Military Review

American myth of the war over slavery

88

American artist Don Troyani


160 years ago, the Civil War began in the United States. The industrial North fought to the death with the slave South. The bloody massacre lasted four years (1861-1865) and claimed more lives than all other wars in which the United States participated combined.

The myth of the war "to abolish slavery"


The main myth of the American Civil War is the "war over slavery". For an ordinary layman who, in general, knows about the war between the North and the South, this is a war for the abolition of slavery in the southern states, for the freedom of blacks. The South supported racism and slavery, while the progressive North, led by Lincoln, believed in human equality and advocated the abolition of slavery.

However, this is a deception, a smokescreen. The main reason for the conflict was the split of the elite, the weakness of the central government, and the division of the country into two economic self-sufficient regions - the industrial North and the agrarian South. In the southern states, there were practically no armory factories, there were few foundries, weaving or tanneries and enterprises. There was no shipbuilding industry that could build warships. Almost the entire industry: factories and plants, shipyards and mines, arms factories and coal mines were in the North. As a result, the Americans fought for the future of the country: further centralization and industrialization, or decentralization, maintaining the division of the country into two different regions, with two elite groups.

Thus, two different elite groups have developed in the United States. Their interests contradicted each other. Their capital, wealth was based on various spheres, sectors of the economy. A powerful industry and banking (financial) sector was created in the North. The northerners realized that the future belongs to the enslaving interest on loans (finance) and the development of a powerful industry, which is based on the exploitation of millions of "free" people (without chains, but beggars working for a piece of bread), migrants. The agricultural sector, based on the use of both the labor of slaves and farm laborers, did not bring such fabulous profits as banks and factories. The North had to close its home market with the help of high tariffs from the then industrial leader, the "workshop of the world" - England. The southern states, whose economies were oriented towards the export of agricultural raw materials ("the king is cotton"), on the contrary, did not need to close their market.


Predators vs. Aliens


It was a conflict between two technological orders and elites that parasitized the population, both in the North and in the South. The capitalist economy of the northern states required an expansion of the labor market and sales, new millions of disenfranchised workers who would work in enterprises and become new consumers. The capitalist system in the North has reached the limit of growth. Further - only crisis and destruction. The only way out was in the expansion of the controlled zone and in the war, which destroys the old order and allows to create a new one.

The owners of the North needed, on the one hand, to close their market from the more developed British economy, on the other hand, to expand their zone at the expense of the southern states. The northern elite needed millions of new workers, beggars, landless and livelihoods, who would work for meager wages, and new consumers. Thousands of agricultural machines could replace slaves in agriculture, increasing the profitability of the agricultural sector. It was also necessary to break the resistance of the southern elite in order to create a single centralized power that could soon challenge competitors within the Western project.

The masters of the industrial North needed to expand their system, otherwise - crisis and destruction. This is also where the answers to the causes of all world wars lie. The Western world, the capitalist system periodically approaches the limit of growth. To survive, you need to defeat and rob competitors, seize their labor and raw materials, sales markets. So, the North defeated the South, created a single country and economic system. Before the start of the Civil War, the United States came in fourth in terms of industrial production. At the same time, the methods in industry did not differ much from the slave ones. There was a sweatshop system, a form of production that allowed the most severe methods of exploiting workers. Workers were driven to death or crippled, chronically ill people in a fairly short period of time. They have been working since childhood and most often by the age of 30 people turned into ruins. Few survived to old age.

A small group of rich people, bankers, owners of factories, newspapers and steamers enriched themselves fabulously. To do this, they drove to death the white American poor, visiting white migrants - Irish, Scots, Germans, Poles, Swedes, Italians and others. In essence, they were white slaves. Formally free, but de facto - "two-legged weapons". Without money, rights (the entire system of government, courts and the press are under the control of the rich), normal housing, tools of production. White slaves were not spared, more and more migrants came to America in flight from poverty at home, in pursuit of the American dream.

American myth of the war over slavery

The inevitability of war


The masters of the North needed the whole country and in the future - the first place in the world. The States were one of the leading projects in the Western world. The "Founding Fathers" were Masons, representatives of closed elite lodges and clubs. Even in the newest stories almost all of the US elite come from clubs and organizations hidden from ordinary people. Representatives of the political, financial and industrial elite became members of such clubs. Come from the richest and most influential families in the United States.

For example, Skull and Bones is the oldest secret society of Yale students. Among the patriarchs of this lodge were the Taft, the Rockefellers, the Bushes, etc. In such lodges and clubs, representatives of the American elite receive a certain upbringing. It is there that future governors, senators, ministers and presidents are determined. The game of "democracy" is an illusion of choice for millions of ordinary Americans. As you know, elections in the United States are always won by the wealthiest candidate who has received the support of most of the financial and industrial elite.

