The role of capitalism in the American Civil War

[Tzadikim]

Often in American popular history, the Civil War is discussed in morally unambiguous and often "idealistic" terms: the Republican Party of the era is presented as a coalition of abolitionists whose opposition to slavery stemmed from strong ethical convictions; the Democrats, by extension, and the entire Confederacy with them, are portrayed as unabashedly evil.

I would argue myself, however, that this analysis is naive at best and misguided at worst. That said, let me first insist that I am not a Confederate apologist by any means, and am more than happy that it fell. The Civil War was the right thing to do. However, I do think the blame for our present difficulties can be directly levied against the era, and its immediate historical context.

We must first realize that the abolitionist cause was the cause of northern industry. The Republican Party's immediate predecessor in the era, the Free Soil Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Soil_Party), opposed the spread of slavery on economic, as opposed to moral-religious, grounds. Their fear was that slavery undercut northern industrial interests by fostering cheap labour and harmed industrial profitability.

This is all broad strokes, of course. Can anyone more knowledgeable on the era enlighten me further?

[RadioRaheem84]

I know someone who can give you the best analysis; KARL MARX.

He wrote about the Civil War and supported the Union.

[Amphictyonis]

Fuck capitalists , I want to hear what John Brown or Lanston Hughes had to say!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langston_Hughes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29)

[Red Commissar]

Lincoln and the Republicans were typical of the "liberals" of that time- they were more open on social stances, again for their time, and advocated the principles of capitalism. Liberalism was a relatively young philosophy at the time.

The Civil War came down to a clash of interests between two segments of the ruling class in the United States who in time became more and more split and unable to cooperate. Initially it was beneficial- northern textile mills were fed by southern cotton, and provided a base for the United States's early industrialization.

However as the economy began to develop further it called for more economic changes to the structure, which southern landlords knew would threaten the livelihood they built off slavery. Two issues was slavery and tariffs. In order to be effective the United States had to create a uniform economic market. The Southern landowners and their use of slavery prevented this- this created a different system of social relations in the South than it did in the North, and impeded northern efforts to create an effective common market.

In someways the South was the closest thing the US had to an aristocratic society (and I mean in the sense of nobility and its images, not the ruling class), and its social system was not going to function in capitalism too well.

Additionally there was the matter of imports and tariffs. The South was against tariffs as they relied on getting goods from Europe, as opposed to northern industrial goods which were more expensive. Tariffs being placed on the imported goods would rise prices of them enough to force them to go and buy the northern goods. Though it's important to note that when South Carolina threatened to secede over this in the Nullification Crisis, other southern states did not follow suit. The southern ruling class was willing to budge on this, somewhat.

So we saw the interests of American bourgeoisie represented by the Whigs first, and eventually to the Republicans, with the Democratic party becoming more and more tied to the interests of the South. We could see two segments of ruling class here- northern businessmen, industrialists, bankers, etc, and the influential families of large plantations. They differed greatly on westward expansion because who ever got those territories would shape those economies in their image. The Ostend Manifesto, for example, was advanced by some Democrats as a proposal to buy Cuba from Spain and integrate it into the United States- no doubt to increase the economic strength of slavery and get more clout for the South in Congress.

There were moral and economic concerns though. The moral ones were advanced and popularized during the "Second Great Awakening" in the United States by evangelical groups who said slavery was not in line with the teachings of the bible. Groups and works like "The Liberator" and "Uncle Tom's Cabin" had arguments against slavery that was more rooted in moral and social concerns, and both these, particularly the latter, had a profound impact on the slavery debate in the North. John Brown, for one, was greatly motivated by a religious conviction that slavery was wrong, as did the people in the north who came out in support of him as he was waiting for execution.

The most economically rooted came in two forms. The first was the argument of liberals at the time that a healthy market should have a "free association" of Labor rather than one that was tied down, both geographically and workplace wise, to a single person. The second came in the form that slavery was going to be uneconomical in the long run with changes in the global economy- Hinton Helper wrote a book called "The Impending Crisis of the South", which laid out clearly that the South was going to run into severe economic issues if it continued to have its agrarian-slavery society. He even made the argument that the vast majority of white southerners were being kept in an unfavorable system that was sustained by slavery and as such only let a select few have any benefit from southern economy. He was a racist as well though, as his actions during reconstruction showed, more so than the norm at the time.

