I think there was a Judeo-Bolshevik *sort* of element involved with the revolutionary aspect of the north's war on the south, particularly in fomenting the controversies that took place in the border states that fanned the flames of war. I don't want to defend a position that says Jews were the heaviest hands in starting the war, or that there weren't other forces at work. It's complicated by the fact that there were Jews who had an interest in the slavery-driven agricultural economy of the south, however, that model (and this was recognized by Marx) was quickly becoming obsolete as plantations were fully exhausting the soils in the south, forcing the practices into the deeper south and into the southwest of America. Chalk it up to the bigger lesson that the Jews fight the Jews too, and that its the general revolutionary nature of the Jew that is the true problem here - that is, they thrive on the sustenance of chaos and change, often by financing either side of it. Another confusing element is that at this time in history, republican movements were revolutionary - as though the parties truly did, at some point in history, switch in terms of their emancipatory roles. At the time of the Civil War, northern republicans were the emancipatory force pushing for abolition. Later it would be the political left that took up the emancipation of the worker in a fully industrialized economy. This isn't altogether different than the Jews being present on both sides of the aisle in the two-party system today, with neocons on the Right, and globalist Soros-ilk on the Left. The republican Jacobins were the pivotal revolutionary element in the French Revolution decades earlier, and they had a massive Ashkenazi membership in southern France. The emancipation of Jews in France was basically in lock-step with the entire French Revolution. Still, the situation of the French Revolution must be connected with its antecedent in the Protestant Reformation. Before any of the Communistic revolutionary movements could take place that were to follow later, the humanist age of the Enlightenment period of Europe had to be liberated from the Catholic Church. The Jews had infiltrated the Catholic Church, causing a revolution in Germany of Protestants against the Catholics. The Lutherans were vehemently anti-Jewish, but the century or so of wars this split promoted in Europe caused other sects in northern Europe and England to push an age of tolerance. This is the Hegelian dialectic at work. Especially the Puritans, who were preceded by the Anabaptists, both of which sought a pure, unified, singular world Church (sound like the religious version of some other revolutionary movements you know of?). This all led eventually to Cromwell basically re-opening England to Jewry. This was late 17th century if I'm not mistaken, so first there is liberation of Jews in England and then France in the next century. Until the protectorate, Jews had basically been hiding their religious practices completely. Remember that the mega-corporation of this era, The Dutch East-India Co., was founded in Amsterdam by Jews who had fled Spain because of the Inquisition. They had great interest in utilizing the resources of France and Britain to access trade routes, hence, how they grew so massive. For the Puritans, the assimilation and conversion of Jews to Christianity was something they considered critical for the eschaton - essentially, Christ couldn't return until they'd converted the Jews. Thanks, Protestants. Importantly, a major element of the new England Americans were of a Puritan descent. This highfalutin revolutionary moral tolerance figured heavily into the ideological movement of the north to do battle with the south. There is an interesting article on this here: https://attackthesystem.com/2013/07/14/the-american-jacobins-and-the-roots-of-the-u-s-civil-war/ This article mentions the similarities between the Anabaptists/Puritans, Jacobins and the Bolsheviks. Despite being in different places and taking different objects of emancipation, they all shared in the same revolutionary spirit. So, if you look at, for example, that seminal figure John Brown, who Communists today celebrate as a hero, he was involved with some acts of terrorism in Kansas and Virginia which were key in starting the war. His attack on Harpers Ferry was probably the key event. Brown had a small band of 'freedom fighters', three of which were Jews - Theodore Wiener (Polish), Jacob Benjamin (German), and August Bondi (Austrian). Bondi was the most famous, and his family had emigrated from Austria after a failed revolution his parents had helped to start. Bondi himself was a student revolutionary in Austria. That had been 1848 - incidentally, the same year as Marx and Engels published the *Communist Manifesto*. In 2009, Communists met in New York to hold a vigil at John Brown's gravesite. Some of the people Brown and his cohort murdered were innocent non-slave owning people. It is thought that amid the tension that had begun to build in these border states, there had been false flag attacks by the north to engender even greater anti-south war fervor. For my part, there's just no believing that the primary motivation of the north was abolition. The entities that stood to lose the most from the south's loss were Britain/France. I think that this entire thing was a means of pushing forward, via Lincoln, with a Hamiltonian anti-Constitutionalist effort to expand the size of the federal government and eventually do away with the Union (creating the Nation). Think about it. The north was industrializing and could not compete on free labor with the slave labor of the south. If you want to carry out a worker's revolution, you need a nation of free, mobile white laborers to take back the capital, right? To get that, you have to overthrow the agricultural slave-based hegemony of the south. Overall, I think this was all about destabilization. Buchanan as President before Lincoln was making terrible decisions for the country economically, nearly bankrupting the north. He did very little to try to check the south's secession. Britain and France nearly entered the war on the south's side, until Russian emperor Alexander II (who'd also emancipated the serfs of Russia) threatened to enter on the side of the north, which he'd basically done at the behest of Russian intelligentsia who'd continued to influence his radically liberal policies (until he wasn't revolutionary enough and they killed him with a bomb). I cannot really speak to 'how they did it'. This probably involved a multitude of factors, and not only Jews, but other revolutionary sects, including the revolutionary spirit of the Protestant north, not even a century off from the war of independence from Britain. I have heard (but have no source for this) that Rothschild banks funded both the north and the south during the war, and we might imagine that the massive debts incurred probably made their banking cartel even more powerful. It is not disputed that the Rothschilds had funded destabilizing forces in France, and had fully funded both sides of Napoleon's war against England. It's primarily these higher-level sweeping trends of revolution that I am comfortable to analyze in terms of their Jewish participation. The case that a specific Jew or Jews was/were responsible for X event in year Y that led to the Civil War is not going to be a successful case. It's too big. But we can situate the generally revolutionary character of the war within the historical milieu before and after it, in Europe, and then in Russia (leading us eventually to the World Wars) and see the Jewish influence. So, if it looks like a duck...