La Guerre Civile aux États-Unis

by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Roger Dandeville (Translator/Contributor)

Les textes sur la Guerre civile aux États-Unis, signés par Marx, sont le fruit d'une collaboration exemplaire avec Engels. Ils forment charnière entre les écrits militaires d'Engels, analysant les prolongements de la lutte de classe sur les champs de bataille des armées et des États, et les écrits économiques et politiques de Marx, étudiant les conséquences révolutionnaires et les heurts impérialistes de la société bourgeoise. Ces articles préparent et illustrent le chapitre du premier livre du Capital sur la colonisation. Les États-Unis représentent le modèle classique de la propagation du capitalisme aux continents extra-européens et de la lutte contre les, métropoles colonialistes d'Europe, avec les conflits raciaux qui en découlent.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Civil War, American History, Philosophy, Economics

315 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1866

About the author

With the help of Friedrich Engels, German philosopher and revolutionary Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867-1894), works, which explain historical development in terms of the interaction of contradictory economic forces, form many regimes, and profoundly influenced the social sciences.

German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.

Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in London opposed Communism of Karl Marx with his antithetical anarchy.

Works of Jacques Martin Barzun include Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1941).

The Prussian kingdom introduced a prohibition on Jews, practicing law; in response, a man converted to Protestantism and shortly afterward fathered Karl Marx.

Marx began co-operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Philosophy of Religion of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see Democritus and Epicurus), doctoral thesis, also engaged Marx, who completed it in 1841. People described the controversial essay as "a daring and original piece... in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom." Marx decided to submit his thesis not to the particularly conservative professors at the University of Berlin but instead to the more liberal faculty of University of Jena, which for his contributed key theory awarded his Philosophiae Doctor in April 1841. Marx and Bauer, both atheists, in March 1841 began plans for a journal, entitled Archiv des Atheismus (Atheistic Archives), which never came to fruition.

Marx edited the newspaper Vorwärts! in 1844 in Paris. The urging of the Prussian government from France banished and expelled Marx in absentia; he then studied in Brussels. He joined the league in 1847 and published.

Marx participated the failure of 1848 and afterward eventually wound in London. Marx, a foreigner, corresponded for several publications of United States.
He came in three volumes. Marx organized the International and the social democratic party.

Marx in a letter to C. Schmidt once quipped, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist," as Warren Allen Smith related in Who's Who in Hell .

People describe Marx, who most figured among humans. They typically cite Marx with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, the principal modern architects.

Bertrand Russell later remarked of non-religious Marx, "His belief that there is a cosmic ... called dialectical materialism, which governs ... independently of human volitions, is mere mythology" ( Portraits from Memory , 1956).

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...

Reviews

[Gordon Goodwin · Rating 5 out of 5]

He says that Kentucky will be the birthplace of the American Revolution 5/5

[— · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ever timely analysis comprised of mostly articles and letters by Marx and Engels and Co. Recommended if their dryness and general style doesn't ware you out.

[Sasha Boucher · Rating 4 out of 5]

I highly recommend checking this book out!The impact the American Civil War had in the foundation of the First International cannot be understated, and it truly did represent a great source of encouragement after the great demoralization following the failure of the 1848 revolutions in Europe. This book does a great job of detailing how Marx and Engels' analysis of the American Civil War provided a wealth of knowledge for the development of their later theories of political economy, the Irish national question, and the foundation of the First International itself.

Andrew Zimmerman is the typical academic "marxian", who falls for W.E.B. DuBois' idea that the American Civil War was a failed proletarian revolution whereby a "general slave strike" was waged but failed because of the shortcomings of the reconstruction period. A criticism of Dubois is not to belittle the heroism and agency of the Black Americans in fighting for their freedom, or to belittle the failings of the reconstruction period, which to be clear, were many, but Dubois' argument opens itself to all sorts of identity politics that would treat racism as more fundamental than productive relations. As a plantation owner put it "emancipated slaves own nothing because nothing but freedom has been given to them", the witholding of their labour in fighting for their freedom doesn't fulfill the task of seizing the private property of capitalists, it fulfills the task of turning humans from being private property into being free wage laborers. Ending private property altogether is a different task.