In the XNUMXth century, the United States was only moving towards world leadership. Northern families needed control of the South so that the United States could enter the world stage. In the middle of the century, the richest gold deposits were discovered in California. This made it possible to extract more than a third of the world's production of this precious metal. Thanks to gold and the brutal exploitation of white slaves, the United States launched the construction of a huge railway network. But in order to become the leader of the West, and then the whole world, the northerners had to solve the problem of the South.

The southern states were actually self-sufficient. Southerners were content with what they had. They didn't care about the desire of the northerners. The southern elite was quite different from the northern. The southerners did not have grandiose plans for the conquest of world domination. These plans were based on the Protestant ethics of the northerners, which was of Old Testament origin. With the division of people into "chosen by God", marked by wealth and poor people, losers. Accordingly, the “chosen ones” were supposed to rule the world.

For agriculture, the backbone of the South's economy, there was sufficient labor available. The main crops were cotton, tobacco, sugar cane and rice. Agricultural raw materials were sent to northern enterprises and exported to other countries, mainly to Britain. The southern elite were pleased with the current order. Interestingly, but the "slave-owning" (slaves were owned by the northerners) southern elite in some respect was even more humane towards representatives of other races, peoples and confessions. The Spaniards lived in Florida, the French in Louisiana, and the Mexicans in Texas. Only Anglo-Saxon Protestants could break into the northern elite. As an exception, the Dutch or the Germans. Catholics were discriminated against. In the South, they were tolerated. The southern elite included Catholics of Spanish and French descent. It is understandable why the southerners did not want to put up with the plans of the masters of the North. They chose to rebel and create their own state.

"Freedom" from slavery


In the South, Negroes, as in the North, were "two-legged weapons", property, they could be sold, lost at cards or even killed. But in the southern states, Negroes were valuable property, they received food, had housing, their own plots of land. Often this was "patriarchal slavery," when slaves were considered practically family members. What did "freedom" bring to the blacks? They were “freed” from subsistence work, housing, plots of land, established everyday life and traditional life. They were expelled from the plantations, deprived of all that little that they had.

At the same time, laws on vagrancy were then passed. Earlier in England, the peasantry was dealt with in a similar manner. The owners needed land to arrange pastures for the sheep. The wool went to manufactories. Only a few farm laborers and shepherds remained. The rest of the peasants became superfluous. As they said then: "the sheep ate the peasants." The peasants, deprived of their livelihoods, went to work in factories, where living conditions were much worse and worse. Into slavery. Those who did not want to become vagabonds, replenished the city bottom. The "bloody legislation" was used against the vagabonds, the beggars were branded, sent to factories, and executed when recaptured. Tens of thousands of people were killed.

Blacks were deprived of all the support in life, expelled from plantations, from their homes. We got a wild rampant "black crime". In response, the whites began to create popular squads (Ku Klux Klan). A wave of lynching began. An atmosphere of mutual hatred and fear was created. Society fell under the control of a plutocracy.

Therefore, it is not surprising that a rather large contingent of blacks, both slaves and free ones, fought for the "slave owners". Already in the initial period of the war, large detachments of blacks (up to several thousand fighters) fought on the side of the Confederate army. According to various sources, from 30 to 100 thousand blacks fought on the side of the southerners. True, mainly in non-combatant positions - carpenters, builders, cooks, orderlies, etc. In the state militias, Negroes served in combat units from the very beginning of the war. Often blacks fought for their masters, were their bodyguards. In the Confederate army, unlike the northerners, there was no racial discrimination. The Confederates also had mixed parts - from whites, blacks, Mexicans and Indians. In the North, blacks were not allowed to serve alongside whites. Separate Negro regiments were formed, their officers were white.

Most of the Indian tribes supported the South. This shouldn't come as a surprise. The Yankees (residents of the northern states) had a principle: "a good Indian - a dead Indian." They, in general, did not consider them as people. Southerners were more flexible. Thus, the Cherokee tribes became part of the southern world even before the war. They had their own power, court and even slaves. After the war, they were promised access to Congress.

To be continued ...
Author:
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. apro
    apro April 16 2021 04: 44
    .
    The anti-Soviet Samsonov, with proletarian anger, fell upon the ulcers of capital.
    Not a myth. About the fight against slavery. But a PR move. Not a war between the north and south. But a war of independent states united in the most delocratic way. By a decision of the population. And the northerners in this are obvious aggressors. . and on occasion are always ready to remind.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee April 16 2021 04: 58
      +24
      The fact that the war was not because of slavery is unambiguous ... And all wars are due to attendants.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U April 16 2021 05: 06
        +5
        Quote: Uncle Lee
        And all the wars are due to attendants.
        The US-sheep are unambiguous.
      2. apro
        apro April 16 2021 05: 08
        .
        Quote: Uncle Lee
        And all the wars are due to attendants.