Liberals were not able to pass their plans on economic planning, mostly a strong common market, as southern democrats opposed this. During the Civil War the Republicans, having a Congress devoid of Democrats who opposed them, were able to pass an array of acts that restructured the economy and brought it inline with a developed one.

It's naive to think however that if the civil war never happened and the North and South co-existed, that capitalism wouldn't have taken root in the United States. The South would have been rendered irrelevant anyways, and the old southern ruling class knew this- they called for action because they knew otherwise they would be overtaken by progress that was going through the World and taking root in the United States. To that end it wasn't the northern industrialists who were worried about slavery cutting into their business, it was the southern landowners fearing they would be made obsolete with industrialization and thus their status as ruling class gone.

To that end Marx wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln on behalf of the Workingmen's International, congratulating him on his re-election and what the Union had achieved. This was mainly in the framework that Marx viewed Lincoln as a progressive figure in American politics, and the actions that resulted during the civil war was necessary to bring America into true industrialization.

[Revolution starts with U]

So, capitalists opposed slavery because it placed labor in a place of personal property, rather than productive property? :confused:

[Red Commissar]

The Republicans of the day argued, on ideological grounds, for a concept of a free association of labor. However the capitalists in the north were not so concerned with slavery- they had they labor pool they needed. The problem was that the other segment of the ruling class in the South were sitting on land that was not very well utilized due to the nature of slavery. More over they had controlled a political block that in Congress blocked a lot of the demands of northern industrialists- infrastructure development, more centralized banking, tariffs, etc.

The southern planters hoped that they would continue being prominent due to their control of cotton, which northern textile mills initially needed. This became less and less important as northern industry spread out to other fields (and in turn created businesses to feed the new industries, the accelerator effect in economics), so the southern planters by the 1850s felt they were being pushed into a corner and in danger of losing their importance in the country.

It could be said that the US when it was founded was a sort of oligarchy between merchants and slave-owning planters. The US by the tensions leading up to the civil war and afterwards, effectively got rid of the planter class and became a more effective captialist society. Where as a lot of European countries had to deal with the hold overs of aristocracy, the United States did not have to deal with those in the form of Southern planters, and were free to embrace capitalism full-on.

[Revolution starts with U]

Hmm, interesting. So the civil war was inevitable? Capitalism's inherent expansion was eventually going to put it at odds with the less progressive, aggrarain south. And defeating slavery cut the proverbial tail off the beast (of the southern slave culture)?

[Ocean Seal]

Often in American popular history, the Civil War is discussed in morally unambiguous and often "idealistic" terms: the Republican Party of the era is presented as a coalition of abolitionists whose opposition to slavery stemmed from strong ethical convictions; the Democrats, by extension, and the entire Confederacy with them, are portrayed as unabashedly evil.

I would argue myself, however, that this analysis is naive at best and misguided at worst. That said, let me first insist that I am not a Confederate apologist by any means, and am more than happy that it fell. The Civil War was the right thing to do. However, I do think the blame for our present difficulties can be directly levied against the era, and its immediate historical context.

We must first realize that the abolitionist cause was the cause of northern industry. The Republican Party's immediate predecessor in the era, the Free Soil Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Soil_Party), opposed the spread of slavery on economic, as opposed to moral-religious, grounds. Their fear was that slavery undercut northern industrial interests by fostering cheap labour and harmed industrial profitability.

This is all broad strokes, of course. Can anyone more knowledgeable on the era enlighten me further?

The civil war was necessary to fully eradicate the feudal system of slavery in the South, and bring the country to capital. One thing that I should mention, however, is that the North was made up of a string of racists almost as bad as those in the South. I believe that there is a text which describes a northern abolitionist (Thoreau possibly) being tortured in the streets of Boston and the whole town cheering as they beat the hell out of him.
Their reason for being against the expansion of slavery was because they didn't want slaves living on the new territories that they were moving out to. This was partially because of racist reasons, but also because they did not want competition for labor. The captains of industry were against slavery expanding because they did not want to compete with slave owners for land which might be useful to them in terms of mining/industry.
It should be noted that while freeing the slaves was a positive thing, it was not the original aim of the civil war. The original aim was to emerge as a united nation, such that the North could have easy access to the raw materials of the South. The interests were sectional not moral.