Otherwise, the book is a fantastic compilation of theory on slavery, war strategy, political economy, and history, with excerpts from many Marxist classics such as capital volumes one and three, the civil war in france, the 18th brummaire, and several letters between Marx and Engels and their comrades.

[Connor Leavitt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whenever anyone presents a dichotomy between a "young" and "old" Marx, I immediately get suspicious. In truth, this dichotomy usually only serves those who want to sever "Economic and Political Manuscripts 1844" from the more "statist," "late" Marx of "Civil War in France" and "Gotha Programme." The usual dichotomy is adopted so that certain "intellectuals" can disavow most of Marx's writing, and can safely use the 1844 manuscripts to go about putting "a human face" on various things.

The greatest sin of this historical obscurantism is the shell game it plays with the purpose with which we all read Marx. We Marxists, or the Leninists at least, read Marx because of his insights and analyses *in response to real events that played out before his eyes.* Marx himself had said in 1875, "Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes."

If one is to draw any sort of distinction between "one Marx" and "another Marx," it must hinge on the changes Marx underwent in response to the earthshattering upheavels that shocked his consciousness. The revolutions of 1848 offer one hinge. The US Civil War offers the second. The experience of the Paris Commune offers the third and final "hinge" between "one Marx" and "another."

Really, it is the same Marx with the same philophical approach that he had refined in his younger days in the 1840s. Only, his approach itself was further refined by the surprises of real movement. Andrew Zimmerman's thesis for this collection is that Marx's analysis of the US Civil War shaped much of his thinking on display in his magnum opus, Das Kapital. Zimmerman's selections certainly give a window to a critical period of Marx's conscious development. Not only is Marx shown making his often "precocious" (as Zimmerman terms them) predictions about the elucidations of various conflicts, Marx is also shown getting stuff wrong. Some of this is unforgivable, if only because Marx (particularly over the land and indigenous national questions) makes Marxism less legible to those who vulgarize him, namely those so-called "Browderites" and neo/post-Larouchites we must contend with. However, even by 1871 Marx has anticipated corrections, and by 1877 he was earnestly pursuing such corrections (see how he pored over Morgan's book unto his death, and how this shifts his views around questions of the Russian peasantry). Document 110 in this collection displays the great pearls one finds in the elucidation of Marx's thoughts, not merely as a theorist, but moreso as a student.

Marx was above all a ready learner (this framing makes his back-and-forths with Engels particularly cute, like two dorky schoolboys). He yearned to know things "as they really are," and so struck upon insights that any student of history must necessarily acquaint themselves with in order to know...really *anything about history.*

[Marc Lichtman · Rating 4 out of 5]

“We are not revolutionists,” insisted James B. D. DeBow and Jefferson Davis during the Civil War, “We are resisting revolution”—From Battle Cry of Freedom by James M. McPherson

“With the development of capitalist production during the manufacturing period, the public opinion of Europe had lost the last remnant of shame and conscience. The nations bragged cynically of every infamy that served them as a means to capitalistic accumulation. Read, e.g., the naïve Annals of Commerce of the worthy A. Anderson. Here it is trumpeted forth as a triumph of English statecraft that at the Peace of Utrecht, England extorted from the Spaniards by the Asiento Treaty the privilege of being allowed to ply the negro trade, until then only carried on between Africa and the English West Indies, between Africa and Spanish America as well. England thereby acquired the right of supplying Spanish America until 1743 with 4,800 negroes yearly...

“Whilst the cotton industry introduced child-slavery in England, it gave in the United States a stimulus to the transformation of the earlier, more or less patriarchal slavery, into a system of commercial exploitation. In fact, the veiled slavery of the wage workers in Europe needed, for its pedestal, slavery pure and simple in the new world.

