# Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men Author: ## Review 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. ## Key Ideas ## Related