[anticap]

Lincoln ... advocated the principles of capitalism.

Ultimately, yes (as shown by the bolded section), but things are rarely black-and-white:


These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel.


Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits.

It's clear that Lincoln viewed capitalists as scoundrels and secondary to workers, even if he viewed capitalism favorably.

[Red Commissar]

Hmm, interesting. So the civil war was inevitable? Capitalism's inherent expansion was eventually going to put it at odds with the less progressive, aggrarain south. And defeating slavery cut the proverbial tail off the beast (of the southern slave culture)?

The South was going to be rendered irrelevant by the march of capitalism. They, on account of being one of the original segments of the ruling class, attempted to use their political clout to prevent political moves in that direction through the Democratic Party.


The civil war was necessary to fully eradicate the feudal system of slavery in the South, and bring the country to capital. One thing that I should mention, however, is that the North was made up of a string of racists almost as bad as those in the South. I believe that there is a text which describes a northern abolitionist (Thoreau possibly) being tortured in the streets of Boston and the whole town cheering as they beat the hell out of him.

Yet abolitionists were allowed to operate without much real harassment in the north, and much of their texts and prints originated in the North.

Incidents like that might be brought up, but numerous others can be brought up with the backlash against the Fugitive Slave Law, that empowered US Marshalls to respond to requests by southern landowners to capture runaway slaves. Many communities that housed escaped slaves fiercely resisted attempts by US Marshalls to re-capture escaped slaves. Local support for the Underground railroad increased and some northern states went as far as to pass ordinances affirming personal liberties of all peoples.

It is also worth noting that John Brown, while in jail, was looked upon much more sympathetically because they perceived him as a freedom fighter against a vile institution.

The role of religion also had a strong role, most of which in the north typically preached pro-abolition views. By the time Harriet Beecher Stowe published Uncle Tom's Cabin, it was very well received by people in the north because they were open to its views already.

Now there's a difference between being in favor of abolition, and being in favor of racial equality. The latter very, very few people held in the United States then and unfortunately it still is voiced today through racism and outstraight by some fringe groups.



Their reason for being against the expansion of slavery was because they didn't want slaves living on the new territories that they were moving out to. This was partially because of racist reasons, but also because they did not want competition for labor. The captains of industry were against slavery expanding because they did not want to compete with slave owners for land which might be useful to them in terms of mining/industry.Slave labor would have not worked too well in mines or industrialization because their original orientation was meant for agricultural purposes. The kind of specialization that labor required would have needed a different type of worker.

What the southern planters hoped in expanding to the territories was that they could increase their political clout in Congress and prevent legislation that was more favorable to northern industrialists.

In terms of land in the west it wasn't useful to either. The first range of plains was not favorable for slave-based agriculture in cotton or tobacco as neither could grow there too well. The mountain ranges had mines which were of interest to the northern industrialists, but it wouldn't have needed too much start up labor to begin with.

What was of interest to both parties was to control a path to the west coast, and ultimately the path for the future transcontinental railroad. Before the Kansas-Nebraska act was passed there was a debate in Congress among the politicians over where the transcontinental road would start (Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, or New Orleans), and by extension what path it would take. Southern land owners naturally favored southern cities and a southern path, which would pass through the corridor of flat land that the US acquired through the Gadsden purchase from Mexico.

Stephen A. Douglass, a Democrat, argued for a start point at Chicago and the transcontinental railroad to go through where it is today. Using this as a bargaining chip, Douglass was able to get the demands of his the Democrats into the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed for the question of slavery to be decided by the settlers to the territories.

This act passed, and it was such a controversy in the North that it sealed the fate for the already floundering Whig Party. It was in this that the Republican Party was born, due to opposition to this act from northern citizens. The violence that exploded in Kansas during the 1850s was over the issue of slavery and foreshadowed the Civil War itself. It was here that John Brown rose up too.

More often than not the slave owners were on the defensive. The slave owners were the ones more threatened by the expansion and economic strength of industrialization, and needed to re-assert their strength as a ruling class.