“Tantae molis erat, to establish the ―eternal laws of Nature‖ of the capitalist mode of production, to complete the process of separation between laborers and conditions of labor, to transform, at one pole, the social means of production and subsistence into capital, at the opposite pole, the mass of the population into wage laborers, into ―’free laboring poor,’ that artificial product of modern society. If money, according to Augier, ―’comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,’ capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt."--Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Volume 1.

This is a collection of Marx and Engels writings on the Second American Revolution, also known as the Civil War. It used to be called “the war between the states,” but as Marx shows, it was as much a war within the states as between them. As Marx wrote: “‘The South,’ however, is neither a territory closely sealed off from the North geographically, nor a moral unity. It is not a country at all, but a battle slogan.” Like all civil wars, it was fundamentally a war between classes.

The most important pieces were written for publication in English and German language papers in the US, the UK, and Austria. Marx and Engels were not sideline commentators; they were writing to help defend the Union and help abolish slavery. In Britain and other European countries, this was not an easy task. While public opinion in Britain was anti-slavery, the economy was largely based on clothing manufacture, and the capitalists needed cotton, and needed it cheap. Therefore, it was in their interest to confuse people as to what the war was about. The Confederacy had their own diplomats trying to convince Parliament that it was a war for self-determination! So, Marx and Engels carefully review and destroy all the arguments and show why the small minority of slave owners had launched a war for the protection of that institution.

It’s not only conservatives in the US who argue today that it wasn’t about slavery but also confused “radicals” who claim that because Lincoln didn’t fight under the anti-slavery banner from the beginning (which would not have had sufficient support in the free states at that time), that it wasn’t a war about slavery. Some argue from a philosophical idealist position that if it wasn’t fought for “moral reasons,” it wasn’t against slavery. But slavery was an economic institution, and morals are not something separate and apart from economics and politics see Their Morals and Ours: The Class Foundations of Moral Practice by Leon Trotsky and Revolution and the Road to Peace in Colombia: Lessons from the Cuban Revolution by Fidel Castro.

Even though British workers were laid off in large numbers because of the lack of cotton (or the fact that there was plenty being hoarded by British manufactures to get better prices), British workers mostly supported the fight against slavery and understood this was the issue. (Philip Foner’s book British Labor and the American Civil War is well worth reading on this).

The American Civil War was one of the last of the bourgeois democratic revolutions in the advanced countries and was the last progressive act of the US capitalist class, which had more fight in it than the European (see The Communist Manifesto, and ‘The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850.

But the capitalist class hesitated at full equality and a land base for the freed slaves (see Racism, Revolution, Reaction, 1861-1877: The Rise and Fall of Radical Reconstruction. After the defeat of Radical Reconstruction, capital was consolidated, and by 1898 American imperialism emerged in the Spanish-American War.

The defeat of the 1848 revolution in Germany brought many exiles into the US, among them some German Marxists (see ‘Revolutionary Continuity, The Early Years’). Both the Marxists and the other revolutionaries played an important role in the Civil War, including keeping St. Louis (and therefore Missouri) for the Union.

Other must reads include ‘Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, and Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877 by Eric Foner.

The selection of material in the book is OK. I would have included the things the editor didn’t, but I was very glad to see the Joseph Weydemeyer articles, which apparently had never been translated into English before.

The introduction gives credence to various petty bourgeois radicals who imagine themselves to be to the left of Marx, simply because they were born in a different era. But essential to Marxism is understanding that historical context is everything. It also tries to shore up support for the Stalinist popular front strategy, which led to defeat after defeat. It doesn’t say what the source is of Du Bois’ ultraleftism (the line of Third Period Stalinism, although he hadn't joined the CP yet). And practically no annotation; no notes, maps, glossary, index, timeline, photos....

I disagree with almost everything in the introduction, but don't let it spoil the joys of reading the book.

