What do you think?
Rate this book
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War
This book combines a sweeping narrative of the Civil War with a bold new look at the war’s significance for American society. Professor Hummel sees the Civil War as America’s turning point: simultaneously the culmination and repudiation of the American revolution.
Chapters tell the story of the Civil War, discussing the issues raised in readable prose, each followed by a detailed bibliographical essay, looking at the different major works on the subject with varying ideological viewpoints and conclusions.
In his economic analysis of slavery, Professor Hummel takes a different view. While some writers claim that slavery was unprofitable and harmful to the Southern economy, and others maintain it was profitable and efficient for the South, Hummel uses the economic concept of 'Deadweight Loss' to show that slavery was both highly profitable for slave owners and harmful to Southern economic development.
While highly critical of Confederate policy, Hummel argues that the war was fought to prevent secession, not to end slavery, and that preservation of the Union was not necessary to end slavery arguing that the South crucially relied on the Northern states to return runaway slaves to their owners.
Chapters tell the story of the Civil War, discussing the issues raised in readable prose, each followed by a detailed bibliographical essay, looking at the different major works on the subject with varying ideological viewpoints and conclusions.
In his economic analysis of slavery, Professor Hummel takes a different view. While some writers claim that slavery was unprofitable and harmful to the Southern economy, and others maintain it was profitable and efficient for the South, Hummel uses the economic concept of 'Deadweight Loss' to show that slavery was both highly profitable for slave owners and harmful to Southern economic development.
While highly critical of Confederate policy, Hummel argues that the war was fought to prevent secession, not to end slavery, and that preservation of the Union was not necessary to end slavery arguing that the South crucially relied on the Northern states to return runaway slaves to their owners.
448 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1996
15 people are currently reading
327 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
April 23, 2022
2016? - Finished this incredibly good book in April and wanted to do an adequate review ever since, but never made the time, DAMN! But I did secure the author as my 8th annual Mises Celebration speaker for 1 October 2016: http://2016-misescelebration.eventbri...
The reason of course, is that I was blown away by the book, and the author speaking at a local lunch discussion group, The Mont Hamilton Society.
I have known the author for about 15 years, but not well. I have my disagreements with some of his political/economic philosophy, but have watched his character and output over those years and been steadily impressed, more and more.
I still do not have enough time to give an adequate review of the book, but let me say this, as Charlotte Monte did below in the comments, you will NEVER look at the Civil War or even the institution of slavery the same way again after reading this book. It is simply THAT good.
I do also want to mention that if you have any qualms about "supporting" the civil war for righteous reasons - because it was totally moral to eliminate slavery, but you KNOW the cost (or at least the body count) of the war (>600,000 lives lost), and you have a very tough time reconciling the two - THIS BOOK is for you. It may not answer all your questions, but it will go a very long way on that path, with fantastic writing, facts, theories, biographical snippets, context, and perspective.
Don't miss this book, if you care about the subject.
--------------
Just finished the new Preface and Introduction for this 2nd edition and the first chapter - love it.
----
Previously (2009?) I only read the first 3-4 chapters of the first edition, but what I read was fantastic. Very well written, the book is clear, compelling and persuasive.
The notes and bibliographic essays are some of the very best I have read anywhere. This book is a scholars dream, but still perfectly accessible to anyone with basic understanding and abilities.
This book is especially good for libertarians, since it frames and then clears up the dichotomy about the war being "good" for getting rid of slavery, but terrible for enhancing the size, power and ideological myths of government's necessity. Peaceful and principled alternatives to war are clearly pointed out.
I highly recommend this book.
If my brief remarks on this book are not enough, try this detailed and magnificent additional review:
http://fff.org/explore-freedom/articl...
The reason of course, is that I was blown away by the book, and the author speaking at a local lunch discussion group, The Mont Hamilton Society.
I have known the author for about 15 years, but not well. I have my disagreements with some of his political/economic philosophy, but have watched his character and output over those years and been steadily impressed, more and more.
I still do not have enough time to give an adequate review of the book, but let me say this, as Charlotte Monte did below in the comments, you will NEVER look at the Civil War or even the institution of slavery the same way again after reading this book. It is simply THAT good.
