Rating: 
Summary: Second Rate Historian Tries to Re-Write the Civil War
Review: An economic interpretation of the Civil War and anti-Lincoln that is the main points of this book and why this book is off, way off. Hummel's writng is not too bad and the bibliographic essays at the end of each chapter are interesting. However, his history is off as is most revisionist history. The causes of the Civil War were not economic and the results of the Civil War is not big government. Hummels writing seems to be a sort of justification for his personal political views. One is much better off reading Foote, Fields, or Catton
Rating: 
Summary: A challenging and groundbreaking history
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A challenging and groundbreaking history
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A great book for students of the Civil War
Review: Hummel does a fantastic job of describing the important aspects of the Civil War. He covers topics relating to military, social, and economic issues, which allows the reader to develop a full understanding of the various aspects of the war without having to read a book that is several thousand pages long. I found chapter 9 to be extremely helpful because it talks about the economic aspects of both the Southern and Northern economies. What really sets this book apart from the countless Civil War books that come out every month are the bibliographical essays at the end of each chapter. They help the reader gain a better understanding by examining different topics that go along with each chapter, and by suggesting and discussing different books the reader may want to examine. This is truly an impressive work on Civil War history and any history buff will enjoy it.
Rating:
Summary: A great book for students of the Civil War
Review: Hummel does a fantastic job of describing the important aspects of the Civil War. He covers topics relating to military, social, and economic issues, which allows the reader to develop a full understanding of the various aspects of the war without having to read a book that is several thousand pages long. I found chapter 9 to be extremely helpful because it talks about the economic aspects of both the Southern and Northern economies. What really sets this book apart from the countless Civil War books that come out every month are the bibliographical essays at the end of each chapter. They help the reader gain a better understanding by examining different topics that go along with each chapter, and by suggesting and discussing different books the reader may want to examine. This is truly an impressive work on Civil War history and any history buff will enjoy it.
Rating: 
Summary: A Different Take
Review: Hummel's bizzare book about the American Civil War is only for the best read specialist. It is written from the point of view of a libertarian, and thus brings Hummel's political views into the narrative about the war. This is not a bad thing, necesarily. All writers have a point of view which forces some biases. But Humel's libertarianism leads to a story where Lincoln is essentialy the villian because he promotes a strong national government as he leads the war for reunion. If you are a specialist in the American Civil War than you may be interested in this book and its rather difficult viewpoint. But for a first timer in the nations greatest conflict I would first recomend dozens of other histories of the war which are written much better and ultimatly strain credibility less than Hummel does.
Rating: 
Summary: a must-read for Civil War buffs
Review: Hummel's main focus in this book covers a broad range of topics, but at the same time it's not intended to be a broad, all-inclusive picture of the civil war period. The book tends to concern itself with the motivations and ideologies of the major actors of the war, and Hummel devotes much of his effort to second-guessing those actors. In particular, Hummel heaps criticism on Lincoln for massive conscription (which provoked massive riots, such as the one in New York in July 1863); politically motivated jailings and other repressions; suspending habeus corpus; the debasement of the currency and the resulting great inflation; disregard or contempt for enemy civilians suffering from the war; and huge increases in taxes and national indebtedness. This is not, however, the anti-Lincoln, pro-Confederate screed that some "neo-confederates" are searching for: each of these malfeasances of Lincoln's are also found to take place in the South, and often to a much worse degree. Hummel also does not accept the old canard that the South seceded primarily for reasons other than the preservation of slavery, although he does take the unionists to task for pursuing aims other than emancipation. As a Libertarian, Hummel sees the end of slavery as the only worthy goal to be accomplished by the war - simply "preserving the union" is not an adequate reason for bloodshed and killing. Hummel also appears to be unwilling to accept an "ends-justify-the-means" view of the damage that was done to American liberty in the course of prosecuting the war. One of the recurring things I found in this book was a "what-if" contemplation of ways in which slavery could have been ended without the bloodiest war in American history. Hummel explores the end of slavery elsewhere in the world during the 1800s. Outside of Haiti, no other country had to undergo any bloodshed in order to end black slavery. Hummel seems to be advocating that the North could have caused slavery to evaporate by withdrawing its support for it, mainly by ceasing to cooperate with the South in apprehending runaway slaves. In my view it's likely that slavery was just too deeply entrenched in the South to have eroded in the same way it did in some other countries, but Hummel still makes some interesting arguments. This book is not a massive effort to provide an all-encompassing understanding of the Civil War, and of the topics it does cover, none of them are covered masterfully. The book is a standout mostly because it evaluates the period from a unique point of view, i.e., the Libertarian view. As such this book has, for its size and scope, much more information on the attitudes of American anarchists towards slavery and the war, compared to what you would find in any other comparably sized work. Hummel also thinks that the South should have relied more on guerilla style warfare for its defense, letting Northern troops advance unopposed, but hampering them from actually occupying territory, and cutting their supply lines. It needs to be pointed out that this type of warfare is much more agreeable to the Libertarian because it doesn't rely on central government control of operations and it doesn't involve offensive operations which might harm civilians. Hummel is probably right to criticize Southern commanders for throwing their troops into some very uneven, disadvantageous situations, but the reader should know that his view of how the South should have fought is not exactly the conventional wisdom among historians. The idea that the South could have won at all, under any circumstances, is itself controversial. If you are a Libertarian, or are otherwise interested in learning about the misdeeds of government during the Civil War, this is a must-read. Also, the annotated bibliographies are excellent, and interesting reading by themselves.