[David Hollingsworth · Rating 3 out of 5]

This collection of writings about the Civil War is not what I thought it'd be. I expected materialist class analysis of the Civil War, but that was only a couple of the essays in this piece. Other pieces are just summarizing events, or talking about certain aspects of the Civil War (such as Engels talking about the quality of the volunteer armies on each side) that don't really have much analysis you'd consider Marxist. It's not a bad thing per se, but if you're going into this for materialist class analysis like I was, be warned there's only a couple articles in here that'll satisfy you.

[Eric Owski · Rating 5 out of 5]

An entirely unique contemporary account of the Civil War. Good analysis of the politics of the war, both domestic and foreign, and a window into how the battle for abolition and Reconstruction shaped Marx's views on the role of racism in class struggle. They also piece together the state of play on the battlefield through news accounts and letters from friends fighting for the Union.

A little humor, too, as they both repeatedly express utter contempt for the 'jackass' McClellan in their correspondence.

[Kyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

obviously I am reading an english version.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had wanted to read on this topic for a long time. When I was younger, I read the comic book Les Tuniques bleues, which interestingly takes place during the period of the American Civil War. But seeing that Marx and Engels themselves wrote extensively on the subject immediately gave me the motivation to dive into it.

What is most interesting is reading the correspondence between Marx and Engels and seeing how they reacted to one another’s analyses and predictions. Marx, in particular, ended up predicting quite accurately the course of events, including Lincoln’s eventual move toward the emancipation of the slaves.

The book also includes very strong excerpts for context, notably from Capital and from Marx’s writings on France, among others. In short, Marx’s analysis of slavery is razor-sharp, and throughout many of the excerpts we can see how slavery in the United States appears repeatedly as a concrete reference point in his broader theoretical work.

I could, of course, say endless things about the Civil War that have already been said a million times, but instead I want to focus on one particular issue that genuinely annoyed me. Andrew Zimmerman does a decent job introducing the chapters and providing basic historical context. However, his introductions are riddled with classic "Academic Marxist" distortions.

Still, Marx and Engels sometimes wrote as if the fight against slavery was primarily a white working-class struggle, with black workers and soldiers playing a vital, but only supporting, role. When Marx wrote in Capital that “Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded,” he connected the struggles of white and black workers, but also suggested that they were separate (document 108). When he called slave revolution “the last card up its [the Union’s] sleeve,” he attributed agency to the white Northern leadership rather than to enslaved black workers themselves (document 10). When Marx remarked in 1853 that U.S. blacks born into slavery were not “freshly imported barbarians” from Africa but rather “a native product, more or less Yankeefied, English-speaking, etc., and hence capable of being emancipated” (document 104), he not only denigrated African cultures but also blinded himself to the many African and African American political traditions that contributed to the defeat of slavery in the Americas.

To me, it seems that Zimmerman is trying to argue that Marx was somehow not anti-racist enough, or that he did not believe in the capacity of enslaved people to liberate themselves. This approach clearly applies abstract, moralistic, identity-politics-style arguments to a fundamentally historical and materialist question.

We must always remind ourselves that Marx’s goal was to develop a materialist understanding of society — that is, a scientific theory of history. He was never interested in ranking suffering. When Marx emphasized the revolutionary role of the working class, this was not due to prejudice against Black people, but because of the specific position of the proletariat within capitalist production, as opposed to the position of slaves within the slave mode of production.

This same analysis could just as well be applied to Ancient Rome and the revolt of Spartacus. The slaves did not ultimately liberate themselves because the economic base of society did not permit it. No class existed whose own liberation required the abolition of slavery as a system. Returning to the 1860s, enslaved people in the United States were completely atomized, dispersed, and systematically denied collective organization. They therefore did not possess the same objective force that the proletariat has when it can halt production entirely through strikes.

Slave revolts could be heroic, but they were structurally isolated. Agency alone is not sufficient to transform a mode of production. This is not a moral judgment on the worth or courage of enslaved people — it is an analysis of historical mechanics.

[Daniel Morgan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I cannot praise this book highly enough - this is a keeper!