I do also want to mention that if you have any qualms about "supporting" the civil war for righteous reasons - because it was totally moral to eliminate slavery, but you KNOW the cost (or at least the body count) of the war (>600,000 lives lost), and you have a very tough time reconciling the two - THIS BOOK is for you. It may not answer all your questions, but it will go a very long way on that path, with fantastic writing, facts, theories, biographical snippets, context, and perspective.
Don't miss this book, if you care about the subject.
--------------
Just finished the new Preface and Introduction for this 2nd edition and the first chapter - love it.
----
Previously (2009?) I only read the first 3-4 chapters of the first edition, but what I read was fantastic. Very well written, the book is clear, compelling and persuasive.
The notes and bibliographic essays are some of the very best I have read anywhere. This book is a scholars dream, but still perfectly accessible to anyone with basic understanding and abilities.
This book is especially good for libertarians, since it frames and then clears up the dichotomy about the war being "good" for getting rid of slavery, but terrible for enhancing the size, power and ideological myths of government's necessity. Peaceful and principled alternatives to war are clearly pointed out.
I highly recommend this book.
If my brief remarks on this book are not enough, try this detailed and magnificent additional review:
http://fff.org/explore-freedom/articl...
July 25, 2022
2022-07-25 I read this about 2016 and reviewed a different edition that Goodreads can't quite bring up for me here, but I gave a fairly long review there.
FANTASTIC book. You will never view the civil war and slavery the same after reading this magnificent work of scholarship and clarity. Absolutely the very best book on the subject I have read, out of the 15-20 books I have gone through on the topic.
The economics of slavery, and interplay of laws and customs in the south as well as the north is uncovered in a way that makes the issues so much clearer and understandable.
The alternatives to war are also very well discussed.
Don't miss this book if the subjects of slavery and the civil war are important to you.
FANTASTIC book. You will never view the civil war and slavery the same after reading this magnificent work of scholarship and clarity. Absolutely the very best book on the subject I have read, out of the 15-20 books I have gone through on the topic.
The economics of slavery, and interplay of laws and customs in the south as well as the north is uncovered in a way that makes the issues so much clearer and understandable.
The alternatives to war are also very well discussed.
Don't miss this book if the subjects of slavery and the civil war are important to you.
October 24, 2025
Excellent book for Civil War buffs, even those who may think they know it all. This book is stuffed full of interesting facts, usually with a twist of economics thrown in. The overall theme is slavery from pre-war through Reconstruction (sharecropping) and beyond. Yet there is much good general information that helps guide through the political and military side. I have done a fair amount of Civil War reading over the years, but this author still offers a lot of new facts.
He hammers home the point that Lincoln was a terrible military man. That is a somewhat contrarian viewpoint, but it is well supported. The standard view is more like Lincoln kept prodding McClellan and his other appointees to be more aggresive, and end the war more quickly, Lincoln finally selected the great General Grant to fight that aggressive war that Abe had always wanted, and it brought bloody success.
I think the great General Lee had something to do with the lack of success by Little Napoleon and the others. Hummel thinks that Lincoln had it wrong and that succesion would not necessarily have been a bad thing, and be more in line with the beliefs of the Founding fathers.
He also thinks Lincoln was a tyrant and gives ample support of it. I can't overlook and forget Lincoln's many great qualities and the fact that the sure bet was to end slavery, right then and there. I do somewhat abhor the cyclops state that we have become, like Hummel, the Libertarian does.
Yet, I don’t want to give up the Social Security that I worked my whole life for, and is the largest government expense in today's budget. This government shell game really needs major reform, like preventing government from spending all the contributions and then claiming the system is broke(n).
Hummel seems to think that American slavery was already under great pressure, and would have died off on it's own in fairly short order, without the ghastly losses of the Civil War to increase the rapidity of it.
The author claims one Civil War soldier died for every six slaves freed, an exorbitant cost. He uses the experience of Brazil, and how their rotting slavery system died in the 1880's. Brazil had enslaved nearly as many souls as America did, and abolished slavery in a much less costly way. That is, if you don't count the costs to the slaves for another quarter century or so of bondage.
His main theme is that the Civil War was the beginning of big government in America, that the New Deal, while increasing the size and power of government somewhat, was dwarfed by the changes brought on by WW2. FDR basically followed the lead of that other progressive, Woodrow Wilson in WW1.
War brings on more government, this power recedes a little, but not back like it was.