        Yes, and it is difficult to call it civil.
        1. Uncle lee
          Uncle lee April 16 2021 05: 12
          +16
          And this is the exact definition.
          1. apro
            apro April 16 2021 05: 17
            .
            Quote: Uncle Lee
            And this is the exact definition.

            The fact is that each state in the connecting states of America was all the same a state, where the laws of the state are higher than the laws of the federation or confederation. And the congress of the state took part in the war. And for that either in the congress of the federation or confederation. federation of states of the north and states of the federation of the south. and with the neutrality of some states.
            1. Andrey Korotkov
              Andrey Korotkov April 16 2021 05: 51
              +7
              hi Aksakov I.S. (1823-1886) a contemporary of events made his conclusion: ,, The principle of personal freedom, devoid of moral content, was put from purely material motives only as a means to achieve personal material well-being ,, (C)
            2. Sergej1972
              Sergej1972 April 16 2021 10: 25
              -8
              Read the US Constitution (A. It explicitly states that US laws take precedence over the laws of individual states. State legislation cannot contradict the US Constitution. Southerners have violated the US Constitution.
              1. apro
                apro April 16 2021 10: 29
                +7
                Quote: Sergej1972
                Southerners violated the US Constitution.

                Nobody canceled the right to leave the union.
                1. Black lotos
                  Black lotos April 16 2021 11: 00
                  0
                  Quote: apro
                  Quote: Sergej1972
                  Southerners violated the US Constitution.

                  Nobody canceled the right to leave the union.

                  The legal justification for such actions was the absence in the US Constitution of a direct prohibition on the withdrawal of certain states from the United States (although there was no permission for this either)
                2. Sergej1972
                  Sergej1972 April 16 2021 11: 52
                  0
                  The US legislation does not recognize such a right.
                  1. apro
                    apro April 16 2021 11: 57
                    -1
                    Quote: Sergej1972
                    The US legislation does not recognize such a right.

                    And the state congress of the state is easy.
                    1. Sergej1972
                      Sergej1972 April 16 2021 15: 30
                      -2
                      No state in the United States has supported the right to secession following the defeat of the Southerners in the Civil War.
                      1. apro
                        apro April 16 2021 15: 48
                        +5
                        Quote: Sergej1972
                        No state in the United States has supported the right to secession following the defeat of the Southerners in the Civil War.

                        Ask about Texas at your leisure.
                      2. Sergej1972
                        Sergej1972 April 16 2021 18: 55
                        -2
                        Studied this question. Nobody takes the shocking statements of some Texas politicians seriously. The level of American patriotism in this state is higher than the national level.
                      3. Sergej1972
                        Sergej1972 April 16 2021 18: 57
                        0
                        As for the few Texas separatists, these are white English-speaking comrades who have no good feelings for Mexico and Latinos. By the way, historical Texas is much larger than the state of Texas, because part of its territory became part of neighboring states. And the state of Louisiana occupies only part of the territory of former French Louisiana.
                    2. Alf
                      Alf April 16 2021 22: 02
                      +2
                      Quote: Sergej1972
                      No state in the United States has supported the right to secession following the defeat of the Southerners in the Civil War.



                    3. Basarev
                      Basarev April 19 2021 13: 39
                      -3
                      So this is the KP, the Kremlin garbage dump. To take it seriously is not to respect yourself.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. alexey sidykin
            alexey sidykin April 19 2021 09: 52
            +1
            One nuance, the law you mentioned after the defeat of the South
      3. samosad
        samosad April 16 2021 07: 58
        +7
        A civil war is when citizens of one country are at war with each other. The fact that citizens of other states can participate in it does not negate the first.
  2. Revolver
    Revolver April 16 2021 09: 52
    +2
    "It's the economy, stupid!" © Bill Clinton
  3. Skif
    Skif April 20 2021 19: 47
    0
    "And with them everything is just like that. Except for money."
  • samosad
    samosad April 16 2021 07: 56
    +2
    How did capital letters hurt you as a child?
    1. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 April 16 2021 11: 54
      +2
      This is something new for this user. Previously, he only wrote Russia and the Russian Federation in small letters, explaining this by considerations of principle and the fact that he was a supporter of the USSR.
  • Cartalon
    Cartalon April 16 2021 06: 18
    +2
    To read in chant, swaying, then on the fifth round you will open the upper chakra and you will comprehend the essence of the Vedic Slavic-Aryan monarch - communism.
    1. apro
      apro April 16 2021 06: 23
      -2
      Quote: Cartalon
      To read in chant, swaying, then on the fifth round you will open the upper chakra and you will comprehend the essence of the Vedic Slavic-Aryan monarch - communism.