Love him or hate him, Marx is a brilliant analyst of real-world events. When he wasn't writing about economic theory, he was something of a journalist writing about real-world politics, labor movements, wars, and other current events (he even wrote for multiple newspapers in multiple countries).

I offer that preface because this book is NOT Capital or Grundisse. This is not hundreds (thousands) of pages of turgid economic prose. This is the cleverness of Marx when he was forced to stick to a word count or to physically fit all of his thoughts into a letter envelope. Every single page of this is clever, witty, and an enjoyable read. All of his brilliance with none of the dryness.

I actually learned a lot from this book, because this is a contemporary perspective on the Civil War which differs from how we see the War today. Marx is experiencing the war while it is happening, and he is explaining the war to other people. I learned a lot about the political geography, about different battles and troop movements, about logistics (Engels was a revolutionary officer in his own right), about domestic and international politics. For example - why DID the Union win in the West before it began winning in the East? How did McClellan interfere with politics? How did Britain and France view the war? This is valuable because Marx (and Engels, whose comments show up here too) are describing the events in real-time rather than from the narrative memory that we hold today. The "great men" and "blood of brothers" narratives that often dominate in the present are nowhere to be found. Instead, Marx examines the deep moral, economic, and political conflicts present in the 19th century US in probably 300 documentary snippets.

In fact, a lot of this book would be useful even in arguments today. Marx wittily explains how only an idiot could think that the Civil War was about anything other than slavery, based not only on the statements of the southern states but on the previous 30 years of American history. Marx explains how "states rights" meant nothing to the Confederacy. Marx explains the class conflict between the planter aristocracy, the slaves, the northern workers, and the southern white commoners.

One tidbit that was missing is race - Marx didn't pay much attention to the role of Black people aside from their enlistment in the Union army. The editor explained that he was apparently unaware of mass labor stoppages among Southern slaves, which I was unaware of too - now I want to learn more! I appreciated this because it acknowledged a gap in Marx's perspectives without pillorying him for it. And as an addendum, the final chapter is a commentary from W.E.B. DuBois in the back about Marx and the Civil War - which I thought was a nice touch.

I did not expect to enjoy this book as much as I did, and the great thing is that this isn't really even THAT Marxist of an anthology. I mean, this is definitely Marx through and through, but this is real-time reporting rather than a grand economic narrative. You don't have to be a Marxist to enjoy this book - anybody who is interested in the Civil War will both enjoy reading this and learn a lot. This is insightful, witty journalism in a digestible form with the refreshing perspective of a sympathetic outsider who is pro-Union, anti-slavery contemporary.

This is 5/5, would definitely take on a desert island to read and re-read.

[Nolan W. · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Readers will not find a Marxist interpretation of the American Civil War laid out in this volume”

This opening statement sets the tone for the rest of the book. This isn’t a comprehensive history of the war, but a collection of writings by Marx and Engels as the conflict unraveled. For Marx/Engels the Civil War in the United States helped them formulate their theories on revolution, capitalism, labor, slavery, race, internationalism etc.

From England, Marx/ Engels held an interesting position. Many in the English Bourgeois Class held sympathies for the southern pro slavery cause. Alternatively the working class resisted any efforts by the English government to recognize the confederacy. Marx/Engels publicly and privately supported the transformation of the war effort by the north from constitutional to revolutionary. This meant full emancipation of the enslaved. This international dimension has parallels to global working class support for the cause of the Palestinians today.

“If the American Civil War was the answer to the failure of the revolutions of 1848, the Paris Commune, for Marx, was the answer to the disappointments of Reconstruction.”