The biographical essays at the end of each chapter cite other books that the author will put in a blurb on, like if he deems them to have much value or not, usually a few words to explain what viewpoint they are coming from (Libertarian to Marxist). He is not overly judgemental.
Original Review:
I am two chapters deep, and this is a good book.
Half of the workers at the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond VA were black slaves. I visited this place and had no idea of this fact.
If you have never stood in that area, you need to.
You can see the railroad trestle that the Confederate Government fled across. A few days later, a gangly fellow named Abraham Lincoln walked these streets (much to my surprise when I found out a few years back).
The Federal Reserve Bank is high up on a hill here, looking down menacingly on unsuspecting passers-by.
I had never heard of David Walker before. He was a free black man in N Carolina in 1785, travelled extensively, and then settled in Boston.
He wrote and self-published what one contemporary Quaker called the most inflammatory publication in history. It plainly advocated violence and revolution. It was called An Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World.
Walker was found dead in his Shop's doorway in 1830, a mystery that is still unsolved. It was eventually reprinted in full in Garrison's Liberator, which premiered in January 1831. A lot of Southerners blamed these two guys for inspiring Nat Turners bloody Slave Rebellion in Virginia in August 1831.
The Fugitive Slave Law imposed a sort of tax on all Americans. William Lloyd Garrison and some others had even pushed for the North to secede, partly because of this onerous law, a compromise that strengthened the Underground Railroad because even citizens of the northern states were obligated to return runaway slaves.
We actually attended a Church Service on a Sunday evening in Garrison's old Church. It is located on Boston's tremendous 2-1/2 mile Freedom (walking) Trail. I remember the sun setting, and next door in one of those 1600s black slate Cemetery's, an odd guy in a black cloak was creepily lurking around.
He hammers home the point that Lincoln was a terrible military man. That is a somewhat contrarian viewpoint, but it is well supported. The standard view is more like Lincoln kept prodding McClellan and his other appointees to be more aggresive, and end the war more quickly, Lincoln finally selected the great General Grant to fight that aggressive war that Abe had always wanted, and it brought bloody success.
I think the great General Lee had something to do with the lack of success by Little Napoleon and the others. Hummel thinks that Lincoln had it wrong and that succesion would not necessarily have been a bad thing, and be more in line with the beliefs of the Founding fathers.
He also thinks Lincoln was a tyrant and gives ample support of it. I can't overlook and forget Lincoln's many great qualities and the fact that the sure bet was to end slavery, right then and there. I do somewhat abhor the cyclops state that we have become, like Hummel, the Libertarian does.
Yet, I don’t want to give up the Social Security that I worked my whole life for, and is the largest government expense in today's budget. This government shell game really needs major reform, like preventing government from spending all the contributions and then claiming the system is broke(n).
Hummel seems to think that American slavery was already under great pressure, and would have died off on it's own in fairly short order, without the ghastly losses of the Civil War to increase the rapidity of it.
The author claims one Civil War soldier died for every six slaves freed, an exorbitant cost. He uses the experience of Brazil, and how their rotting slavery system died in the 1880's. Brazil had enslaved nearly as many souls as America did, and abolished slavery in a much less costly way. That is, if you don't count the costs to the slaves for another quarter century or so of bondage.
His main theme is that the Civil War was the beginning of big government in America, that the New Deal, while increasing the size and power of government somewhat, was dwarfed by the changes brought on by WW2. FDR basically followed the lead of that other progressive, Woodrow Wilson in WW1.
War brings on more government, this power recedes a little, but not back like it was.
The biographical essays at the end of each chapter cite other books that the author will put in a blurb on, like if he deems them to have much value or not, usually a few words to explain what viewpoint they are coming from (Libertarian to Marxist). He is not overly judgemental.
Original Review:
I am two chapters deep, and this is a good book.
Half of the workers at the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond VA were black slaves. I visited this place and had no idea of this fact.
If you have never stood in that area, you need to.
You can see the railroad trestle that the Confederate Government fled across. A few days later, a gangly fellow named Abraham Lincoln walked these streets (much to my surprise when I found out a few years back).
The Federal Reserve Bank is high up on a hill here, looking down menacingly on unsuspecting passers-by.
I had never heard of David Walker before. He was a free black man in N Carolina in 1785, travelled extensively, and then settled in Boston.
He wrote and self-published what one contemporary Quaker called the most inflammatory publication in history. It plainly advocated violence and revolution. It was called An Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World.