      Well said. I would not have thought of that. Although essentially true.
      1. kalibr
        kalibr April 16 2021 07: 05
        +2
        "The main myth of the American Civil War is the 'war over slavery'." The funny thing is that there is no "myth". If we read not our textbooks, but American studies on this topic, and indeed documents in general, we will be able to see that from the very beginning Lincoln wrote only about the preservation of the Union, and nothing more. There was no question of freeing slaves. So what's the myth? But when the South turned out to be a tough nut to crack, it was decided to use "liberation" as a mechanism to undermine its economic power. And, of course, everyone immediately began to say that this was a humane act. So what? Anyone arguing with this? Better out of necessity than not at all, and when necessity coincides with desire, and there was a desire to liberate, there was also an abolitionist movement, then it’s absolutely good! Interestingly, experts in the field of cliotmetry have proven that slavery would have been beneficial until 1952. So there are a lot of things mixed up here, from humanism to mercantilism. Simple black and white pictures - here are bad, here are good, here are black, here is white, there was no, no, and cannot be.
        1. apro
          apro April 16 2021 07: 16
          -5
          I did not understand your attack Caliber. My point of view. This is not a civil war, but a war between two sovereign unions of states. And not at all for the rights of slaves.
          1. kalibr
            kalibr April 16 2021 08: 08
            +3
            Quote: apro
            and the war of two sovereign unions of states. and not at all for the rights of slaves

            And why did you decide that this is some kind of attack on you? You expressed your point of view, I wrote that this is why American historians are writing about it. Why is everything immediately perceived in a negative way and at your own expense? "Scared crow .."?
            1. apro
              apro April 16 2021 08: 11
              -6
              Quote: kalibr
              Why is everything immediately perceived in a negative way and at your own expense?

              In an incomprehensible way.
              1. kalibr
                kalibr April 16 2021 08: 14
                +3
                Quote: apro
                In an incomprehensible way.

                What you have written can be even more difficult to understand and nothing ... So you will figure it out!
        2. Catfish
          Catfish April 16 2021 07: 22
          +5
          All of them, sho in the north, sho in the south - reptiles-imperialists - oppressors of the working people and simple peasantry! am


          Hi, Vyacheslav! wink
          1. kalibr
            kalibr April 16 2021 08: 11
            0
            Good day!
        3. WHAT IS
          WHAT IS April 16 2021 09: 59
          +15
          Quote: kalibr
          Lincoln wrote only about the preservation of the Union, and no more

          Quite right. “If I could save the union without freeing a single slave, I would do it.” When the northern states entered the war, they did it not to abolish slavery, but to force the rebellious states back into the union. But the longer the war was going on, the more clearly Lincoln understood - compromises and half measures alone could not win it. Lincoln's position was changing. And it was forced to change. In August 1861, Lincoln did not find it possible to support General Fremont, who declared slaves belonging to the rebellious slaveholders of the South free men and, moreover, removed him from his post as commander of the Northern forces in Missouri. However, two months later, the President instructed General Sherman to accept fugitive slaves as hired workers and even allowed them, under certain conditions, to arm them.
          On September 22, 1862, Lincoln decided to publish a proclamation warning that if the rebellious states did not return to the Union by January 1, 1863, all slaves within their territory would be declared "free from now on and forever." ...
          That is, even Lincoln's proclamation on the emancipation of slaves, issued on January 1, 1863, and freeing slaves in all rebellious states, was preceded by a three-month period during which all states that would voluntarily return to the union were promised to be allowed to maintain slavery.
          And also ... slaves in states already occupied by federal troops, as well as slaves in border and southern states that did not join the Confederation, were not subject to release, since such a decision by the Lincoln administration could anger the "loyal" slave-owning planters of these states and weaken their support of the federal government. Confederate states ignored the warning, and then on January 1, 1863, a second proclamation was issued, which turned the issue of freeing slaves into a declared goal of war.
        4. Black lotos
          Black lotos April 16 2021 11: 03
          +5
          Quote: kalibr
          But when the South turned out to be a tough nut to crack

          40% almost countries wanted other taxes than 60% (taxes on exported goods)
          wanted other states' rights, more extended.
          wanted other land rights
          and so on.
          the contradictions between 60 and 40% were quite serious. And this is money, land and law.
        5. andrew42
          andrew42 April 16 2021 15: 06
          +13
          Why until 1952? - Slavery is profitable even now. An example is more than 2 million prisoners in the United States, and at least 80% of them work through the private prison system for rations for corporations. Slavery did not disappear anywhere over the past millennia, but only took disguised and veiled forms. In the end, physical submission through a whip and a collar did not go far from the financial stranglehold in the form of the current minimum wage - only the instrument was replaced. Slaves and serfs are not supposed to have anything above the "living wage" - but this principle lives on and lives, including in our native country.
          1. kalibr
            kalibr April 16 2021 16: 09
            +2
            Quote: andrew42
            Why until 1952? -

            The first efficient cotton harvester began to operate. The work of the Negro pickers of cotton, namely cotton, was the king of the South, immediately depreciated. This is how they calculated it. They had a monocultural economy!
            1. andrew42
              andrew42 April 16 2021 16: 49
              +7
              Slavery is not only a technological order. Slavery is a socio-economic relationship, and technology is nothing more than an attribute. A slave is an ideal tool for enrichment from the point of view of modern "global" masters of life. And it doesn't matter if this slave works with his hands / plow or with a tablet / laser.
              1. kalibr
                kalibr April 16 2021 17: 33
                +1
                Quote: andrew42
                Slavery is not only a technological order.