There is a lot to say about this book, but if you’re interested in the Civil War and Marx this is a must read. With this also read Black Reconstruction in America by W.E.B Du Bois

[Rohit · Rating 4 out of 5]

The big guys themselves on the US Civil War. A surprising amount of it was about military minutiae about troop movements and battlefield tactics and whatnot; more interesting was their political analysis of election results throughout the war, as well as their overall prescience about how slavery would be the deciding factor, despite Lincoln and the moderate Republicans' hesitance about attacking it head-on. It was also really interesting to read how their mood and predictions changed as the war dragged on, i.e. at times Marx was extremely despondent about whether the North would win. Most interesting, however, was the introductory essays, which summarize the overall context of the Civil War with parallel happenings in Europe, and particularly the emmigration of German revolutionary exiles to the US in the years prior to the War.

A fun read for Marx-heads. For others, the introductory essays are highly recommended but you can probably skip the actual letters/essays recorded here.

[Mark]

I think that I left this book on a plane.

[TheNomad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Overall, good if you want to see Karl Marx's writings regarding this time-period and the Civil War in the United States in particular.

[A L]

"The present struggle between the South and North is, therefore, nothing but a struggle between two social systems, the system of slavery and the system of free labour. The struggle has broken out because the two systems can no longer live peacefully side by side on the North American continent. It can only be ended by the victory of one system or the other." Also some interesting coverage of the Trent affair.

[Pamela · Rating 3 out of 5]

To be honest it was just OK.. but the primary source letters and newspaper articles are what makes it worthwhile..

[Omar · Rating 3 out of 5]

I decided to read 'The Civil War in the United States' alongside 'Battle Cry of Freedom' by James McPherson and I'm glad I did because without that background, much of the writing in this collection would be unintelligible to the casual reader. This is because - as foreign observers and journalists - Marx and Engels were following the developments of the US Civil War and were in constant communication, seeking each other's opinion on events, and interpreting them together. For this reason, many of the documents found in this anthology is rather dry and would only appeal to a Civil War buff.

There is no application of historical materialism here, but the most impressive pieces of writings that Marx produced here were the ones he got published in a number of newspapers. His analysis of the causes of the Civil War and his interpretation of subsequent events are absolutely solid. He thrashed the British ruling class and the British press for siding with the Confederacy and buying into the latter's bogus claim that the cause of secession was states' rights. Marx had zero tolerance for such nonsensical arguments and convincingly shattered them.

What I also found interesting about this text is - compared to his contemporaries and the radical wing of the Republican Party - Marx was quite moderate in his assessment of Abraham Lincoln. He clearly admired the man, and even considered him a revolutionary. But many of Marx's peers viewed Lincoln as too conciliatory, someone who was way too willing to give concessions to the South even when it made no political sense to do so. And they were correct. Lincoln did not want to alienate the South and was willing to cooperate with their ruling class. If anything, he should've banished the slaveholding oligarchy and redistributed their land to the newly freed, but that's just me. I assume Marx probably thought that - as the class struggle in the United States continued (Marx saw the overthrow of slavery as part of a class struggle) - Lincoln would evolve and move further and further to the radical left position. But he was assassinated less than a week after the War ended.

With all that said, I do not believe this anthology is worth purchasing unless you want to have Marx and Engels' Civil War writings all in one place. But even then, there's only half a dozen or so documents/pieces that really stand out and they can be accessed and read on marxists.org.

[Cozmo John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although this doesn’t really contain much communist theory or even economic theory generally, it’s still a satisfying read.

Marx and Engels essentially describe, with some editorializing, the events taking place during the Civil War. Coming from a Southern education - where one always hears of how the South was a victim, how Lincoln was rash and tyrannical, etc. - this was gratifyingly iconoclastic. Marx and Engels convincingly and correctly characterize the South for what it was: a petulant oligarchy which for over a hundred years had increasingly imposed its will on an increasingly fatigued Union. It is also interesting that they have the opposite opinion of Lincoln - a man who is reserved almost to a fault, whose reluctance to embrace a bold revolutionary approach to the war hinders his ability to execute it. Of course this is probably a more mainstream contemporary view, but it is distinct from the one I heard in school growing up - where more attention is given to Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus, for instance, then to basically any other aspect of the war .