Walker was found dead in his Shop's doorway in 1830, a mystery that is still unsolved. It was eventually reprinted in full in Garrison's Liberator, which premiered in January 1831. A lot of Southerners blamed these two guys for inspiring Nat Turners bloody Slave Rebellion in Virginia in August 1831.
The Fugitive Slave Law imposed a sort of tax on all Americans. William Lloyd Garrison and some others had even pushed for the North to secede, partly because of this onerous law, a compromise that strengthened the Underground Railroad because even citizens of the northern states were obligated to return runaway slaves.
We actually attended a Church Service on a Sunday evening in Garrison's old Church. It is located on Boston's tremendous 2-1/2 mile Freedom (walking) Trail. I remember the sun setting, and next door in one of those 1600s black slate Cemetery's, an odd guy in a black cloak was creepily lurking around.
April 4, 2022
This is one of the most interesting books I've read. It's effectively a geopolitical case study of the US Civil War, from a libertarian perspective. It was perspective-changing for me.
Simplistically, the book addresses three questions:
- Why did the South secede?
- Why did the North fight the South?
- What was the impact on liberty?
He uses a breadth of information to describe the lead up to the conflict, the war and the aftermath. Economic, military, social, political, and ideological issues are discussed. In my opinion, his understanding of the changes to the banking system provide an incredible perspective. Most historians do not have as clear an understanding of what happened as he does, but he sees how the banking system moved further away from 'free banking'.
The extensive bibliography and book notes at the end of each chapter, where he provides critiques and opinions, make the book unique. These notes are sometimes just as interesting as the main content. In my case, I found his notes on the changes to the monetary system very useful.
He addresses the three questions from a libertarian perspective.
Secession by the South was very clearly a last ditch effort to maintain slavery for slaveholder minority (who were very powerful). This was described as an attempt to preserve states rights which were being encroached.
The motivation of the North was not, initially, to emancipate slaves. It was to keep the Union in tact. Ironically there were abolitionists who previously favored the North seceding from the South. The fugitive slave law was the primary mechanism keeping slavery alive, and by splitting the Union the slaves could flee to the North without the northern states having to enforce the fugitive slave law.
There were many who believed at the time that secession would eventually end slavery because the number of fugitives would increase dramatically. The North/Lincoln also made concessions at the start of the war, that the South could keep slavery if they rejoin the Union. In the author's view the war was very clearly fought to keep the north and south together.
The references, made by the North, to preserving the outcome of the American revolution are quite ironic given the invocation of the right to self-determination by the colonies. This is similar to the situation the South was in.
The author frames the War as the South rightfully seceding but for the wrong reasons (to preserve slavery) and the North fighting for the wrong reasons with a positive outcome (emancipating slaves). Even with this positive outcome, the author believes that the sacrifices were not worth it, given that slavery would have ended regardless (although probably slowly overtime).
He regards the Civil War as a turning point for the united states towards more government, stricter rules, regulations and taxes, and less freedom. It's hard to argue with his evidence, without a deeper knowledge of the period.
Simplistically, the book addresses three questions:
- Why did the South secede?
- Why did the North fight the South?
- What was the impact on liberty?
He uses a breadth of information to describe the lead up to the conflict, the war and the aftermath. Economic, military, social, political, and ideological issues are discussed. In my opinion, his understanding of the changes to the banking system provide an incredible perspective. Most historians do not have as clear an understanding of what happened as he does, but he sees how the banking system moved further away from 'free banking'.
The extensive bibliography and book notes at the end of each chapter, where he provides critiques and opinions, make the book unique. These notes are sometimes just as interesting as the main content. In my case, I found his notes on the changes to the monetary system very useful.
He addresses the three questions from a libertarian perspective.
Secession by the South was very clearly a last ditch effort to maintain slavery for slaveholder minority (who were very powerful). This was described as an attempt to preserve states rights which were being encroached.
The motivation of the North was not, initially, to emancipate slaves. It was to keep the Union in tact. Ironically there were abolitionists who previously favored the North seceding from the South. The fugitive slave law was the primary mechanism keeping slavery alive, and by splitting the Union the slaves could flee to the North without the northern states having to enforce the fugitive slave law.
There were many who believed at the time that secession would eventually end slavery because the number of fugitives would increase dramatically. The North/Lincoln also made concessions at the start of the war, that the South could keep slavery if they rejoin the Union. In the author's view the war was very clearly fought to keep the north and south together.
