The American Myth of the War for Slave Freedom

19 555 51
The American Myth of the War for Slave Freedom
William Gilbert Goal. "To Hold the Line at All Costs", 1884


Bloody massacre


During the campaign of 1864, the Northern Union achieved decisive military victories over the Southern Confederacy. The Northerners were able to establish a naval blockade of the South, mobilize and use their advantage in manpower and economy. During the war, the North drafted 2,8 million people into the army with a population of 22 million, the South - about 1,1 million people with a population of 9 million. Fleet The North's strength increased from 90 ships in 1861 to 700 by the end of the war.



The most powerful blow to the Southerners was dealt as a result of the so-called "march to the sea" conducted by General Sherman's army. Advancing through Georgia to the sea, Sherman's troops occupied Atlanta on September 2, 1864, Savannah on December 21, and Columbia on February 18, 1865. On April 3, 1865, federal troops occupied the Confederate capital of Richmond.

On April 9, the remnants of the Army of Northern Virginia under General Lee surrendered at Appomattox.

After this, other Confederate units began to surrender. Thus, on May 26, the Trans-Mississippi Department capitulated. This department included territories west of the Mississippi River: the states of Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Indian Territory, and part of western Louisiana. The department's commander was General Edmund Kirby Smith, who signed the capitulation in Galveston on June 2.

The last Confederate general to surrender was Cherokee Chief and Brigadier General Stand Watie and his Indian troops on June 23.

The civil war became the bloodiest conflict in history. history USA. In total, between 620 and 750 people died (not counting civilians), hundreds of thousands went missing, and hundreds of thousands were wounded.

By the end of the war, most of the infrastructure of the South was destroyed and looted. A criminal revolution began, when hundreds of thousands of blacks received "freedom." According to the law, blacks received freedom, but de facto they remained dependent, as they were poor farm laborers. A period of racial segregation began, when wealthy white groups separated themselves from other racial communities with the help of property and educational barriers.


Source: Soviet Historical Encyclopedia. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ed. by E. M. Zhukov. 1973-1982.

The Myth of the War to Abolish Slavery


The main Western myth about the American Civil War is that it was a war over slavery. For the average person who knows anything about the war between the North and the South, it was a war to abolish slavery in the southern states, to free blacks. The South supported racism and slavery, and the progressive North, led by the noble Lincoln, believed in the equality of people and advocated the abolition of slavery.

This is a myth, an illusion, an information cover for the main reason for the war. The main cause of the conflict was the split in the elite, the weakness of the central government and the division of the country into two economically self-sufficient regions – the industrial North and the agrarian South.

There were virtually no weapons factories in the southern states, few foundries, textile or tanneries and factories. There was no shipbuilding industry that could build warships. Virtually all industry: factories and plants, shipyards and mines, weapons 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.

In the States, which were actively developing and expanding after liberation from the British metropolis (Why Slave-Owning America Rebelled Against Great Britain), two different elite groups were formed. Their interests contradicted each other. Their capitals and wealth were based on different spheres and branches of the economy.

A powerful industry and banking (financial) sector were created in the North. The Northern elite clans realized that the future was in the enslaving interest rate (finance) and the development of a powerful industry 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 slave and farm labor, did not bring in such fabulous profits as banks and factories. The North needed to close its domestic market to the industrial leader of the time, the "workshop of the world" - England, with the help of high tariffs. The southern states, whose economy was oriented toward the export of agricultural raw materials ("cotton is king"), on the contrary, did not need to close their market.


Thomas Nast, General Lee Surrendering to General Grant, 1865

Predators vs. Aliens


This was a conflict between two technological structures and elites that were parasitizing on the population, both in the North and in the South. The capitalist economy of the northern states required an expansion of the labor and sales market, new millions of disenfranchised workers who would work in enterprises and become new consumers. The capitalist system in the North had reached the limit of growth. Further on, there would only be crisis and destruction. The only way out was to expand the controlled zone and to wage war, which would destroy the old order and allow the creation of a new one.

The Northern masters needed, on the one hand, to close their market to the more developed British economy, and on the other hand, to expand their zone at the expense of the southern states. The Northern elite needed new millions of workers, poor, landless and without means of subsistence, who would work for a meager salary, and new consumers. Slaves in agriculture could be replaced by thousands of agricultural machines, 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 claim hegemony throughout the world.