There are parts of this that are painfully amusing in hindsight - particularly Engels growing exasperation with a Union side that he feels is disturbingly complacent and reluctant to revolution. I physically grimaced when Marx posited that the assassination of Lincoln would lead to a vengeful and decisive Johnson presidency - a conclusion that we see rapidly deteriorate in subsequent communications between Marx and Engels.

One is left with the obvious conclusion that the Civil War was, in many ways, a wasted opportunity for real revolution in the US. Marx even claims at one point that if Johnson is not bold enough in his administration, the Union will revolt. Ultimately, it is Engels who seems more cynical at the revolutionary attitude of the US, and history seems to have shown him right.

Maybe next time we’ll get it right all the way?

[Gunblaze · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a collection of Marx and Engel's writings on the Civil War in the United States.
All Marx's articles concerning the war and all the letters between Engels and himself, that contained talks about the war.

Very interesting read, I have a basic understanding of how the war went down, but this has sparked more curiousity in me to read more into figures like John and less radical figures like Lincoln.
Would recommend if you wanted to hear what Marx's own thoughts on the war were or if you are just interested in hearing how someone who lived during that time spoke of such an event.

[Juan Pablo · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s a really dry collection of articles Marx wrote on the subject & maybe some essays & letters . The book isn’t what I thought it would be. It gives some background on certain pretexts for the American Civil War, the consequences of that for the North, the South & England particularly in response to the Trent Affair.

If you’re looking for a thorough analysis of the conflict, this unfortunately is not it.

[Nigel Pennington-Flax · Rating 5 out of 5]

A contemporary history of the Civil War that doubles as an evolution of Marx and Engel's views and politics. It is not just a political analysis of the conflict, but as a history that strikes a more radical tone. A good read for not just people interested in Marx for his politics but for all students of History and the Civil War.

[Todd · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating overview of the real time reactions and analyses of Marx and Engels to the Civil War

I think it pairs well with Black Reconstruction. They have different focuses that complete each other well

[Sinan Öner]

Karl Marx da, Friedrich Engels de "iç savaş tarihi uzmanları"ydılar, dünyadaki bir çok "iç savaş"ları inceliyorlardı, Karl Marx "Fransa'da Sınıf Savaşımları"nı, "Luis Bonaparte'ın 18 Brumaire'i"ni yazmıştı, Friedrich Engels ise "Almanya'da Köylü Savaşları"nı yazmıştı. Gazetelerde yayınladıkları yazılarda bir çok ülkelerdeki "iç savaş"ları ya da "iç çatışmalar"ı anlatmışlar, izlenimlerini, fikirlerini açıklamışlardı. Bu kitap da, Karl Marx'ın Amerikan İç Savaşı ile ilgili gazete yazılarından oluşuyor, "Amerikan İç Savaşı-Seçme Yazılar", 19. Yüzyıl Amerikan Tarihi ile ilgili bilgilenmek için harika bir yayın! Amerikan İç Savaşı, 1861-1865 yıllarında "Kuzeyliler"le "Güneyliler" arasında oldu, ama, sonraki yıllarda, 20. Yüzyıl'da, hatta 21. Yüzyıl'da bu savaşın etkileri sürüp geldi, Amerikan politikasının oluşumunda Amerikan İç Savaşı'nın katkıları tartışılmaz. Karl Marx'ın yazılarından Amerikan İç Savaşı'nı okumak ise bir şans!

[Daniel Price · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just when I assume that Marx and Engels couldn’t possibly find new ways to impress me, I find this. 130 years before the internet, these men were following (accurately!) in real time US politics, how the war was both unavoidable AND necessary, the minutiae of different military operations and campaigns as they unfolded, the class composition of the forces in the field, the implications each development was likely to bear on the class struggle in the US, etc. Sadly, they had a far deeper understanding of our country and its history than 99% of today’s US History PhDs, or “historians” generally.

I feel robbed that bourgeois educational system teaches us such a cartoonish joke of our own history.

[Timothy Russo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most dangerous book on earth, after my series of course.