The references, made by the North, to preserving the outcome of the American revolution are quite ironic given the invocation of the right to self-determination by the colonies. This is similar to the situation the South was in.
The author frames the War as the South rightfully seceding but for the wrong reasons (to preserve slavery) and the North fighting for the wrong reasons with a positive outcome (emancipating slaves). Even with this positive outcome, the author believes that the sacrifices were not worth it, given that slavery would have ended regardless (although probably slowly overtime).
He regards the Civil War as a turning point for the united states towards more government, stricter rules, regulations and taxes, and less freedom. It's hard to argue with his evidence, without a deeper knowledge of the period.
May 18, 2010
An interesting take on the Civil War. One always sees history books in school practically revere Lincoln as a diety, but this book takes an entirely different approach.
Did President Lincoln have the authority, according to the CONSTITUTION, to rule as he did? Dd he follow the Constitution as he ruled the USA? And, did he change the laws and customs of our land?
According to Hummel, not really. Now, this was during a war, you would say, but Hummel maintains the tactics Lincoln and his administration took were not constitutionally sound(not even slightly justifiable).
Just look at what he did to keep Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky(although slightly more tactful) and West Virginia.
Oh, according to Hummel, West Virginia couldn't "legally establish a separate state, because the United States Constitution requires permission from the parent state. So instead, the Lincoln Admisnistration organized the loyal residents of the western counties into a pro-Union government for the entire state." That legislature then authorized the seperation of West Virginia.
Maryland and Missouri...military occupation and (at least in the case of Maryland) suspension of habeous corpus. In the words of the legislature of Maryland, "A flagrent violation of the constitution."
Now, according to some, the President had the right to suspend habeous corpus, because of article one section 9, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." But if one looks at the context, section 9 is dealing with limits on CONGRESS...not Presidents. So, like it or not, this book does bring up some very interesting points about the Civil War, and how it was conducted.
Did President Lincoln have the authority, according to the CONSTITUTION, to rule as he did? Dd he follow the Constitution as he ruled the USA? And, did he change the laws and customs of our land?
According to Hummel, not really. Now, this was during a war, you would say, but Hummel maintains the tactics Lincoln and his administration took were not constitutionally sound(not even slightly justifiable).
Just look at what he did to keep Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky(although slightly more tactful) and West Virginia.
Oh, according to Hummel, West Virginia couldn't "legally establish a separate state, because the United States Constitution requires permission from the parent state. So instead, the Lincoln Admisnistration organized the loyal residents of the western counties into a pro-Union government for the entire state." That legislature then authorized the seperation of West Virginia.
Maryland and Missouri...military occupation and (at least in the case of Maryland) suspension of habeous corpus. In the words of the legislature of Maryland, "A flagrent violation of the constitution."
Now, according to some, the President had the right to suspend habeous corpus, because of article one section 9, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." But if one looks at the context, section 9 is dealing with limits on CONGRESS...not Presidents. So, like it or not, this book does bring up some very interesting points about the Civil War, and how it was conducted.
December 15, 2007
Among the finest histories of the War Between the States I've read. Rogers is a libertarian whose political philosophy is closer to that of the Founders than almost any other historian writing. If you prefer reality-based accounts of American history to those cranked out by the court historians ascendant in American academia, you shouldn't miss this one. His explanation of how slavery could be profitable to individual slave owners but disadvantageous overall to the South is excellent.
July 22, 2019
An interesting change of pace: a libertarian history of the Civil War. Even more interesting is the book’s structure. Every chapter is followed by an extensive bibliographic essay. If the reader doesn’t want to know Hummel’s sources (and his opinions of them), just skip these parts and read the narrative straight through. Myself, I found them to be a fascinating guide for further reading (if I can find the time).
The book thesis is that, while the war resulted in freedom for the slaves, it also produced an expanded federal government that restricted the liberties of all. In other words, a basic libertarian argument. It’s intriguing that Hummel argues that if the North had let the original seven secessionist states go in peace, it would not only have kept the four Upper South states in the Union, but it would also have led to the eventual end of slavery. Runaways fleeing North would be crossing into a foreign country not bound by fugitive slave laws requiring their return. This would increase the costs of maintaining slavery to the point where it would no longer be economically feasible. The libertarian deus ex machina, the Hidden Hand, strikes again.