                You tell the American economists this, not me. My article on cliotmetry, how to develop them, was on VO.
          2. Maki Avellevich
            Maki Avellevich April 17 2021 18: 18
            +3
            Quote: andrew42
            In the end, physical submission through a whip and a collar did not go far from the financial stranglehold in the form of the current minimum wage - only the instrument was replaced.

            don't tell.

            It's one thing to be a slave who picks cotton or woods in the open air, it's another thing to be a "sounding" slave who has taken out a mortgage.

            in the second case, you still had any choice. in the first case, either working for the owner or the dogs will cut off your five minutes of freedom while you run.

            as Chapaev said - "Petka, do you know what a nuance is?"
            1. andrew42
              andrew42 April 19 2021 13: 48
              +2
              So this is the whole "progress" of the enslavement mechanism. The collar can then be ripped off in the end, and shoved to the "owner" where it should be - there would be a chance, but the situation is clear. When the collar is "flexible", in the form "it happened for a number of reasons," the desire to change one's fate is thoroughly blurred by ephemeral hopes that some of the "objective" reasons will disappear by itself. In this case, living today (and this is how the overwhelming majority live) plays a cruel joke. To put it simply, I reached my salary and exhaled, and then we will see.
            2. Sanichsan
              Sanichsan April 24 2021 20: 37
              0
              Quote: Maki Avellievich
              in the second case, you still had any choice.

              was there a choice?
              to you on the Internet, from TV, from the printed press, from posters on the street, beautiful, smiling people, your favorite artists, tell you how good it is to take out a loan, how it will dramatically improve and simplify your life. from childhood you are convinced that credit is normal, it is good. went to the bank and oops, you are rich and you can afford what you just didn’t have money for ...
              Well, then yes, "you made your choice. You had to read the small text at the bottom of the contract."
              So is there a choice if only credit slavery is offered and they prepare for this slavery from an early age by forming a consumer society?
    2. alexey sidykin
      alexey sidykin April 19 2021 09: 55
      +1
  • Undecim
    Undecim April 16 2021 07: 43
    +9
    Delirium flow crossed the Atlantic and hit the history of the United States. The author, in a fit of militant ignorance, undertook to debunk the myth that "this is a war for the abolition of slavery in the southern states, for the freedom of blacks."
    True, ignorance once again played a cruel joke on him. This myth has already been debunked. Including the Americans themselves, as well as the classics of Marxism.
    Obviously, the author simply does not know about this due to his ignorance, the existence of such historians as, for example, Charles Beard or Bill Howard does not even suspect, I have not seen the book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, the fifteenth volume of the second edition I have not read the works of Marx and Engels on p. 355 and has no idea what reconstruction is in the USA.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr April 16 2021 08: 10
      +3
      Quote: Undecim
      the fifteenth volume of the second edition of the works of Marx and Engels on p. 355

      Here, I was too lazy to look, but you found everything. Thank you, Victor Nikolaevich!
    2. Ka-52
      Ka-52 April 16 2021 08: 22
      +14
      The author, in a fit of militant ignorance, undertook to debunk the myth that

      you are not quite right. The myth exists. Its inconsistency is known to not so many people. I suspect that 80% of those surveyed on the streets will speak out about the reasons for the Civil War in the United States - against slavery)) I think that there are a lot of such among the readers of VO. Another thing is that this is presented by the author so pretentiously and pathetically that you feel yourself on political information in the 70s))
      1. Reviews
        Reviews April 16 2021 08: 35
        +7
        Let's just say there is a stereotype, a stamp. "Myth" is rather something more ambitious, actively promoted and supported. Well, in my opinion. A stamp is a more mundane everyday concept. Well, as a common opinion (stereotype) about the sale of Alaska by Catherine II. And the myth is, say, "the Russia of the crust that we lost" - large-scale pictures of some kind of New Atlantis are drawn, no less.
        Quote: Ka-52
        I suspect that 80% of those surveyed on the streets will speak out about the reasons for the Civil War in the United States - against slavery))

