When in the course of human events Book

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another; and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect of the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish It …” [bold emphasis added] - Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, 1776

As Americans, we pride ourselves on our love of a good rebel. Whether it’s John Hancock signing his name to the above cited document in a large and sweeping hand “So that John Bull could read it without his glasses”, Geronimo’s infamous leadership of the Chiricahua in open defiance of the US Army or even James Dean’s effortless portrayal of his iconic Rebel Without a Cause; we love ‘em all. Well … that’s not entirely true … we don’t much care for the Confederacy of the Southern States of America in the latter half of the 19th century. And why not? What is it that makes their rebellion so different from our other beloved rebels’? I guess I’m not really sure anymore.

According to Charles Adams in his book When In the Course of Human Events, the South was well within their rights to secede from the union of independent states one century, two score and one decade ago. And he is not alone. At least not alone when it comes to 19th century thought. Many prominent 19th century Americans, and Europeans as well, believed in a states right to secession – especially in an independent union of sovereign states. Keep in mind, America was (at that point in its history) neither an empire nor a commonwealth. The sovereign states ultimately owed no allegiance to any nation, king or monarch. The Federal Government, according to the Declaration of Independence, derived its just powers “from the consent of the governed”. But what happens, as did in 1861, when citizens of those sovereign states no longer granted the Federal Government their consent? Well . . . according to Abraham Lincoln, they were to be imprisoned without trial, they were to have their property unceremoniously seized and/or destroyed and ultimately, they were to be killed as traitors. I would hardly call that “Government of the people, by the people and for the people” as Lincoln so ironically spouted in his sophistic yet revered Gettysburg Address.

Mr. Adams, throughout his book, makes an extremely strong case for the right of southern secession. What’s more, he makes his case based on the founding documents of the United States of America, the laws of the land and even by the words of Abraham Lincoln himself – along with the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Chief Justice Chase, Chief Justice Taney and on and on and on. So what went wrong? If secession was an obvious state’s right, why did the War Between the States even take place? Adams has an answer. And it’s not the answer that many may expect. Why did the Civil War take place? Simply put: “The Love of Money” butting heads with a generation “enamored of war”.

Adams’ well researched answer to that often asked question echoes the thoughts of many including respected British writer and thinker Charles Dickens who took an interest in America’s troubles and noted that The American Civil War was, at its heart, “a fiscal quarrel.” It all came down to taxes and tariffs. Sound familiar? It should. Virtually every war in the history of the world can be traced back to disputes over little more than money or property. Why should the Civil War be any different? By 1861, the US government had raised the import tariff to an astoundingly harsh average of 47% (and with commodities such as iron, the tariff rose above 50%) with the passage of the Morrill Tariff. Due to Southern dependence on imported goods, this was effectively a non-uniform tax placed solely upon the South which ran counter to the Constitution itself.

Analysis of the compromise tariffs of the 1830s and 1840s reveal that the total revenues to the Federal Government were approximately $107.5 million. Of that $107.5 million, the South paid approximately $90 million in duties, taxes and fees (over 83%) while the North only paid $17.5 million (17%) per annum. To make matters between the states even more strained, the North received the lion’s share of all Federal subsidies and benefit dollars - In effect, receiving the most while paying the least. That was why Fort Sumter (a tariff collection post) was the first battleground of the War Against Southern Independence. And it was also no coincidence that the businessmen on Wall Street and the wealthy Northern industrial tycoons were the money-men behind Lincoln’s invasion of the South. Southern secession would effectively put a stop to their illicit profiteering off the backs of Southerners. It’s also no wonder that a common saying in the Southern States became, “It’s the rich man’s war, and the poor man’s fight.”

Throughout the pages of When In the Course of Human Events, Adams clearly and concisely makes the case for each and every one of his arguments. He even takes on many counter opinions and provides enough evidence to bring those opinions into serious question. The arguments are all well reasoned and amply discussed. And maybe the most interesting part of Adams’ work centers on the European views of the American Civil War. As outsiders, the Europeans provided an interesting third party view of the events without being blinded by the baggage that Americans brought with them regardless of what side they found themselves on. Many, if not most, Europeans viewed Lincoln in a harsher light than they did Napoleon himself. Each chapter of the book deals with another aspect of the war era whether it was before, during or after the action. And each chapter, while sometimes becoming a bit repetitive, still manages to provide interesting new evidence and fascinating writing pulled directly from the period by which to judge the ultimate reasons behind the penning of that horrible page in America’s still quite short history book.

Adams’ writing is clear, crisp and simple. Having a tax writing background, he comes across as more than comfortable when dealing with the financial aspects of the causes behind the war while handling the history with a modicum of respect, and occasionally, with a touch of well deserved yet bitter sarcasm. It becomes obvious rather quickly that Charles Adams is not a fan of war – any war. That is to be admired. But, seriously, who is? Yet it’s refreshing to hear from a voice who seeks out the truth of things rather than simply swallowing the history as it was written by the victors of the struggle. Adams’ citing of opinion writing of the day, his inclusion of period newspaper articles and political cartoons and quotes from a multitude of key players and participants allows his audience the unique chance to slip inside the heads of those Americans who lived through that dark period and to understand their mindsets and motives as they witnessed the senseless destruction of the lives of some 630,000 of their young countrymen. I came away from this book with a new and interesting perspective on one of the most violent and devastating events our country has ever had the misfortune of suffering and I doubt I’ll ever view the events of that era in the same light again.

In the interest of fairness, I must say there were a few times throughout this read where I found small issues with which I disagreed with Adams’ conclusions - though most of my disagreements stemmed from his moments of personal reflection rather than from his grasp of the history. And overall, I found his work to be a refreshingly honest look at the circumstances surrounding the war and the motives of all the parties involved. His unflinching look into the taboo issues of slavery and US race relations as a result of the Civil War and eventual Reconstruction were both fascinating and troubling – especially given today’s heightened politically correct climate. I won’t pretend to be a big fan of Adams’ prose, but the sheer amount of information, data and history he managed to put forth in this endeavor is, simply put, impressive despite his book’s diminutive size (some mere 230 pages).

So, in conclusion, will this book convince you to ignore what your third grade history teacher taught you about Abraham Lincoln, William Seward, Salmon Chase, Daniel Webster and Union generals Grant, Sherman and Sheridan? Will you find yourself looking at Lincoln as less of a deified benevolent statesman seeking the preservation of democracy at any cost and more of a tyrant trampling the Bill of Rights in a breathtakingly bloodthirsty pursuit of slaughter against the South? Maybe. Maybe not. But I’ll tell you one thing: after reading When In the Course of Human Events, I find it more than just a little fitting that Mr. Lincoln has been memorialized as a larger than life god-king in a Greco-Roman temple of worship, seated high upon his royal throne, looking down his crooked nose upon his lowly American Subjects...