The owners of the industrial North needed to expand their system, otherwise there would be crisis and destruction.

Herein lie the answers to the causes of all world wars. The Western world, the capitalist system periodically approaches the limit of growth. To survive, it is necessary to defeat and rob competitors, seize their labor and raw materials, sales markets. Thus, the North defeated the South, created a single country and economic system. Before the start of the Civil War, the United States was in fourth place in terms of industrial production.

At the same time, the methods in industry were not much different from slavery. There was a sweatshop system, a form of production that allowed the most brutal methods of exploitation of workers. Workers were driven to death or made cripples, chronically ill people in a fairly short period of time. They worked from early childhood, and most often by the age of 30 people turned into ruins. Few lived to old age. At the same time, representatives of the elite lived as on average people do today - 70 years and more.

The power of plutocrats (rich people), bankers and oligarchs. A small group of rich people, bankers, owners of factories, newspapers and steamships became fabulously rich under such a predatory parasitic system.

To achieve this, they drove the white American poor to death, the white immigrants – Irish, Scots, Germans, Poles, Swedes, Italians and others. In essence, they were white slaves. Formally free, but de facto – “two-legged tools”. Without money, rights (the entire system of government, courts and press – under the control of the rich), normal housing, tools of production.

White slaves were not spared, fleeing poverty in their homeland, in pursuit of the American dream, more and more migrants came to America. The wave of white poverty from Europe was followed by the Chinese, who lived practically as slaves to the masters of the American empire.

The war itself fabulously enriched the financial and industrial clans. It was during the Civil War that the foundations for the enormous fortunes of the largest financial magnates of the USA – Rockefeller, Morgan, and others – were laid.


Homer Winslow. "Prisoners from the Front", 1866

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 of the Western world. The "Founding Fathers" were Masons, representatives of closed elite lodges and clubs. Even in modern history, almost the entire elite of the United States are descendants of clubs and organizations hidden from ordinary people. Representatives of the political, financial, and industrial elite became members of such clubs. Descendants of 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 19th century, the United States was just moving towards world leadership. Northern families needed control over the South so that the United States could enter the world arena. In the middle of the century, the richest gold deposits were discovered in California. This allowed the extraction of 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 began building a huge network of railroads. But to become the leader of the West, and then the entire world, the Northerners needed 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 what the Northerners wanted. The Southern elite was quite different from the Northern elite. Southerners had no grandiose plans to conquer the world. These plans were based on the Northern Protestant ethic, which had an Old Testament origin. With the division of people into "God's chosen ones", marked by wealth, and the poor losers. Accordingly, the "chosen ones" were supposed to rule the world.

There was ample labor available for agriculture, the backbone of the southern economy. The main crops were cotton, tobacco, sugar cane, and rice. Agricultural raw materials went to northern factories and were exported to other countries, mainly Britain. The southern elite was satisfied with the established order.

Interestingly, the slave-owning (Northerners also owned slaves) southern elite was in some ways even more humane to representatives of other races, nations and religions. The Spanish lived in Florida, the French in Louisiana, and the Mexicans in Texas. Only Anglo-Saxon Protestants could get into the northern elite. As an exception, the Dutch or Germans. Catholics were discriminated against. In the South, they were treated tolerantly. The southern elite included Catholics of Spanish and French origin. It is understandable why the southerners did not want to put up with the plans of the Northern masters. They preferred 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 passed. Earlier in England, they dealt with the peasantry in a similar way. The owners needed land to arrange pastures for sheep. The wool went to the manufactories. Only a few farm laborers and shepherds remained. The rest of the peasants became superfluous. As they used to say: "The sheep ate the peasants." The peasants, deprived of their means of subsistence, went to work in the manufactories, where the living conditions were much worse and more terrible. Into slavery.

Those who did not want to became vagabonds, filling the city's bottom. "Bloody legislation" was used against vagabonds, beggars were branded, sent to factories, executed if caught again. Tens of thousands of people were killed. Others were thrown into prison, sent as white slaves to the colonies. The English peasantry was simply destroyed for the sake of "primitive accumulation of capital."