Whether you agree with libertarianism or not, the book is well written and offers insights into the Civil War era not covered in other accounts.
The book thesis is that, while the war resulted in freedom for the slaves, it also produced an expanded federal government that restricted the liberties of all. In other words, a basic libertarian argument. It’s intriguing that Hummel argues that if the North had let the original seven secessionist states go in peace, it would not only have kept the four Upper South states in the Union, but it would also have led to the eventual end of slavery. Runaways fleeing North would be crossing into a foreign country not bound by fugitive slave laws requiring their return. This would increase the costs of maintaining slavery to the point where it would no longer be economically feasible. The libertarian deus ex machina, the Hidden Hand, strikes again.
Whether you agree with libertarianism or not, the book is well written and offers insights into the Civil War era not covered in other accounts.
May 18, 2017
Even though I don't agree with all his arguments (and don't share his Friedmanesque economic beliefs), I have to say Hummel has given us a truly stunning book. Every page sparkles with fresh insights and novel but well-supported ideas. If you've only read Catton and Foote and so on, be prepared for lots of surprises. As if that weren't enough, each chapter is followed by a bibliographic treatise which is sometimes even more entertaining than the main matter which has preceded it. Hummel is particularly good at exposing the hidden biases of other historians, and I've found many of his suggestions for further reading extremely helpful.
March 2, 2025
The best one-volume history of the Civil War I've yet read. Jeffrey Rogers Hummel does a great job of introducing you to the vast literature surrounding the various sub-histories of the Civil War period and topic both in the main chapters and the bibliographical accompanying chapters.
Hummel is sympathetic to both "camps" of Civil War historians: the Neo-Abolitionist, and the Neo-Confederate. He believes secession is an unqualified and obvious right, and that southern secession was nothing more than establishing the principles fought for in the American Revolution. He also believes that the Civil War could have been averted, and that this would have led to the dissolution of slavery because of what he calls the "Fugitive slave problem". In short, slaves would run away to the north, but there would be no legal recourse for their masters to recover them. Makes sense.
This is a very engrossing overview of the civil war, because it doesn't try to give an overview of the military conflict, or any other angle of the war, but rather to introduce you to the various parts of Civil War scholarship (slavery, sociology, politics, constitutionalism, technology, economics, and reconstruction). The military conflict is interspersed into the narrative to remind you of what's happening, but the main goal of the book is to talk about other angles that surround and influence the war.
Hummel is sympathetic to both "camps" of Civil War historians: the Neo-Abolitionist, and the Neo-Confederate. He believes secession is an unqualified and obvious right, and that southern secession was nothing more than establishing the principles fought for in the American Revolution. He also believes that the Civil War could have been averted, and that this would have led to the dissolution of slavery because of what he calls the "Fugitive slave problem". In short, slaves would run away to the north, but there would be no legal recourse for their masters to recover them. Makes sense.
This is a very engrossing overview of the civil war, because it doesn't try to give an overview of the military conflict, or any other angle of the war, but rather to introduce you to the various parts of Civil War scholarship (slavery, sociology, politics, constitutionalism, technology, economics, and reconstruction). The military conflict is interspersed into the narrative to remind you of what's happening, but the main goal of the book is to talk about other angles that surround and influence the war.
September 17, 2019
Professor Hummel's book is a good overview of the Civil War, and it espouses the idea that contrary to popular belief, slavery WAS profitable [for a few landowners] however the institution as a whole was a deadweight loss economically for the country in general and the South in particular.
Hummel also brings up the question that is rarely said in US history: what if 1) the northern states had seceded from the southern states, as many abolitionists wanted, or 2) what if President Lincoln had let the Confederacy secede without engaging in a war that ultimately killed 750,000 people? In both questions the answer is that slavery would have become unstable and died a natural death very soon after. As many slave owners admitted, the peculiar institution was only viable in a United States. With a "free" US as a northern neighbor, not compelled to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, the Confederacy, especially those states near the border, would find their slaves escaping and making their way north.
Interesting book, with a new forward (original 1996).
Hummel also brings up the question that is rarely said in US history: what if 1) the northern states had seceded from the southern states, as many abolitionists wanted, or 2) what if President Lincoln had let the Confederacy secede without engaging in a war that ultimately killed 750,000 people? In both questions the answer is that slavery would have become unstable and died a natural death very soon after. As many slave owners admitted, the peculiar institution was only viable in a United States. With a "free" US as a northern neighbor, not compelled to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, the Confederacy, especially those states near the border, would find their slaves escaping and making their way north.
