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