The blacks were deprived of all support in life, driven out of plantations, out of their homes. They got a wild rampage of "black crime". In response, whites began to create people's militias (like the Ku Klux Klan). A wave of lynchings began. An atmosphere of mutual hatred and fear was created. Society fell under the control of the plutocracy.

Therefore, it is not surprising that a fairly large contingent of blacks, both slaves and free, fought for the southerners. 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-combat positions - carpenters, builders, cooks, orderlies, etc. In the state militias, blacks 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 units – white, black, Mexican and Indian. In the North, blacks were not allowed to serve with whites. Separate Negro regiments were formed, and their officers were white.

Most Indian tribes supported the South. This should not be surprising. The Yankees (the inhabitants of the northern states) had the principle: "A good Indian is a dead Indian." They did not consider them people at all. The southerners were more flexible. Thus, the Cherokee tribes became part of the southern world even before the war. They had their own government, court, and even slaves. After the war, they were promised access to Congress.

The Split between Elite and Society in the Modern United States


Overall, it was a terrible split between the elite and society in the United States. It was the cause of the war, not the war for the freedom of slaves.

This page in US history still has a strong influence on the country. At the beginning of the 21st century, they tried to rewrite it. To erase the heroism of the Confederate southerners, to forget the real reasons for the war in favor of political correctness, tolerance, and multiculturalism.

The United States is currently approaching a similar civil conflict. The elite, the states and society are divided over the future of the United States. Globalization or "America First" (Trump's Global Project).
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    5 June 2025 05: 17
    division of the country into two economically self-sufficient regions - the industrial North and the agricultural South
    Moreover, the agrarian South was seriously considering separating from the North.
  2. + 12
    5 June 2025 06: 09
    The author forgot to add a summary: slavery is good, being a slave is wonderful.
    1. +9
      5 June 2025 08: 32
      Actually, the abolition of slavery had been discussed for a long time in the South. They were worried about one question - well, okay, we'll free the blacks, but then what? They have nothing, they don't know how to do anything except pick cotton, how will they live? There was a proposal to create a separate black state in the free territories, giving each freed person a plot of land and giving him some inventory and cattle. So that he could at least somehow feed himself. But this project was rejected in the North. The North didn't need it. What was needed were working hands, ready to toil hard for a bowl of soup.
      1. +3
        5 June 2025 09: 01
        Quote: paul3390
        But they needed working hands, ready to toil hard for a bowl of soup

        This is how capitalism was built. In all countries, the USA is no exception.
        There was a proposal to create a separate black state in the free territories, giving each liberated person a plot of land and giving him some inventory and cattle, so that he could at least somehow feed himself.

        And there would have been Haiti2. Not a fact of course... But there was a possibility.
        1. +4
          5 June 2025 09: 19
          Well - since it would have been a state, and not an independent country - perhaps they would have been able to maintain some semblance of order. Although that's not a fact. But still - it's clear that the southerners at least thought about the future fate of the liberated blacks. Unlike the noble northerners...
          1. +7
            5 June 2025 10: 03
            If we are to believe the memoirs of the southern participants, after the "liberation" about 40% of the former slaves refused to leave their "masters", considering them their family. Of course, there were their own American Saltychikhas...
            1. +7
              5 June 2025 10: 23
              As one black man wrote at the time - now I'm worth 200 bucks, that's a lot of money. The owner feeds me, gives me shelter, if I get sick - he'll be forced to treat me. Otherwise it will cost more. And when they free me with a bare bottom - who will need me? And what should I do - die in a ditch or work like a donkey for next to nothing?

              Slavery is of course extremely bad, but its consequences must be eliminated wisely. Taking into account all the further scenarios. Otherwise, it will turn out like we had with serfdom. When, 30 years after the supposed liberation, the majority of peasants began to live worse than under it. Despite their freedom. They liberated them, damn it...
              1. +2
                5 June 2025 16: 16
                Quote: paul3390
                They freed us, damn it...

                All based on the novel "Gone with the Wind".
                1. +1
                  6 June 2025 08: 42
                  Reaz has already turned to literature...

