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.
Like many people, I have seen the quote 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.") bandied about as "proof" that the American Civil War was about "money" or "power" or something else -- anything but slavery. I always felt that sounded odd, not at all like other things I had seen from Marx and Engels over the years in relation to the war, but I have been too lazy to actually look for the original source to see what Marx himself meant and said. Now that you have made it so easy, I have actually gone and read the original -- lo and behold, the snippet of a quote so commonly seen online is taken out of context and is a complete distortion of what Marx was saying.
I wish I could say I am surprised, but I am not. The tactic of omitting the parts of quotes the poster doesn't like completely, or hiding behind the innocent seeming "...", is widespread in many circles and particularly in partisan online debate. Many posters, usually those who are fervently devoted to one extreme view or another, seem to think this type of distortion is perfectly fair. As I have frequently said here in this fourm, it is a dishonorable practice, akin to the type of blurb you find in movie ads where "I wish it was a great movie, but it stinks!" becomes "... a great movie". Lying by "..." seems a favorite practice of far too many.
Actually reading the article Marx wrote in its' entirety makes the distortion of his words usually seen obvious. The whole purpose of his article is to make crystal clear the hypocrisy of those who make the claim that the war is about tariffs or something other than slavery -- yet the two sentences are taken out of context to "prove" that he did. Where a reading of the article makes clear that his words were dripping with sarcasm, the isolated use of the two sentences tries to make it seem he was supporting a view he disagreed with totally.
Thanks again for pointing out the blatant distortion of Marx being used so frequently online. I owe you one.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
__________________ "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
Like many people, I have seen the quote 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.") bandied about as "proof" that the American Civil War was about "money" or "power" or something else -- anything but slavery. I always felt that sounded odd, not at all like other things I had seen from Marx and Engels over the years in relation to the war, but I have been too lazy to actually look for the original source to see what Marx himself meant and said. Now that you have made it so easy, I have actually gone and read the original -- lo and behold, the snippet of a quote so commonly seen online is taken out of context and is a complete distortion of what Marx was saying.
I wish I could say I am surprised, but I am not. The tactic of omitting the parts of quotes the poster doesn't like completely, or hiding behind the innocent seeming "...", is widespread in many circles and particularly in partisan online debate. Many posters, usually those who are fervently devoted to one extreme view or another, seem to think this type of distortion is perfectly fair. As I have frequently said here in this fourm, it is a dishonorable practice, akin to the type of blurb you find in movie ads where "I wish it was a great movie, but it stinks!" becomes "... a great movie". Lying by "..." seems a favorite practice of far too many.
Actually reading the article Marx wrote in its' entirety makes the distortion of his words usually seen obvious. The whole purpose of his article is to make crystal clear the hypocrisy of those who make the claim that the war is about tariffs or something other than slavery -- yet the two sentences are taken out of context to "prove" that he did. Where a reading of the article makes clear that his words were dripping with sarcasm, the isolated use of the two sentences tries to make it seem he was supporting a view he disagreed with totally.
Thanks again for pointing out the blatant distortion of Marx being used so frequently online. I owe you one.
Regards,
Tim
The only mention of the Marx quote on the Money; The Cause? thread is by unionblue.
No one else used it.
~~~
So you have Karl Marx on your side?...fine with me.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
The only mention of the Marx quote on the Money; The Cause? thread is by unionblue.
No one else used it.
~~~
So you have Karl Marx on your side?...fine with me.
Do you have a point here? If so, please explain clearly what you are talking about.
My post was entirely concerned with how many people online distort the original meaning of what people in the past said. I deliberately pulled it out of the "Money; The Cause" thread in order to avoid confusing issues there. I only mentioned that thread here because I was quoting UnionBlue's post over there. So what, exactly, is your complaint?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I think his point is that you're wasting your time interpreting Karl Marx because most Americans don't care what he has to say about anything.
Well, heck, I disagree with a lot of things Marx says. I also think Engels (who was making a living as a military analysts about this time) was all wet on a number of things he said about the war. But none of that means either Marx or Engels was dumb, and you really can't understand a different time without reading what the main figures of the day were saying, even when you disagree with them.
Interestingly enough, though, a lot of Civil War-related sites seem to like to use the quote from Marx. Usually ones that want the war to be about something other than slavery.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I think trice's main point is that you cannot judge a quote if it is taken out of context. You cannot judge a source that has been snipped and cut to falsely present someone's already predetermined point-of-view.
To do so is dishonest and not a fair view of history or historical happenings. Far too often in my travels on this and other civil war boards, I have found this to be the case, with partial quotes and statements being bandied about long after they have been shown to have the opposite effect when viewed in their entirety, in the proper context.
Trice is simply warning the other viewers who visit this board to beware and not to be lazy in their efforts to understand this period of history. Certainly not with cut & paste, stunted comments and quotes, but to dig a little deeper, to commit to doing some research and spending some time running down the truth, not just accepting a slanted sound bite.
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
Actually, I think a thread on the observations from nonAmericans, during the war, would be interesting. The English magazine Punch was quite critical of Lincoln and in cartoons often showed him as a disreputable lawyer doing a bad job representating his client, the United States.
The point about cut and pasting is a good one. We all have to cut and paste, or edit material to a certain extend. But altering the meaning of the quotation, or in excising points the source is making that are contrary to ours, and retaining more comfortable ones, is dishonest.
Last edited by matthew mckeon; 07-25-2007 at 06:54 PM.
I agree that a thread of foreign newspapers and their editorials about the Civil War would make an interesting read.
Perhaps even good enough for a thread of it's own?
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
My dad told me a story once.. or a parable of sorts.
If you are walking alongside a tall fence with a bunch of dogs you can't see on the other side and throw a rock over the fence, the dog you hit will be the one that yelps... whether you meant to hit that dog or not.
I think I heard that dog here today.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Karl Marx & the Civil War misquote 
Linear Mode
