Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War

Hummel's position is basically that of the few principled Northern abolitionists who didn't abandon their anarchism for nationalism, e.g. Lysander Spooner ("The principle on which the war was waged by the North was that men may rightfully be compelled to submit to a government they do not want, and that resistance makes them criminals and traitors") and George W. Bassett ("The same principle that has always made me an abolitionist now makes me an secessionist. It is the great natural and sacred right of self-government"). According to Hummel, although the so-called "Civil War" ended with the unintended consequence of emancipating the slaves, by crushing the the right of self-government, it also enslaved all free men.I did find his total endorsement of the "neo-abolitionist" (his words) contention that slavery was the sole cause of secession extremely disappointing. Elsewhere, Hummel has said that the evidence for slavery as the cause of secession is one of the most well-documented facts in history. Well then, tell us how you really feel! While it is undeniable that slavery (specifically, its extension, which was never a moral question, but political/economic) was a part of the great division between the North and the South, so were a host of other issues, some of which were older and more oppressive to the South. More importantly, underlying all these issues - central banking, taxation, expenditure, territorial expansion, war, etc. - was the principle of states' rights. Secession was the culmination of a political, economic, and cultural conflict between the North and the South which went back generations and had roots in the foundation of the Union. I've always found summing it all up as "slavery" to be extremely shallow.

It seems that "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" has been gaining a small amount of popularity from neo-confederate authors who praise the book on it's many refreshing and truthful conclusions despite the fact that Hummel's book generally follows tired and true doctrine proclaiming the war to be Southern cause to protect slavery.Unlike most Civil War books that praise Lincoln and chastise the South, Hummel forgoes the Lincoln idolatry while retaining his Southern criticism. He therefor concludes that even though the Southern intent was wholly immoral, Lincoln's crusade to save the Union was just as unscrupulous as Lincoln came to a presumptions and unrealistic conclusion that world-wide democracy was endangered by an independent southern nation. Hummel argues quite convincingly that rather then save democracy and liberty, he actually destroyed it by his reckless and tyrannical actions.In all of this, the only real concession he gives to the South is that slavery was basically doomed before the secession movement even began and the forming of the Confederacy made it even weaker, pointing out that even Alexander Stephens recognized that slavery was more secure in the American Union rather than out of it.Other than that, Hummel actually touches on a lot of other subjects that readers may find interesting including Confederate finances, Union medical services, and the impact of new weaponry to help round out his study. He also provides excellent bibliographical essays for readers who want to read about certain topics in far greater detail than what he provides.So why the four stars? I found the book to be a tad short, I would have enjoyed a deeper analysis on certain subjects in Hummel's own words, but I suppose I will have to rely on his recommendations.

Hummel is careful, fair, and concise as he lays out the factual threads that comprise the American Civil War. It isn't until the epilogue, however, that we see what he's been making with these threads--a noose capable of hanging the myths that we all learned in school. Myth 1: Secession would have been bad for Northern whites and Southern blacks. Myth 2: Secession would have been good for slaveholders. Myth 3: The Civil War was a necessary war. Myth 4: The war was the only way, or at least the best way, to free the slaves. Myth 5: The objective of the war was to free the Southern slaves. Myth 6: Lincoln was an American hero who advanced the cause of freedom and democracy.In truth, the Civil War was an unnecessary monstrosity whose blame rests with political leaders on both sides of the fight, but primarily with the idolized Lincoln.Charles L. Hooper, coauthor of  Making Great Decisions in Business and Life

Hummel has written a book that I feel is more balanced and detailed than either of DiLorenzo's ventures into the topic. I was pleased that much of the historicity of the book was corroborated by what I had read in high school and so the book was for me a refresher on this era in American history. Hummel discusses in-depth the ways in which secession would have undermined slavery and frequently brings up specific entries from many different historical figures to give an accurate and complete picture of the Civil War and the ensuing Reconstruction. I strongly recommend reading this book if possible.One more thing I was pleased with reading this book: the author is much more detached from the events, rarely approaching the scorn and indignation with which DiLorenzo approaches the topic (if at all). Not to throw DiLorenzo under the bus, but I feel his books are a little misleading at times.

Very interesting book about the events leading up to the Civil War, the conflict of moral and political rights surrounding it, and the long-term consequences of killing hundreds of thousands of people in order to free hundreds of thousands of other people. Definitely not a book that great admirers of Lincoln will cherish.

One of the best synopsis of the causes (yes, it was over slavery) and results of the Civil War I know of. This from a tar heel who grew up on this stuff.

anyone that idolizes this war criminal does not know history and will stand by while AMERIKA sinks. This should be must reading for everyone especially bill oriely and those of his ilk. read at your own peril.