                  Tom told me that he had decided all along that if we could get Jim safely out, we would go down the Mississippi with him on a raft to the mouth of the river, trying to satisfy our thirst for adventure as much as possible on the way, and then, telling the negro that he was a free man already, we would return with him in a triumphant manner to the Phelpses in a steamboat, pay him for his time, send word up the river, and get all the negroes in the neighborhood to give Jim a grand welcome in town with music and torches. Then Jim would be a real hero, and we would share in his glory.

                  Here you go. Tom is a teenager of 13-14 years old, and already a ready entrepreneur, one task of painting a fence (PTS) is an excellent example.
      2. -1
        6 June 2025 16: 30
        I really like Margaret Mitchell's novel Gone with the Wind. good
    2. +4
      5 June 2025 10: 57
      Quote: Puncher
      The author forgot to add a summary: slavery is good, being a slave is wonderful.

      The author forgot to add a quote from Lincoln that perfectly demonstrated the attitude of the Northern elite towards slavery:
      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.

      My supreme object in this struggle is the salvation of the Union. If I could save the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do so; if I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves, I would do so; if I could save the Union by freeing only a few of them, I would do so.

      Money and power - that's all the Civil War revolved around. The main thing is to preserve the Union with its tariffs and cheap raw materials from the South. And whether the slaves will become free or not - that's what will be best for preserving the Union.
    3. +7
      5 June 2025 11: 25
      The author forgot to add a summary: slavery is good, being a slave is wonderful.

      Yeah!)) laughing It’s not even clear who ordered the article, the descendants of Scarlett O’Hara?! drinks bully
    4. 0
      6 June 2025 00: 58
      Quote: Puncher
      The author forgot to add a summary: slavery is good, being a slave is wonderful.

      "In his history, elegance and simplicity prove to us without any bias the necessity of autocracy and the charm of the whip." By the way, Karamzin in his monarchical and serfdom history of the Russian state did not sing such open praises of slavery and the hunt for blacks who escaped to freedom with dogs and the beating of fugitives and their assistants from the "underground railroad" to death as Mr. Samsonov. But it seems to me that in slave-owning America Samsonov would have picked cotton with shackles on his legs and a strong collar around his neck. And in serfdom Russia, his ancestors on the male side were flogged in the stable and on the female side were raped in the master's estate. There were white slaves in America too. By the way, the founding fathers of the USA - the Boston settlers - were simply scoundrels who escaped from slavery by stealing the ship of the slave owners.
    5. +2
      6 June 2025 03: 02
      Well, try to figure out what's worse - picking cotton on a plantation for a couple of months a year or 7 days a week, 12 hours a day at a factory in the second half of the 19th century without any social benefits or safety precautions. The life of a worker in those years was simply the apotheosis of exploitation, since electricity had already appeared and it was possible to work after dark, and the peasant in bad weather, in winter and at night most of the time kicks
      1. +1
        6 June 2025 04: 54
        Quote from alexoff
        Well, try to figure out which is worse.

        A slave has one advantage. He doesn't need to think, his master does it for him. That is, a person stops being a person, sliding down to the level of domestic cattle. Personally, I think turning Homo sapiens into Bos taurus is a crime.
    6. +2
      7 June 2025 12: 22
      Quote: Puncher
      The author forgot to add a summary: slavery is good, being a slave is wonderful.

      The article is yet another myth-making exercise without any clear knowledge of reality.
  3. +8
    5 June 2025 06: 10
    Maybe those further south didn't intend to dominate the world, but taking away 2/3 of Mexico's territory was their job.
    The article, as always, is complete nonsense.
  4. +8
    5 June 2025 08: 01
    Be that as it may, the cause of all wars is economics.
    It is clear that both of them have their snouts in the fluff.
    But to flaunt the supposed nobility of slave owners is complete nonsense.
    1. 0
      8 June 2025 08: 09
      Quote: varela
      Be that as it may, the cause of all wars is economics.
      It is clear that both of them have their snouts in the fluff.
      But to flaunt the supposed nobility of slave owners is complete nonsense.

