The main thing I got out of this book was just how damaging Lincoln was to the cause of freedom in America. Lincoln trampled individual rights, jailing people indefinitely on his whim, instating the draft, even assaulting freedom of speech (which I think is one of the few freedoms left). From Hummel's Libertarian perspective, Lincoln was probably the worst president in history. The one thing that should be pointed out in Lincoln's defense is that war always involves curtailments of liberty and requires an essentially fascistic operation of the government. The problem is that the increased governmental power doesn't go away after the war ends. I think this book is very timely at this moment in history, as our current president is about to lead us into yet another war. The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. That means that the United States cannot engage in any military action with another country unless two-thirds of Congress approves it. Yet, look at all the presidents who have committed U.S. troops to war without a Congressional declaration. Why isn't this seen as unConstitutional? Why aren't they talking about it on Face the Nation? What gave Truman the right to commit U.S. forces to fight in Korea? Why does everyone in the media assume that George Bush has the right to start a war with Iraq when he has no such constitutional authority? What gave Clinton the power to bomb an aspirin factory in the Sudan to divert attention from his sex scandals? I'll tell you who: it was Lincoln. He started the whole trend.

Jeff Hummel, Associate Professor of Economics and History at Golden Gate University, in his new book Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men puts forth the unique new Libertarian hypothesis that, while the slaves were freed as a result of the Civil War, free men were enslaved to bigger government. Evidence which Hummel cites in support of this hypothesis include:(a) the war was fought to preserve the Union, with the fate of slavery being secondary; (b) the Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until two years into the war and even then left the slaves in bondage in the border states (where Lincoln could do something about) while "freeing" them in the Confederacy (where they were beyond Lincoln's reach); and (c) the Civil War accustomed the American people to bigger government, including increased taxation, intervention in the economy, social reform, and suppression of dissent, among other things. Hummel is among the few historians who draw a distinction between the causes of secession and the causes of the Civil War, thus separating the questions "Why did the South want to leave the Union?" and "Why didn't the North let them go?" While Hummel is no Lincoln hagiographer, laying at his doorstep the responsibility for the Civil War (due to his refusal to let the South go), neither is he any fawning apologist for the absolutism of Jefferson Davis. As a Libertarian, Hummel sees no inconsistency in his pro-secession views and his anti-slavery views; indeed, both are part of the revolutionary right of self-determination. Further, he believes that secession would have destabilized slavery by allowing the North to repeal its fugitive slave laws and thus legally making the North a haven for escaped slaves. Hummel is a man who is not afraid to let his opinions be known. His interpretation is fresh, lucid, and insightful. His bibliographies are extremely thorough, showing an excellent command of the literature of the field. Above all, unlike many academics, Hummel actually writes interestingly!

Given the extensive (and very helpful) bibliographic notes, Hummel's text is all too thin. In that space, though, he makes some well-supported arguments about the negative impact of the War Between the States on American liberty, even as slavery was abolished. Unlike some other revisionist works on the period, he makes no attempt to sugarcoat the Confederacy, but delves into civil liberties violations and the growth of the centralized state in that country, too.

Hummel's criticism of Lincoln for overstepping legitimate presidential powers, and his support of secession as a principle separate from the context of slavery seems to draw violently emotional reactions from people who want to view the war as a black-and-white war of good against evil. I take that as evidence of the high quality of Hummel's research and writing.

Overall, this is an excellent work, and I'd very much like to see more from Hummel along these lines.