        ... because the generation of the 1960s and 70s read almost without exception the humanist Jules Verne with his "Mysterious Island". :) But in the 1990s, some author shot a small, but sensible article (I don't remember either the author or the publication), where he put everything on the shelves, relying on the well-known principle "politics is an instrument of economics, and war is the continuation of politics by other means ".
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 April 16 2021 08: 48
          +2
          yes agree, Sergey
      2. Undecim
        Undecim April 16 2021 09: 02
        +4
        The fact is that the education of 80 percent of the ignorant does not bother the author at all. Its task is to scoop and throw it at the fan. Moreover, if earlier in the "History" section at least half was about history, today both articles are sketches.
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 April 16 2021 09: 14
          +3
          in other words, it is simply an interpretation of events through the prism of the author's subjective view. The author was caught with a balanced and not biased approach based on facts - consider us, the readers, lucky. And if on the contrary, it means that something similar to this article above is being born. With sworn capitalists and an oppressed people yes
          1. Undecim
            Undecim April 16 2021 09: 18
            +2
            Got caught an author with a balanced and not biased approach
            The site makes every effort to protect the audience from such hits.
            1. Black lotos
              Black lotos April 16 2021 11: 12
              +7
              Quote: Undecim
              Got caught an author with a balanced and not biased approach

              you understand that this approach has a small audience.
              It is not understandable to the masses. They would have something simple, hype, familiar.
              As a fashionable hype, creepy and to get more likes.
              People are not specialists.
              And nowadays the economy is consumer-oriented, so you can't sell a product to a small audience.
              Here is an example of Samsonov - he is scolded, he is criticized mercilessly for his superuss, the theory of the damned West and other dregs - but still there are a lot of comments in his topics and a lot of enthusiastic ones. So his Sworn West is ..
              And he would have made a specialized article, so at first they would not have believed that it was Samsonov. Then a couple of dozen balanced and not biased comments and Temka would have died.
              Against the background of hundreds of comments and attention of HYIP articles.
              people themselves create the atmosphere they want.
              1. Undecim
                Undecim April 16 2021 12: 44
                0
                I understand that sketching is the easiest way to provide clickbait.
                Somehow the idea of ​​paid content was wandering on the site. The pity faded away.
      3. parma
        parma April 16 2021 09: 35
        +1
        Quote: Ka-52
        The author, in a fit of militant ignorance, undertook to debunk the myth that

        you are not quite right. The myth exists. Its inconsistency is known to not so many people. I suspect that 80% of those surveyed on the streets will speak out about the reasons for the Civil War in the United States - against slavery)) I think that there are a lot of such among the readers of VO. Another thing is that this is presented by the author so pretentiously and pathetically that you feel yourself on political information in the 70s))

        Well, 80% of Americans, I think, then fought not for material benefits)) the question is eternal - any war begins by those who do not exist on the front line (since the 18th century) and with goals different from those who are on this very front line .. I do not think that a private from the 33 volunteer infantry regiment of New Jersey (which is in the picture) fought for the economic annexation of the south .. for those people (privates) it was a war to preserve the integrity of their country and the existing way of life, probably for freedom for black ...
        1. kalibr
          kalibr April 16 2021 10: 43
          +4
          Quote: parma
          Private of the 33rd New Jersey Volunteer Infantry Regiment

          For a private ... it was a war of high wages + homestead a free allotment of land. And he didn't give a damn about such words as "union", "slavery".
          1. parma
            parma April 16 2021 11: 04
            +3
            Quote: kalibr
            Quote: parma
            Private of the 33rd New Jersey Volunteer Infantry Regiment

            For a private ... it was a war of high wages + homestead a free allotment of land. And he didn't give a damn about such words as "union", "slavery".

            Calling the salary "generous" in both armies during the Civil War in the United States does not dare ... northerners received $ 15-20 per month (not officers), southerners 10-15 depending on rank, position, etc. .. in today's prices this is less than $ 500 .. an employee of a manufactory in the north received $ 18-20 a month ... a good blacksmith of about 60 ... make your own conclusions about the mercantile nature of the soldiers ...
            1. kalibr
              kalibr April 16 2021 16: 12
              +4
              Quote: parma
              northerners received $ 15-20 per month

              Ask how many workers received and how many blacksmiths were among them. And the right to Homestead was received from 63rd by all those who fought !!
            2. your1970
              your1970 April 19 2021 21: 35
              +1
              Quote: parma
              received $ 15-20 per month

              Tom Sawer, Mark Twain
              "In those old simple days for a quarter dollar a week agreed to drink, feed and train boy, and in addition, perhaps, and dress his."

              Quite decent money at that time for the average hard workers without special professions
            3. Kwas
              Kwas April 22 2021 15: 24
              0
              And the soldiers-northerners were promised (and given!) A free piece of land on Indian lands. True, the Indians had to be expelled from them ...
              1. parma
                parma April 23 2021 07: 44
                0
                Quote: Kwas
                And the soldiers-northerners were promised (and given!) A free piece of land on Indian lands. True, the Indians had to be expelled from them ...

