Karl Marx weighs in on the US Civil War

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by william42

Sorry Cedar, I don't think I'm following you. You're saying that the link I posted leads to an article written by someone other than Marx? Just trying to understand. Thanks.

Terry,

Perhaps I've misunderstood your post. The gist of the second passage you pasted is that the war has absolutely nothing to do with slavery, and, having read the article long ago, I knew that it is the origin of this classic misquote being attributed to Marx:

"The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty."

Your comment to Neil that Marx had seemingly started out leaning towards tariffs as a cause makes me think that you are tending to make the London presses' opinion one and the same as Marx, whereas the entire purpose of Marx's article is to rebut the London press. Marx never leans towards tariffs.

Marx wrote the article, but the opinions that it was a tariff war and that it had nothing to do with slavery belong to the English press, not Marx. He opines in the article that the South has declared that "the continuance of slavery was no longer compatible with the continuance of the Union." The notion that it was a tariff war Marx regards as "an excuse."

It's good that you brought the entire article forward as it is very interesting, and everyone should read it. What threw me is that you referred to Marx's analysis but used a paragraph saying that slavery had nothing to do with the war, whereas I think he better summarizes his attempt to educate the British readers in his last paragraph:

"The whole movement was and is based, as one sees, on the slave question. Not in the sense of whether the slaves within the existing slave states should be emancipated outright or not, but whether the twenty million free men of the North should submit any longer to an oligarchy of three hundred thousand slaveholders; whether the vast Territories of the republic should be nurseries for free states or for slavery; finally, whether the national policy of the Union should take armed spreading of slavery in Mexico, Central and South America as its device."

Cedarstripper

[william42]

Cedar: Thanks for your clarification. The paragraphs that I pasted were just a "teaser", if you will, meant to draw the reader to the main article, because I thought it was worth reading. I had not read it before yesterday, and I thought perhaps there might be others who may not have read it. I realize that Marx was commenting on some newspaper coverage about the events going on in the US at the time, then presenting his own views of the events. Sorry for the confusion.

In answer to your question on your first post, I agree with most of what Marx wrote. I'm really not that informed about the events during the Buchanan administration, or the links between it and the slave holders of the south. I would like to read up on that..I need to read up on that.

I think the sentence that starts "Armed spreading of slavery abroad was the avowed aim of national policy;...", was a little over the top, but, as I said, I know little about the politics of that period, specifically Buchanans administration. Aside from that I think Marx summarized events very well. It was one of the best synopses I've read concerning the events that brought on the Civil War.

Terry

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by william42

I think the sentence that starts "Armed spreading of slavery abroad was the avowed aim of national policy;...", was a little over the top, but, as I said, I know little about the politics of that period, specifically Buchanans administration. Aside from that I think Marx summarized events very well.

Terry,

Thanks for your reply, and again for the article. I think we're on the same page.

Cedarstripper