Regarding the book by Charles Adams:  I have read it, and
found it to be poorly argued.  

A fair argument has to take into account the best arguments of
its opponents.  Adams does not do this, but quite the
contrary, presumes the legitimacy of secession right from the
start.  Interestingly, Adams acknowledges that most Southern
politicians in 1860 argued rather vehemently that secssion was
about slavery.  But Adams then proceeds to argue that we
should not take these professions at face value, because
secession really was about tariff issues, not slavery, and not
the failure of northern states to enforce the provisions of
the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution.  Adams is
reasonably up front that his chief target is the growth of the
Federal Government, which he holds to be caused by the Civil
War, and ultimately by the policies of Abraham Lincoln.  At
any rate, its not a responsibly argued book.

Kenneth Stamp's article, on the other hand, *is* responsibly
argued, and requires considerably more of our attention than
does Adams'.  As a work of scholarship, it is much superior to
the reqrapping of "lost cause" polemic by Adams.  I recommend
Stamp's scholarship to anyone who is curious about these matters.

All best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html