Rating:
Summary: Presents a lot of overlooked facts
Review: Hummel's main focus in this book covers a broad range of topics, but at the same time it's not intended to be a broad, all-inclusive picture of the civil war period. The book tends to concern itself with the motivations and ideologies of the major actors of the war, and Hummel devotes much of his effort to second-guessing those actors. In particular, Hummel heaps criticism on Lincoln for massive conscription (which provoked massive riots, such as the one in New York in July 1863); politically motivated jailings and other repressions; suspending habeus corpus; the debasement of the currency and the resulting great inflation; disregard or contempt for enemy civilians suffering from the war; and huge increases in taxes and national indebtedness. This is not, however, the anti-Lincoln, pro-Confederate screed that some "neo-confederates" are searching for: each of these malfeasances of Lincoln's are also found to take place in the South, and often to a much worse degree. Hummel also does not accept the old canard that the South seceded primarily for reasons other than the preservation of slavery, although he does take the unionists to task for pursuing aims other than emancipation. As a Libertarian, Hummel sees the end of slavery as the only worthy goal to be accomplished by the war - simply "preserving the union" is not an adequate reason for bloodshed and killing. Hummel also appears to be unwilling to accept an "ends-justify-the-means" view of the damage that was done to American liberty in the course of prosecuting the war. One of the recurring things I found in this book was a "what-if" contemplation of ways in which slavery could have been ended without the bloodiest war in American history. Hummel explores the end of slavery elsewhere in the world during the 1800s. Outside of Haiti, no other country had to undergo any bloodshed in order to end black slavery. Hummel seems to be advocating that the North could have caused slavery to evaporate by withdrawing its support for it, mainly by ceasing to cooperate with the South in apprehending runaway slaves. In my view it's likely that slavery was just too deeply entrenched in the South to have eroded in the same way it did in some other countries, but Hummel still makes some interesting arguments. This book is not a massive effort to provide an all-encompassing understanding of the Civil War, and of the topics it does cover, none of them are covered masterfully. The book is a standout mostly because it evaluates the period from a unique point of view, i.e., the Libertarian view. As such this book has, for its size and scope, much more information on the attitudes of American anarchists towards slavery and the war, compared to what you would find in any other comparably sized work. Hummel also thinks that the South should have relied more on guerilla style warfare for its defense, letting Northern troops advance unopposed, but hampering them from actually occupying territory, and cutting their supply lines. It needs to be pointed out that this type of warfare is much more agreeable to the Libertarian because it doesn't rely on central government control of operations and it doesn't involve offensive operations which might harm civilians. Hummel is probably right to criticize Southern commanders for throwing their troops into some very uneven, disadvantageous situations, but the reader should know that his view of how the South should have fought is not exactly the conventional wisdom among historians. The idea that the South could have won at all, under any circumstances, is itself controversial. If you are a Libertarian, or are otherwise interested in learning about the misdeeds of government during the Civil War, this is a must-read. Also, the annotated bibliographies are excellent, and interesting reading by themselves.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth About Amerika's First Fascist Tyrant!
Review: If you want to know how we got into the mess we're in today, read Hummel. END
Rating:
Summary: The Truth About Amerika's First Fascist Tyrant!
Review: If you want to know how we got into the mess we're in today, read Hummel. I have posted three great reviews of Hummel's masterpiece at:
http://www.aimtec.com/rkba/hummel.html
|
