Leftist radicals supported the North while working people supported the South

Often you can tell the right or wrong of a cause by who supports it.

Over the years it has been noted, at least in some quarters, how strongly the communist and socialist radicals (but I repeat myself here) in Europe supported the Northern cause during our War of Northern Aggression. Marx, Engels, and all of their leftist ilk literally drooled with their ardent desire for a Northern victory. Marx warmly congratulated Lincoln on his re-election in 1864. It was almost as if there was a Marx-Lincoln Mutual Admiration Society at work.

Bakunin, the Russian revolutionary, as well as other European leftists of various stripes all supported the Northern cause. In fact, they supported Lincoln and the Northern cause just as much as some Southern folks today that have been taught to feel guilty about their Southern heritage. You may know some folks like that. I have.

Leftists that took part in the socialist and communist revolts in Europe in 1848-49 flocked to this country from 1849 through the 1850s as they were run out of their own countries as well as other European countries that did not want left-wing revolutionaries on their soil. Many of these joined the Union army, thousands of them, in fact. There is much documentation for that which has been studiously ignored by our establishment “historians.” Oh, they may mention one or two of these people briefly in articles or books, but they never give you enough information to tell you what they were really all about or why they were over here. Walter Kennedy and I did this in our book Lincoln’s Marxists, recently republished by Shotwell Publishing under the title Lincoln, Marx, and the GOP.

However, putting aside the 19th century leftist radicals and other assorted 19th century Pinkos, we might ask if there was any support in Europe for the Confederate Cause. There was indeed. And, at least in England, that support came from ordinary everyday working people.

Mary Ellison, who has been a lecturer in the Department of American Studies at Keele University, wrote a book called Support for Secession—Lancashire and the American Civil War (University of Chicago Press). In this book she demolished the myths that have persisted for well over a hundred years that, during the War of Northern Aggression, the British working class, and in particular, the Lancashire cotton workers, dutifully supported the Northern cause. In most cases the exact opposite was true. The fact that most working people, at least in Lancashire, supported the Confederate States, has been very carefully muffled. Ellison wrote: “The war was consequently shattering in its impact on the country (Great Britain). The combustible nature of ideological complexities and tough economic repercussions detonated an explosion of sympathy for the Southern cause wherever unemployment was extensive.”

All across Lancashire there were meetings, held mostly by pro-Confederate groups, though pro-Unionists did hold some, but with little success. Ellison continued: “The actual evidence proves that the cotton interests of the country were united in seeking official British assistance for the abortive struggle of the Confederacy for independent life…Demands for pro-Confederate intervention were encased in orderly public meetings and carefully worded petitions that were sent to the government…Simultaneously, the national press overlooked the massive number of spontaneous meetings in support of the South and noted only the organized few that were attended by such noted Northern sympathizers as Cobden and Bright.” Does that sort of media blind spot sound rather familiar in our own day? The gentleman, Richard Cobden, here mentioned, had some interesting reasons for supporting the North. Turns out he was one of the prominent stockholders of the Illinois Central Railroad, and he also had irons in the fire in other Northern companies. So his support for the North was hardly charitable—unless charity begins at home!

When it was issued, the Emancipation Proclamation was viewed by British working people with somewhat less charity than we have been led to believe. Ellison noted: “The Emancipation Proclamation was rejected as nothing more than a military maneuver that hypocritically and ineffectually freed the Southern slaves while leaving those in the North in bondage.” Ellison, noting that British pro-Confederate supporters seemed unable to exert influence on the British government, but noted that this did not mean that pro-Southern support was not there, but that it lacked political clout. It was somewhat akin to our later version of the “silent majority”. Rather our prostitute press made sure they got little notice.

Even English clergymen speaking at meetings recognized that Northern military strategy was really what dictated emancipation measures. Emancipation, contrary to contemporary popular propaganda, was not the humanitarian gesture we have been told it was.

It should be observed that many of the British, while personally opposed to slavery, felt that an independent South would eventually free the slaves, and that slaves would be better off that way than being used as political pawns by the North. One British newspaper editorialized on “the whole Northern attitude that saw Negroes as catspaws and cannon fodder.” That was not too inaccurate an assessment.

One speaker in England maintained that, to save the Union, the North “would rivet the chains of the Negro still faster, and bind the slaves in chains of eternal bondage to gain their purpose.” Almost sounds as if this speaker had read the Corwin Amendment I referred to in a previous article. He was totally correct. That was, and is, the real reason for all the “civil rights” legislation we’ve seen in the years since the War of Northern Aggression. The real name of the game was not emancipation, but rather the transfer of control—from the private ownership of the plantation to the public control and oversight of Washington, D.C. Think about that a little bit.

In conclusion, bear in mind again, that support for the Yankee cause came from European leftists and other assorted anti-Christ types. Support for the Confederate States came from ordinary working people who didn’t have the political clout to get their government’s attention, and who the media mostly ignored. So what has changed in the past 160 years? Not much, more’s the pity!