) your opinions on the war that split our nation will change.

Adams blows the popular misconception that the Civil War was about slavery completely out of the water. I've heard a federal judge agree with his contention that the South had a constitution right to secede. He offers a scathing rebuke of Lincoln's blatant power grab, and submits that Sherman, Grant, and Sheridan could have been convicted of war crimes, even by mid 19th century standards. Great book!

Too many fail to realize that the secession-crisis was far older than the slavery-debacle, going back to 1832 regarding the Nullification-crisis-- whereby President Jackson claimed that the federal government held supreme national authority over the states, even though the Founders and Framers-- particularly Madison and Jefferson-- claimed that the states were individually sovereign in being able to nullify federal law and/or secede from the union entirely.

This issue was over tarriffs on imports such as Whiskey and sugar-- not slavery, and eventually grew into the Civil War when nullification became secession.

While slavery was listed as a cause of secession by some states, this was not a protest of a federal act, so much a protest of northern states' violating Constitutional fugitive-slave agreements, by using THEIR sovereign power to nullify these laws, and refusing to comply with them by sending slaves back; some southern states seceded over this contractual breach by other states.

Secession only became war, because the federal government declared it illegal; the South did not WANT war, but would not give up their claim to sovereignty without a fight. Therefore the war was not over tariffs or slaves, but the right of secession; the union invaded to prevent that, not to free slaves or collect tariffs!

Adams is wrong, however, that "secession's legality should have been determined by the courts;" for unilateral secession could be justified only by state sovereignty-- and federal courts cannot HAVE jurisdiction over a sovereign state, only a subordinate one.

Therefore by this argument, Adams harms his own premise, since this implies that the states were subordinate, not sovereign-- and thus had NO inherent right of secession.

Charles Adams' book is revisionist history at its best. War histories are usually written by the victors, who can justify their actions after the fact by bending history to their benefit. This account shows unequivocally that Lincoln, with the help of the Northern war financiers, suspended the Constitution and human rights throughout the war and crushed a secessionist movement that was legally justified.

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.

David McCullough delivers an inspirational overview of our country's rich history, reminding us that our leaders past and present were/are human, yet were able to rise to the challenges and exemplify the best that man's character has to offer

Adams is strictly 'gloves off' as he buries the old guard historians and tears down the idols of Lincoln mythology. Finally, our generation gets a real look at Lincoln and his cohorts--not the apotheoses of your public school textbooks (i.e. propaganda) but the actual despotic, constitution-despising barbarians that exterminated our Republic, callously shedding the blood of more than 620 thousand of its sons for filthy lucre and the establishment of an "American" empire.

What ails us? Read this book and find out. Better yet, read this book and give it to your children to read!

I have read, researched, written, and taught for many years on the war that was America's greatest tragedy. And I can state categorically that now when I am asked, as often I am, what one book I would recommend to learn why the war was REALLY fought, it is this blockbuster to which I point.
Adams' chapters on the divisive tariff (and Wall Street's pivotal role in the issue); President Lincoln's amazing disregard for the Constitution; the rise of such groups as the Ku Klux Klan; and the views of an amazing array of foreign observers, including Charles Dickens and Karl Marx, left me feeling hoodwinked by much of what I had previously read. The true story was a heartbreaking story for both North and South, black and white. This book made me angry, brought me to the brink of tears a couple of times, and convinced me never again to believe on face value what is taught about the war of 1861-65.
If you have any interest at all in this war, about how it impacted the Founding Fathers' vision for our country, about how different the U.S. was after 1865 than it was before 1861, you will, literally, not be able to put this book down until you finish it. No one I know who has gotten it has.