      As well as flaunting the desire to "free the blacks!". Nevertheless, this is how it has always been interpreted.
  5. +4
    5 June 2025 08: 17
    Everything is mixed up... poor emigrants were leaving their free countries and going to unfree America.
    In general, there is a very good book on this topic - "The Unknown War. The Secret History of the USA" by Alexander Bushkov.
    From the arrival of the ancestors of the Northerners on the Mayflower who founded the Plymouth Colony and the Southerners on the Discovery who founded the Virginia Colony
    1. Alf
      +1
      5 June 2025 20: 03
      Quote: Stirbjorn
      In general, there is a very good book on this topic - "The Unknown War. The Secret History of the USA" by Alexander Bushkov.

      It is unlikely that this book will be read, it breaks the mold too much.
      1. +1
        7 June 2025 19: 06
        You can read it, but Bushkov is not a historian, but a writer. His detectives, action films and science fiction were very good 20 years ago, but when he tries to write, touching on areas in which he does not understand, then the opus comes out with a lot of nonsense. I remember his book with criticism of the theory of evolution and in general with the overthrow of some concepts of modern biology fell into my hands. As a graduate of the biology department, I almost broke my face with facepalms while reading this creation))
        1. Alf
          0
          7 June 2025 19: 47
          Quote from Fenix844
          You can read it, but Bushkov is not a historian, but a writer. His detectives, action films and science fiction were very good 20 years ago, but when he tries to write, touching on areas in which he does not understand, then the opus comes out with a lot of nonsense. I remember his book with criticism of the theory of evolution and in general with the overthrow of some concepts of modern biology fell into my hands. As a graduate of the biology department, I almost broke my face with facepalms while reading this creation))

          I won't argue, maybe. But just try reading it. Even if you don't like it, you'll still dig further. Normal situation.
  6. + 10
    5 June 2025 09: 13
    "Northerners" are cruel, unprincipled and treacherous; "southerners" are noble, sincere and open. Having declared that he is trying to expose the "myth of the war for the freedom of slaves" created by "northerners", the author of the article published a myth created by "southerners". And by the way, the myth of the war "for the freedom of slaves" was popular in historical science in the USA. In the Soviet school I was taught that the reason for the Civil War in the USA was the struggle for the economy, and Lincoln's declaration was a usual scheme to destroy the economy of the South and an attempt to organize black riots in the rear of the Confederates. So it is unclear why the author is trying to "expose the myth", especially so clumsily.
  7. +8
    5 June 2025 09: 41
    It started off well, but ended so-so... In the North, as was correctly noted, there were factories and plants. In the South - raw materials!!! The whole war was about raw materials that the North needed, and which the South sold to Europe. Well, about the slave owners and the liberation of the fish, just for the sake of solidity.
    1. Alf
      +1
      5 June 2025 20: 04
      Quote: Evgeny Lyubchinov
      Well, about the slave owners and the liberation of the fish, just for the sake of solidity.

      More like a fig leaf.
    2. +4
      5 June 2025 20: 32
      Quote: Evgeny Lyubchinov
      fish release
  8. +3
    5 June 2025 10: 51
    To put it simply, the industry of the North needed cheap cotton. And the North took the easiest path - it blocked the South's export with tariffs, creating a surplus of cotton on the domestic market.
    And the abolitionists were merely used by the Northerners as a cover to give the Civil War legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
    Everything is simple here, except money.
    ©
  9. +1
    5 June 2025 12: 17
    Many thanks to the author of the article for the excellent and detailed material on the topic of the American Civil War! Much of this was simply unknown to me before.
    I would especially like to emphasize the good list of references. I will definitely use it for an in-depth study of the topic.
    1. Alf
      0
      5 June 2025 20: 08
      Quote: Trapper7
      Many thanks to the author of the article for the excellent and detailed material on the topic of the American Civil War! Much of this was simply unknown to me before.
      I would especially like to emphasize the good list of references. I will definitely use it for an in-depth study of the topic.

