Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
"The bombardment of Fort Sumter cut off the only possible constitutional way out, namely the convocation of a general convention of the American people, as Lincoln had proposed in his inaugural address. For Lincoln there now remained only the choice of fleeing from Washington, evacuating Maryland and Delaware and surrendering Kentucky, Missouri and Virginia, or of answering war with war."
"But, the London press pleads further, the war of the United States is nothing but a war for the forcible maintenance of the Union. The Yankees cannot make up their minds to strike fifteen stars from their standard. They want to cut a colossal figure on the world stage. Yes, it would be different if the war was waged for the abolition of slavery! The question of slavery, however, as The Saturday Review categorically declares among other things, has absolutely nothing to do with this war".
This newspaper article written by Marx appeared in "Die Presse", in London, on October 25, 1861. His analysis is pretty interesting.
I have often seen this very same article used again and again to prove one point or another, i.e. the war is about the tariff or about this or that.
Karl Marx, when all of this article is read, shows that he is disproving the idea that the war is about the tariff and that the war is really about slavery.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Terry,
Karl Marx, when all of this article is read, shows that he is disproving the idea that the war is about the tariff and that the war is really about slavery.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
True, Karl Marx is attempting to disprove what the London press is saying, but the fact remains, the press is mostly siding with the South as he points out.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Neil, sorry if the article is repetitious for you. I had not seen it before and thought it was interesting. Perhaps others on the board have not seen it either and might be interested in reading it.
I agree with you that Marx seems to come down on the side of slavery as the cause of the war ultimately. It seemed that he was leaning toward tariffs at first, but makes a strong case for slavery as the cause the further on down I read.
As Rose said, and I agree, he seems to be making an effort to present a side of the conflict other than what the London papers were writing in their analyses. So evidently, the London press were presenting perhaps a more pro-Confederacy view. Marx ultimately seems to side with the Union and the Lincoln administration in its decision to go to war. In fact, he suggests that Lincoln had virtually no other alternative, an opinion that I agree with.
His analysis is interesting, but unfortunately, the passage you pasted is not part of his analysis. The British papers have found themselves in a tight spot. Simulataneously, they have to report to a mixed readership that is partly anxious to see the American experiment fracture and splinter, all in favor of expanded market share, and all condemning of slavery. What's a bloke to do? Champion for the Confederacy out of one side of the mouth while booing slavery out the other. Obviously, we need another reason for southern independence besides the preservation of slavery. Exposing for the British public this conflict of interest of the British press, and indeed for Britain, is all that Marx is accomplishing. The passage you pasted takes on a different meaning in the context which it was written in:
"For months the leading weekly and daily papers of the London press have been reiterating the same litany on the American Civil War. While they insult the free states of the North, they anxiously defend themselves against the suspicion of sympathising with the slave states of the South. In fact, they continually write two articles: one article, in which they attack the North, and another article, in which they excuse their attacks on the North.
In essence the extenuating arguments [the presses] read: 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. Finally, even if justice is on the side of the North , does it not remain a vain endeavour to want to subjugate eight million Anglo-Saxons by force! Would not separation of the South release the North from all connection with Negro slavery and ensure for it, with its twenty million inhabitants and its vast territory, a higher, hitherto scarcely dreamt-of, development? Accordingly, must not the North welcome secession as a happy event, instead of wanting to overrule it by a bloody and futile civil war?
Point by point we will probe the plea of the English press.
The war between North and South -- so runs the first excuse -- is a mere tariff war, a war between a protectionist system and a free trade system, and Britain naturally stands on the side of free trade. Shall the slave-owner enjoy the fruits of slave labour in their entirety or shall he be cheated of a portion of these by the protectionists of the North? That is the question which is at issue in this war. It was reserved for The Times to make this brilliant discovery. The Economist, The Examiner, The Saturday Review and tutti quanti expounded the theme further. It is characteristic of this discovery that it was made, not in Charleston, but in London. Naturally, in America everyone knew that from 1846 to 1861 a free trade system prevailed, and that Representative Morrill carried his protectionist tariff through Congress only in 1861, after the rebellion had already broken out. Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place. When South Carolina had its first attack of secession in 1831, the protectionist tariff of 1828 served it, to be sure, as a pretext, but only as a pretext, as is known from a statement of General Jackson. This time, however, the old pretext has in fact not been repeated. In the Secession Congress at Montgomery all reference to the tariff question was avoided, because the cultivation of sugar in Louisiana, one of the most influential Southern states, depends entirely on protection." [emphasis mine]
Marx never supports a case for it being a tariff war. His entire article is a rebuttal of the views of the British press. Is there anything in the article you disagree with?
Cedarstripper
Last edited by cedarstripper; 02-01-2006 at 12:33 PM.
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.
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.
...or the summarization of K. Marx by the English Press? I too don't follow you, Cedarstripper. Could you please explain?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Karl Marx weighs in on the US Civil War 
Linear Mode