                Here you are all writing about the program / law known as "homestead" and linking it with veterans, but according to this law, any (!) US citizen could get land by paying the state a duty, if for 5 years he equipped the site, then he became its full owner ... This law was in effect until the end of the 80s of the last century, for more than 100 years ... how the veterans of the Civil War are connected with this, I do not understand ...
        2. Black lotos
          Black lotos April 16 2021 11: 19
          +4
          Quote: parma
          Well, 80% of Americans, I think, then fought not for material benefits

          yes there as in any war. Enthusiasm first. Lots of volunteers. Then blood, death, suffering - and there is no enthusiasm. And there was compulsion / conscription, mobilization.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA April 16 2021 16: 17
            +2
            Quote: Black Lotos
            And there was a compulsion / conscription, mobilization.

            ... ransom from conscription and revolts of those who do not want to serve, smoothly developing into pogroms.
    3. Black lotos
      Black lotos April 16 2021 11: 26
      +4
      Quote: Undecim
      True, ignorance once again played a cruel joke on him. This myth has already been debunked. Including the Americans themselves, as well as the classics of Marxism.

      why debunk it if there is
      Crittenden-Johnson Resolution The Crittenden-Johnson Resolution, also known as the Crittenden Resolution, was passed by the United States Congress on July 25, 1861, shortly after the outbreak of the Civil War (April 12) and five days after the defeat of the Union army at the First Battle of Bul Ran.
      The resolution stated that the war was started by the Union for the sake of uniting the country, and in no case for the sake of abolishing the "extravagant institution" of slavery. The resolution required the US government not to take action against the institution of slavery.
      But this article does not pursue finding the true reasons. For this is already known.
      But consider from the point of view of capital conspiracy theory. In addition, the author even begins to sympathize with the southerners with their slavery. They are more humane.
      This is Samsonov. It's good that the southerners have no super russians. And so the damned capital would have fought against here too.
  • parusnik
    parusnik April 16 2021 07: 54
    +6
    American myth of the war over slavery.. The title is touching. The author creates a myth and immediately exposes it.
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ April 16 2021 08: 45
    +2
    There is no literary style, there are many repetitions, it is difficult to read. The majority of the people thought about the war between the North and the South was formed on the basis of the works of Jules Verne "Children of Captain Grant" and "The Mysterious Island", so some educational mission of the author can only be welcomed, but the style of presentation is too oak.
    1. Kwas
      Kwas April 22 2021 15: 29
      0
      If we talk about Jules Verne, we must remember "North against South". And from pop literature add "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" and "Gone with the Wind".
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ April 22 2021 19: 25
        +1
        "Gone with the Wind" - of course, but this thing became popular only in the late 80s. And Mark Twain did not particularly write about this war, although he fought for some time on the side of the southerners. Jules Verne's North versus South cannot be attributed to popular works.
        1. Reptiloid
          Reptiloid April 22 2021 19: 35
          0
          Greetings, Sergey! We used to have books by Bret Garth at home, published in the 50s (now they have been gone for a long time). There were some moments that were incomprehensible to me as a student. Just on this topic.
          That, like, it's not about slaves ... recourse
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ April 22 2021 19: 40
            +1
            Hi Dmitry!
            I know Bret Harth, but I didn’t like anyone from American writers except Mark Twain, O. Henry and Dreiser with Jack London, and for various reasons - literary style, boringness, uninteresting topics raised, etc. And I read "Gone with the Wind" for the first time last summer purely for educational purposes, and was satisfied.
            1. Reptiloid
              Reptiloid April 23 2021 03: 17
              +1
              I haven't read "Gone with the Wind", but I often come back to Jack London, O'Henry ...
              We should reread our writers about the Civil War ...
              1. Aviator_
                Aviator_ April 23 2021 08: 21
                +1
                Gone with the Wind is worth reading, a note from the life of an American landowner during the Civil War. The film is also fine, but the book is better.
  • Black lotos
    Black lotos April 16 2021 10: 56
    +8
    Samsonov is like Rzhevsky.
    He came and vulgarized everything. Since when did the Civil War "because of slavery" then.
    In all textbooks from the USSR --- saving the country.
    Abolitionism in the United States of America was part of a worldwide movement. And the first were just Britain and France.
    So go by. The integrity of the country was at stake. And already slavery was there and there. And they used it as a tool.
    The reason was the secession of the states of the South (that is, secession from the country)
    Plus the American Civil War is the most popular civil war in the world (fun fact)
    And from a military point of view, there are a lot of interesting things here and progress and technology, etc.
    Declare some kind of myth about slavery and debunk it ..
    Sasmsonovu himself invented and debunked the author himself.
  • Nikodim
    Nikodim April 16 2021 11: 34
    +4
    Ay yes Samsonov! Ay yeah ......
    The "myth" itself invented and immediately "exposed" good
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA April 16 2021 12: 07
    +9
    For Abraham Lincoln, freeing slaves was not an end, but only a means. A means to save the Union. Moreover, if it was possible to save the Union under the condition of preserving slavery, then Lincoln would advocate slavery.
    My main task in this struggle is to save the Union, not to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do it; and if I had to free all the slaves to save him, I would do it; and if I had to free some of the slaves to save him and leave others in slavery, I would have done it too. Everything I do about slavery and people of color I do because I believe it can help save the Union.