      Start with this Book.
      1. +2
        6 June 2025 11: 48
        Thanks for the recommendation! I'll read it.
        But in general it was sarcasm)))))
        1. Alf
          +1
          6 June 2025 12: 22
          Quote: Trapper7
          But in general it was sarcasm)))))

          Oh, you're kidding, but he's a grown man...(sarcasm). laughing
  10. +3
    5 June 2025 12: 54
    The war of the North against the South is a continuation of the American War of Independence, 1775-1783. From the political crisis of the 18th century and the conquest of political sovereignty to economic sovereignty. The question of whose economic model would develop on the territory of North America was decided by military means.
    The issue of slavery, while certainly important, was nonetheless part of a broader national political-economic construct being constructed by the emerging US imperialist elite.
    5 signs
    1) The concentration of production and capital, which has reached such a high level of development that it has created monopolies that play a decisive role in economic life.
    2) The merger of banking capital with industrial capital and the creation of a financial oligarchy on the basis of this “financial capital”.
    3) The greater importance of the export of capital compared to the export of goods.
    4) The formation of international monopoly unions of capitalists, carrying out the redivision of the world.
    5) The end of the territorial division of the earth by the largest capitalist powers.
    1. 0
      5 June 2025 19: 58
      Five points in the grade book (Marxism-Leninism)
      1. +1
        5 June 2025 20: 11
        The right things were taught, but not all were learned. Once at an event with very decent people I suggested recalling off the top of my head the 3 laws of dialectics and the 3 laws of Newton, the prize hardly found a hero. The super prize for the 3 laws of thermodynamics was removed from the competition due to the lack of contenders.
        1. 0
          8 June 2025 20: 57
          1. 1.1. Law of unity and struggle of opposites; 1.2. Law of transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones; 1.3. Law of negation of negation, 2. 2.1. There are such frames of reference, called inertial, relative to which material points, when no forces act on them (or mutually balanced forces act on them), are in a state of rest or uniform rectilinear motion; 2.2. In an inertial frame of reference, the acceleration received by a material point with constant mass, is directly proportional to the resultant of all forces applied to it and inversely proportional to its mass; 2.3. Material points interact with each other by forces of the same nature, directed along the straight line connecting these points, equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. 3. 3.1. The first law of thermodynamics states that when energy enters or leaves a system (in the form of work, heat or substance), the internal energy of the system changes in accordance with the law of conservation of energy. 3.2. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process the sum of the entropies of interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases. A consequence of this statement is that heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one; 3.3. The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero. With the exception of non-crystalline solids (glassy substances), the entropy of a system at absolute zero is usually close to zero. Thank you very much for the example. I had to expand Wiki...
          1. 0
            8 June 2025 21: 56
            I mentioned laws not without purpose.
            If the laws of physics are not very necessary when discussing problems here on the site, then the laws of dialectics are absolutely necessary. Many disputes can be easily resolved by changing the Law of the unity and struggle of opposites; the Law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones; the Law of the negation of negation.
            Even if people know them, they don't know how to apply them. They give advice to everyone and everything, built on the shaky foundation of everyday logic.
    2. 0
      6 June 2025 01: 03
      Quote: balabol
      The question of whose economic model would be developed in North America was decided by military means.

      By the way, Chubais and Gaidar built capitalism in Russia precisely according to the model of the slave-owning South.
      1. +1
        6 June 2025 02: 57
        More like Dunno on the Moon
        1. 0
          6 June 2025 03: 22
          Quote from alexoff
          More like Dunno on the Moon

          The Chicago school of economics grew out of an analysis of the slave-owning South and the theory that wild income inequality and the restriction of mobility and rights for the poor contributed to the prosperity of the economy. This school does not take into account that the population of the North of the United States grew much faster than in the South in the absence of slavery and that in the event of conflict, the country with more equal incomes in a long war demonstrates greater resilience. Dunno on the Moon is a grotesque book and it is sad if the capitalist builds relations with his workers and engineers as shown in this book.
      2. +1
        6 June 2025 12: 14
        Rather, the models of the British colonial empire for managing the semi-periphery were worked out. Those are unequal exchanges of high-tech goods for raw materials with a low level of processing. And the next step is complete political dependence, transition to the class of "colonialist periphery" and classic colonial robbery.
  11. +1
    5 June 2025 16: 39
    During these same years, Alexander the Liberator “liberated” the serfs.
    Just like the Northern Americans "freed" the slaves.
    Without anything, so to speak, from the existing, some kind of situation into a vacuum.
    And in Chatlan they “freed” the violinist Gedevon Aleksandrovich, throwing him out of the ashes, as unnecessary.
  12. +1
    5 June 2025 19: 56
    There was no shipbuilding industry that could build warships.
    Now this is a lie of the highest order. The first submarine, a revolutionary technology of the time, was created in the South. In 1864, the Hunley sank the Union ship Housatonic. Then the truth sank too.
    1. Alf
      +1
      5 June 2025 20: 11
      Quote: Victor19
      There was no shipbuilding industry that could build warships.
      But this, specifically, is a lie of the highest category.