Interesting book, with a new forward (original 1996).
March 30, 2015
Interesting short history of the Civil War and Reconstruction, largely from a libertarian perspective (as the tendentious title may suggest). Unlike most of the books I've read on the Civil War, this one pays a lot less attention to the military aspects in favor of other considerations. Whether you agree or disagree with the author's conclusions, it's a readable book on the period that offers new perspectives on otherwise familiar ground. After I finished, I continued to ponder some of Hummel's arguments, and I used his bibliographical notes to find additional books on particular topics -- and that alone justifies my giving this four stars.
August 24, 2009
I took a class with Jeffrey Hummel at San Jose State, and he, like his book, is incredibly clear thinking and erudite. This is a college-text level book, and I found myself finding those pockets of ignorance in my US History knowledge. You will never look at slavery and the War Between the States in the same way, once you digest the economic side of the issue. I highly recommend this book.
April 4, 2017
17/20
October 24, 2025
Enlightening. Recommend.
November 23, 2014
A fairly straightforward history of the Civil War, with extensive bibliographical notes discussing scholarly works on each topic, what the controversies are, and where the writers stand. In the Epilogue, Hummel lays out his own conclusions from a libertarian, economic standpoint: for the South, the war was about slavery. For Lincoln, it was about preventing secession, which was a betrayal of the ideals of the American revolution, the consent of the governed. Hummel argues that if the southern states had seceded, the North would no longer be bound to return escaped slaves, and the South would be unable to hold them; thus slavery would have ended without the necessity of war. He backs this up by referring to the way slavery ended in Bolivia and other South American countries, which was a story I'd never heard and would like to read more about.
Also new to me was his discussion of the role of banking regulations in preventing the South from recovering from the war, and how the shortage of coins and small bills contributed to the rise of tenant farming.
Most people date the beginning of centralized government power in the US to the New Deal era, but Hummel points to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, censorship of the press, and conduct of the war by executive action, followed by the extensive abuses of the Reconstruction, as the tipping point.
Also new to me was his discussion of the role of banking regulations in preventing the South from recovering from the war, and how the shortage of coins and small bills contributed to the rise of tenant farming.
Most people date the beginning of centralized government power in the US to the New Deal era, but Hummel points to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, censorship of the press, and conduct of the war by executive action, followed by the extensive abuses of the Reconstruction, as the tipping point.
July 25, 2011
Hummel gives a good, fair-minded account of the history of the U.S. Civil War that includes an account of the economics of slavery, the many compromises between the Revolution and the Civil War between slave states and free states, and the political abuses and horror of the war and its aftermath. Lincoln's abuses of the Constitution in the name of preserving the Union were far beyond those of George W. Bush, while the Confederacy was no better (even apart from defending the institution of slavery). It's interesting that the Confederacy was ready to give up slavery if it could remain independent, while the Union was ready to allow slavery to continue if the Confederacy would rejoin the Union.
June 16, 2010
This book was really good. A history of the Civil War, it doesn't get into battles and military conflict, as much as the economic and in some cases historical surroundings of the Civil War. Though the writing tends to be a bit complicated, the book never sticks to long to one subject, thus providing a clear compare/contrast of North/South issues in an interesting way. I would certainly reccomend it, not just as a Civil War history, but as a history of our country.
April 29, 2011
I liked it because it went deeper than the usual civil war coverage of a textbook. I liked that it found fault with the premises of both sides, the war on both sides and the resolution on both sides. History is generally written by the victors, who ignore their flaws. It's also rewritten by the losers, who ignore their flaws, too. This book sometimes hammers home points with the subltely of a sledgehammer, but it's worth slogging through those times.
September 23, 2008
A viewpoint on the Civil war rather than a history.
December 22, 2008
This was actually an economics text...
September 23, 2010
"Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel (1996)"
April 2, 2011
Highly recommended history book!
February 20, 2014
A wonderful book about the dangers of causes and political power.
Want to read
March 5, 2018Hummel brings a unique perspective to this overview of the American Civil War. In particular, his economic insights on events before, during, and after the war years make this a must-have for Civil War buffs.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews