History, Politics, Truth

Russian intervention in U.S. Civil War (1861-1865)

U.S. Civil War has become a popular topic of late, but as it turns out, what nearly everyone thinks they know about that event is wrong. My high school and university history classes left me with the impression that the war was fought over the issue of slavery: the “North” (good guys) was against slavery and wanted it abolished; the “South” (bad guys) wanted to keep the slaves, so they all went to war. Good guys won, bad guys lost, slaves got their freedom, and the world was made a better place. That, in a nutshell, is what I thought I knew about the Civil War. I’m not sure why I had that idea so, to make sure I wasn’t mistaken I conducted an informal survey among my American friends and acquaintances, all university educated people, some of them with advanced degrees. I asked about a dozen of them what they thought U.S. Civil War was about. To a person, all of them unhesitatingly answered that it was about the abolition of slavery. Furthermore, none of them were aware that Russia played any role at all in the Civil War. It struck me that maybe my friends and I all had the same basic idea about that event because we were meant to have that idea, which is now pretty much part of the popular culture. However, the popular interpretation omits some critical aspects of history.

While slavery was one of Civil War’s pivotal issues, the notion that the war was fought over slavery alone is simply wrong. The main issue on the opposing sides’ agendas was the secession of the southern Confederation vs. the preservation of the Union. The issue of slavery was a distant second on President Lincoln’s agenda and he showed no intention to force the southern states to free their slaves. In his inaugural address he said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Lincoln did not change his position even well into the war. In his August 22, 1862 letter to Horace Greely, he wrote, “My paramount objective is to save the union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I would do it.[2]

Far from being a domestic affair about the human rights of the slaves, Civil War was a momentous geopolitical event with massive international implications. In his 1960 book “War for the Union,” historian Allan Nevins wrote that, “It is hardly too much to say that the future of the world as we know it was at stake. … Anglo-French intervention in the American conflict would probably have confirmed the splitting and consequent weakening of the United States; might have given French power in Mexico a long lease, with the ruin of the Monroe Doctrine; and would perhaps have led to the Northern conquest of Canada. … The popular conception of this contest is at some points erroneous, and at a few grossly fallacious…[3]

Behind the veil of overt neutrality, British and French governments both worked to bring about the breakup of the Union, covertly siding with the Confederation. A powerful faction in the British cabinet, which included the Prime Minster Lord Palmerston, Chancellor of the Exchequer William Gladstone, and Foreign Minister Lord John Russell, strongly advocated British intervention on the side of the Confederation. However, for a variety of reasons, Britain had to be extremely cautious about taking any strong actions. For one thing, Britain was dependent on the U.S. and Russia for over 50% of all of her wheat imports. Any serious interruption to that trade risked bringing about famine and a social uprising at home. Another recurrent British worry was the risk that their troops might defect to the American side. After years of fighting multiple wars on three continents, the Empire already suffered a growing intervention fatigue. As a result, much of the British public and even Palmerston’s War Minister George Lewis opposed the prospect of yet another military adventure.[4] While extensive plans were made for the Royal Navy to bomb and burn the cities of New York and Boston, help the Confederation break the Union’s naval blockade, and even to foment a secession of Maine, war hawks in the British government needed a good pretext to overcome the dovish faction’s opposition to war.


U.S. – Russian alliance as illustrated in the British magazine, “Punch.” Note that President Lincoln is portrayed as a troglodyte.

On October 23, 1862, Foreign Minister Lord Russell convened a cabinet meeting to discuss his plan of intervention between the Union and the Confederacy. France’s Napoleon III offered his own support in carrying out this plan and even invited Russia’s Czar Alexander II into the alliance. The idea was to pose an ultimatum to the warring sides to agree to an armistice, followed by a lifting of the Union’s blockade of Confederacy’s ports. The objective of Britain and France was to organize negotiations during which they would pressure Washington to accept Confederacy’s secession and recognize its status as an independent nation. Washington’s refusal would give Britain and France the needed justification to recognize the Confederacy’s independence and provide it with military assistance against the North.

On 29th October 1862, only six days after the British cabinet meeting, Russian Foreign Minister, Prince Gorchakov received Washington’s envoy Bayard Taylor in a very cordial meeting. Gorchakov informed Taylor that France and Britain asked Russia to back their armistice ultimatum, assured him that Russia would not support their plan and that Washington could rely upon Russia’s commitment. In the following days, “Journal de St. Petersbourg,” the official publication of Czar’s government, published Russia’s official position on the issue, denouncing the French-British plan against the U.S. In effect, Russia formally sided with Abraham Lincoln’s government, opposing the British, French and the Vatican which also supported the Confederacy.

Meanwhile, on the American continent things were not going too well for Washington. By autumn of 1863 the Union had grown exhausted from warfare. Facing the widely expected French-British military intervention and persisting reports that the British were about to deliver critical armaments for the Confederacy to break the naval blockade, an ominous mood overcame the Union and the morale sank to its low point.

At that juncture precisely, on September 24, 1863 Russian Imperial fleet arrived to New York while another contingent sailed to San Francisco. The fleet remained anchored at these two key port cities for over six months, through April 1864. On the 26th September 1863, the New York Times jubilantly wrote: “The presence of a Russian fleet in the harbor of New York is welcomed by all persons with the greatest pleasure. Five splendid men-of-war, fully manned and in perfect trim, are now lying at anchor in the North River, in full view of our noble harbor…[5] Russian Admirals had been instructed that, should the U.S. and Russia find themselves at war against Britain or France, Russian fleet was to submit to President Lincoln’s command to operate together with the U.S. Navy against their common enemies. This move by Czar Alexander II was the clearest possible signal to the British and the French to desist in their plans to intervene militarily in the American war.

God bless the Russians

A number of historians judged Russia’s role in the preservation of the United States as decisive. Webster Tarpley stated that, “During the American Civil War, the Russian attitude was the most powerful outside factor deterring Anglo-French interference.[6] American historian and Lincoln biographer Benjamin P. Thomas wrote that, “in the first two years of the war, when its outcome was still highly uncertain, the attitude of Russia was a potent factor in preventing Great Britain and France from adopting a policy of aggressive intervention.[7] In his 1992 book “Union in Peril,” American historian Howard Jones wrote that, “Russia’s pro-Union sentiment prevented participation in any policy alien to the Lincoln Administration’s wishes.Philip Van Doren-Stern pointed out that, “The Russian visit … ended the last chance of European intervention. And it was now practically impossible for the South to be recognized as an independent nation…[8]

The arrival of the Russian fleet to New York and San Francisco “unleashed an immense wave of euphoria in the North.” [9] Shortly after their arrival, Russian sailors and officers were led in a parade down Broadway under American and Russian flags, cheered by thousands of New Yorkers. On November 5, a ball in the honor of the Russian guests was organized in New York at the Academy of Music. A Harper’s Weekly reporter wrote that, “the Russian guests from the fleet were worn out by the expressions of friendship and affection extended to them.[10] In a very overt display of appreciation for the Russian fleet’s arrival, President Lincoln sent his wife to visit with the Russians in New York where she drank a toast to the Czar. The New York Herald pointed out that, “Mrs. Lincoln knew what she was doing,” as her action would generate, “a hearty response throughout the country.[11] The New York Sun wrote that Russia was, “the only European power that has maintained a hearty sympathy with the United States during our present troubles.[12]

Lincoln’s Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles wrote in his journal, “In sending them [the fleet] to this country there is something significant. What will be its effect on France and the French policy we shall learn in due time. It may be moderate; it may exasperate. God bless the Russians.Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of America’s most popular authors at that time, wrote in 1871 the following tribute to Russia, referring to the Civil War episode: “Thrilling and warm are the hearts that remember; Who was our friend when the world was our foe.

But beyond the euphoria of the moment, Russian intervention of 1863 had long-lasting impact, further reinforcing the friendship between the two nations. Historian E.D. Adams spoke of the “special relationship,” and even “extreme friendship” between the U.S. and Russia, noting that in the North, Russia was widely regarded as a “true friend” in contrast to the resentment felt toward London and Paris and their “unfriendly neutrality.” Another historian, Thomas Bailey wrote that the “curious and incongruous friendship,” between the U.S. and Russia had become “an indestructible part of our folklore.

It is utterly fascinating to consider how and why Russian-American alliance became airbrushed from history while the Civil War itself became reduced to a fight to the death over freedom of the slaves (as at the very same time native Americans were being wiped out in their millions). As it happens, thanks to the Reece Committee special investigation (1953), we now have a fairly good understanding of precisely how and why this happened.

The above text is an excerpt from my book “Grand Deception: The Truth About Bill Browder, magnitsky Act and Anti-Russia Sanctions,” first published in August 2017 as “The Killing of William Browder” on Amazon.com but subsequently banned further to the intervention of one Jonathan Winer, formerly policy advisor to US State Secretary John Kerry.

Alex Krainer – @NakedHedgie has worked as a market analyst, researcher, trader and hedge fund manager for over 25 years. He is the creator of I-System Trend Following, publisher of TrendCompass reports and contributing editor at ZeroHedge based in Monaco.

BOOKS & LINKS: Please note, both my business titles are available as free downloads since Amazon cancelled me entirely but continued selling my books at vastly inflated prices. Links are below.


[1] For my grossly condensed summary of this important historical event I am indebted to Dr. Webster Tarpley who, in addition to bringing this episode to public attention, also provides a thorough and invaluable review of numerous other historians’ works on this subject.

[2] (S. Jones 2017)

[3] (Tarpley, U.S. Civil War: The US-Russian Alliance that Saved the Union 2011)

[4] Idem

[5] (New York Times 1863)

[6] (Tarpley, U.S. Civil War: The US-Russian Alliance that Saved the Union 2011)

[7] Idem

[8] Idem

[9] (Tarpley, U.S. Civil War: The US-Russian Alliance that Saved the Union 2011)

[10] (Delahaye 1983-1984)

[11] Idem

[12] Idem


18 thoughts on “Russian intervention in U.S. Civil War (1861-1865)

  1. Pingback: Charlottesville Theatrical & the #45 « arnielerma

  2. Michael says:

    As an American born in 1946, I lived through the entire Cold War with communist Russia. I was very anti communist Russia during those years. In recent years I have become very pro Russia. But, as an American that was also born in the South (Virginia) I am greatly distressed to learn of Russia’s interference in the U S Civil War. I have now lost my positive enthusiasm for Russia. It helped the USA to remain one large country and become a military terror to the world and to Russia itself.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Michael, I don’t see it that way. Russia was fighting the British Empire. If you look at the pattern of events, it may be that Russia is still fighting the British Empire. At any rate, the stakeholders of the British Empire and the present “American” one (it’s not really American, it’s a foreign entity) are essntially the same. They successfully infiltrated the structures of power of the USA and have propagandized the people to gain their consent for empire building. They tried to do the same in Russia but keep getting kicked out so they have to attack head-on. Get rid of this parasitic structure and humanity can be free. I think that today very few people have correctly identified the enemy – which is common to both Russia and the USA – and Vladimir Putin is one of them. I suspect that Trump is another, but let’s see…

      Liked by 1 person


      I am amazed at the depth of ignorance you are displaying! Shouldn`t you be distressed that you don`t know the short history of your own country and the reasons for it? There is not even a recognition of a problem in your comment… Amazing!


  3. Pingback: FYI: Russian intervention in U.S. Civil War (1861-1865) – Phi Quyền Chính – Anarchism

  4. Pingback: THE KILLING OF WILLIAM BROWDER – Phi Quyền Chính – Anarchism

  5. Pavel says:

    There was another aspect of that story I remember reading about. In fact, when I read that you mentioned Abraham Lincoln not necessarily planning at first to abolish slavery in the South, I thought you were going to tell about it: that it was Czar Alexander II who urged President Lincoln to abolish slavery in exchange for Russia’s support in the war (Alexander II himself liberated Russian peasants from serfdom in 1861, so it was very much in line with his own beliefs). Dmitry Medvedev, when he was the President of Russia, gave Barak Obama as a present correspondence between Lincoln and Alexander II that showed (among other things) the czar bringing it up.


    • Hi Pavel,
      Thank you for that; do you happen to have access to Lincoln/Alexander II correspondence? I would love to look into that. I read generally that there was a correspondence about how that should be done and that Alexander II urged the American side to prepare well for the transition by providing educational and employment opportunities for the former slave, provide them with plots of land to cultivate and credit, but nothing much beyond this. If you have anything on this subject I’d be grateful for a link or any documents.


      • Pavel says:

        I do not have access to it. I am not even sure what, if anything, is left in Russia after that gift made by Medvedev. In 2011, there was an exhibition in Russia, called “The Czar and the President: the Liberator and the Emancipator.” Some correspondence was shown there (I do not know if it included the discussion on the abolition of slavery). I read the exhibition was held in the United States as well. Among its organizers were The American-Russian Cultural Cooperation Foundation (chaired at the time by James W. Symington) and The Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation (and I believe the Library of Congress was also involved). Maybe, you can trace it by checking with them.


      • Pavel says:

        I have talked to one of the people involved in the organization of the exhibition “The Czar and the President: the Liberator and the Emancipator” back in 2011. She said the letters were provided by the U.S. as those were letters sent by Alexander II to Lincoln. She confirmed the U.S. Library of Congress was involved, and also mentioned The National Archives in Washington, DC and The Shapell Manuscript Foundation. And it appears that The American-Russian Cultural Cooperation Foundation was the partner/coordinator on the U.S. side.


  6. Pingback: The Russian Intervention in the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865)-Times of News Russia

  7. Pingback: Russian Intervention in the U.S. Civil (1861-’65) | soulipsis

  8. William says:

    Thank you very much. I am sorry that we citizens of the US don’t look deeper at the past. Most importantly to me is how intelligence (if that is what it is) fails to reason through the current nonsense and realize the path of collaboration is the one needing to be walked by all humans through the confusion of the present resulting from not knowing the truth of the past.


  9. Barbara Christiansen says:

    Alex, I appreciate your in depth work. I’ve recently encountered facts that suggest that John Wilkes Booth’s assassination of President Lincoln was connected to British covert intervention in the South. Apparently, Lincoln’s issuance of “Greenbacks” after Britain refused his appeal for loans sealed his fate. Have you addressed this question in any of your works?
    I contend that the internal destruction of the US was engineered by the US private bank cartel culminating with the passage of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. I further contend that interminable US government militaristic corruption will not/ cannot be cured until the psycho-sociopathic bankers and their minions are removed from power by repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and legislative reforms of currency money/ banking pursuant to Constitutional mandates are enacted.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s