      Not exactly a lie. To call the remnant that remained in the South a "shipbuilding industry" is somehow a clear exaggeration. More like a ship repair department. Although they did their best.
  13. -1
    6 June 2025 08: 02
    A war between racists. Some wanted to have slaves, others wanted to throw the blacks back to Africa. Both gangs considered the blacks to be fifth-class creatures.
    1. Alf
      0
      6 June 2025 12: 26
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      Both gangs considered blacks to be fifth-class citizens.

      Looking at what the descendants of the oppressed are doing now, you can’t help but become a racist.
      And regarding “Some wanted to have slaves,” a small point: by the beginning of the Civil War, slavery in the South had begun to die out and the process of freeing blacks was already underway on its own.
  14. +3
    6 June 2025 14: 04
    It seems the author read "Gone with the Wind" for the first time. And was overly impressed.
  15. 0
    6 June 2025 16: 49
    For those who are really interested, I recommend reading once again: Zaikonnikov, "History of the West. Colonial Era", in 2 volumes.
    I don't recommend it to the author, he is not a reader lol.
  16. kaa
    +1
    20 June 2025 09: 02
    There were no blacks in the Confederacy in the combat units of the army, except for individual orderlies for officers, from the household. How much longer can we broadcast southern myths? Even in the last months before the capitulation, all proposals to arm loyal blacks were cut off at the idea stage by both the generals and President Davis.
  17. 0
    30 June 2025 18: 24
    Good article, I also drew such historical parallels as the famine in Ireland in the 1840s, overpopulation of German states, the general European crisis (1848 - the year of revolutions in Europe). Hence the mass migration to the States, where the southerners were very reluctant to accept migrants, unlike the industrially developing North. So it turned out that for the right of citizenship the North recruited yesterday's migrants (Irish, Germans, Scandinavians) into the army and won by numerical superiority and better technical equipment.
  18. 0
    5 November 2025 13: 33
    Quote from alexoff
    Well, try to figure out what's worse - picking cotton on a plantation for a couple of months a year or 7 days a week, 12 hours a day at a factory in the second half of the 19th century without any social benefits or safety precautions. The life of a worker in those years was simply the apotheosis of exploitation, since electricity had already appeared and it was possible to work after dark, and the peasant in bad weather, in winter and at night most of the time kicks


    In the opinion of the author of these lines, being a black slave in the South was super-duper!

    OK, but first you'll be branded with the master's mark, like cattle, and for disobedience, you'll be publicly flogged, not to death, of course, but to intimidate others. You can't escape such a life—they'll set the dogs on you, catch you, and flog you to death. Marriage is at the master's whim, and so on and so forth. Rape, forced sex on slaves—no, no one's even heard of such things, and no one complained. But who could complain?

    Would a northern Yankee worker be willing to accept such conditions?
    Try to hit him - he'll drag you through the courts; there are plenty of law firms and lawyers around who would be happy to profit at the expense of their rich, shady boss.
    If the working conditions are unbearable, you can always move to another factory or another state. No one will catch you with dogs...
    But would the black slaves try to strike?

    For some reason, blacks only fled from the South to the North. If working 12 hours a day in a factory was so bad, why not run away from the cruel Yankees to the South and live on a plantation with kind plantation owners?

    "...picking cotton on the plantation for a couple of months a year..." – that's how slaves worked on plantations, according to the author. The other 10 months, they likely composed and played Dixieland songs on their banjos, devoured Uncle Tom's Cabin, and sipped coffee and rum with their gracious masters.

    https://foto-history.livejournal.com/9512053.html

    Below is an advertisement for the sale of slaves.