    My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union
  • mojohed2012
    mojohed2012 April 16 2021 14: 52
    +4
    It is a pity that the South did not defeat the North. Perhaps then the States would have been North and South, respectively. The Southern states would be white, and the North black, since Lincoln deliberately started this cartoon about the abolition of slavery and blacks fled to the North in droves.
  • AntiAleks
    AntiAleks April 16 2021 15: 34
    -4
    what nonsense in the spirit of the Soviets ...
  • Cowbra
    Cowbra April 16 2021 16: 02
    +9
    The author in vain mentioned in passing that the whole situation with segregation arose as a result of the Civil War. In fact, BLM is exactly an echo of the victory of the North!
    Well and more. The point is not even that Lincoln, a fighter for the rights of Negroes, never rushed to free his slaves, neither before nor after the war ... The point is that even now the United States is a slave-owning country. Sorry, but when every fourth convict in the world is in the United States. Sorry, does not sit, but very much even works, actually free - and not necessarily for the state, but for completely private prisons, what is the difference between the forced labor of a slave who was caught, beaten into stocks so that he would work for free - and the forced labor of convicts? Just don't need tales about the triumph of justice, since the law is the same for everyone, why doesn't Musk swing a shovel at road construction after being convicted of fraud in order to receive subsidies from the government? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. And the scale, I repeat, is gigantic.
    1. andrew42
      andrew42 April 16 2021 16: 54
      +8
      I wrote about this in the answer above. And how can we not recall the constant admiration for the Roman Empire in Hollywood "products" for decades. The Capitol, the Senate, legions, patricians and plebs hungry for spectacles - for the American elite since the founding of the USA, these attributes of the most grandiose slave-owning state in history (itself, after the USA, of course) are so sweet.
    2. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 April 17 2021 08: 22
      +4
      Lincoln never had slaves. You are confusing with George Washington.
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra April 17 2021 18: 22
        0
        Oops, right. You're right...
  • andrew42
    andrew42 April 16 2021 17: 02
    +4
    Reading the critical comments, I could not understand the reason for the criticism of this article. Is that for the fact that the author has prescribed the well-known essence of the Civil War in the States - well, criticism for "captain obviousness" is probably appropriate. As a matter of fact, not a single respected "critic" has uttered anything sensible and intelligible. In this case, the article is a plus, at least for a reminder of which US state we are really dealing with, and what is the essence of this formation from the initial historical period.
  • svp67
    svp67 April 16 2021 17: 07
    +3

    Most of the Indian tribes supported the South. This shouldn't come as a surprise. The Yankees (residents of the northern states) had a principle: "a good Indian - a dead Indian." They, in general, did not consider them as people. Southerners were more flexible.


  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz April 16 2021 21: 16
    -1
    Da zdravstvuyut CSA vo glave s Teksasom!
  • Boratsagdiev
    Boratsagdiev April 17 2021 10: 43
    0
    The idea is good, but poorly written.
    There are many repetitions, "ragged" presentation (similar to the report of a student who copied information from primary sources).
  • Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 April 17 2021 23: 50
    -1
    The article is not bad. But here is my opinion that this war is not only a discord among the elites. Surely Britain, the largest power of that time, had a hand in this, eliminating a competitor that had the potential to challenge it in the future.
  • FrankyStein
    FrankyStein April 20 2021 19: 22
    0
    From the very beginning, the article begins with a mistake: the South was rich, full of money. But the north was a beggar in spite of some industry, their entire system and leadership approached the big railroad. And they stupidly decided to rob the south. That's all there is to know about this war. And the negroes were freed only because the Sevres had no money for hired soldiers.
  • tank64rus
    tank64rus 15 June 2021 17: 17
    0
    In the movie "Gone with the Wind" everything is shown. True, it is now banned in the US. They also smashed the monuments to the southerners. Ukraine - 2,0.
  • Andrei Kaledin
    Andrei Kaledin 12 July 2021 20: 34
    0
    Complete nonsense. The war was for the abolition of slavery, and the fact that the abolition of slavery was beneficial to the capitalists of the north does not negate this in any way. By the way, the poor southerners of the slave owners were not such peaceful sheep, until Lincoln they were the main ones in the United States and actively used bandits to assert their will and spread slavery to the north. But by Lincoln, the North has already become the level of European powers, and the South is militant aristocrats with blacks living on the export of resources. Well, the civil war, this is a natural result of the bourgeois revolution where the bourgeois was put at the foot of the impatient aristocrats.

    Lincoln was all his life a moderate supporter of abolitionism, and what he said before the war and elections was only pre-election PR. All supporters and opponents of slavery knew this then, and statements were needed to attract neutrals and calm the slave owners.

    The first was successful, but the slave owners could not be deceived.