It should be noted that while freeing the slaves was a positive thing, it was not the original aim of the civil war. The original aim was to emerge as a united nation, such that the North could have easy access to the raw materials of the South. The interests were sectional not moral.It wasn't, but one can not deny the sentiments of some people fighting in the war, particularly after 1863, when it took religious overtures among soldiers in the north that they were fighting for a greater good, to create a new and better nation after the war. The northern industrialists could care less, but Southern landowners knew that if they stayed on, slavery would have been rendered irrelevant anyways. Only by seceeding and creating a nation where they were the sole ruling class, could they adjust on their own time.

The South didn't have much in the way of raw natural resources outside of some mines here and there. Most industrialization continued in the north after the civil war while southern industry was initially re-purposed towards textiles. The important part is that with the political clout of the old planter class gone, the northern industrialists were free to reshape the economy with out obstruction.

The Democratic Party was a mess after the Civil War, and with the exception of some anger votes during Reconstruction and two presidents- Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson, the Republican Party had free run of the country. Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's VP who became President after his death, was a Democrat but was more controlled by the Republicans who placed him there. Cleveland and Wilson were both Democrats who rose up through political machines in the north. So even in the end the Democratic Party had largely acknowledged the economic superiority of the industrialists.


Ultimately, yes (as shown by the bolded section), but things are rarely black-and-white:

It's clear that Lincoln viewed capitalists as scoundrels and secondary to workers, even if he viewed capitalism favorably.

One can find similar words in Adam Smith's texts too. It does not change the fact that Lincoln was in the liberal mindset of those days. He may have come into conflict with his Republicans afterwards though, over the relation between the big industrialists and politicians. But he believed in the values of free trade and the free market.

Now I remember Turtledove in his alt-history imagined a Lincoln, becoming a looked down upon figure for the north's loss in the Civil War, somehow embraced socialism after becoming acquainted with the texts of Marx and Engels, and founded the Socialist Party of America.

[S.Artesian]

First off, the "captains of industry" in the US leading up to the Civil War were not quite the captains you might think they were. While industry was certainly growing, agriculture still dominated the economy of the North.

Secondly, the "captains of industry" were not quite the ardent anti-slavers some might make them out to be.

The capitalism adamantly opposed to Southern expansion was not the capitalism of the commercial interests in the cities of Boston, NYC, etc., but rather the free soil capitalism of the New England, the former Northwest territories, and new West territories.

The real "source of the current ills" is in that defeat of Reconstruction engineered and agreed to by the Northern bourgeoisie.

The role of the bourgeoisie in the Civil War is well.... bourgeois, eager to make a buck, reluctant to take a stand.

And the ultimate "triumph" of capitalism comes not in the defeat of the South in the Civil War, but in the defeat of Radical Reconstruction by those "captains of industry" who reconstitute the Southern landed property owner as a ruling class in order to secure commercial and in particular, railroad concessions.

[Barry Lyndon]

Lincoln was the only United States President who was a true revolutionary- he authorized the arming of former slaves to overthrow the Southern slave-holding ruling class.

Lincoln had his flaws, and he wavered on the question of slavery for a long time, but when he finally decided to emancipate the slaves his greatness was revealed in his unwavering resolve to carry out that end, even though carrying the war to its successful conclusion almost cost him re-election and eventually, did cost his life.

The American Civil War was the last great revolutionary act of the capitalist class. Afterward, it became a reactionary force, with the Northern capitalists striking a Faustian bargin with the remnants of the Southern elite and throwing the black freedman to the wolves, condemning them to a century of segregation and lynchings.

I actually think that had Lincoln lived, he may have been a powerful force for safeguarding the rights of Southern blacks in the Reconstruction era. Instead, he was replaced by a traitor by the name of Andrew Johnson, who allowed the Klan to run wild and fought the Radical Republican Congress tooth and nail to prevent them from enforcing black suffrage.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/images/nast.gif
Thomas Nast cartoon showing President Andrew Johnson as Iago, whispering false promises to a Black Union veteran(Othello), while racist Southern mobs massacre black freedman in the background.

[Red Commissar]

Lincoln was the only United States President who was a true revolutionary- he authorized the arming of former slaves to overthrow the Southern slave-holding ruling class.

This wasn't so much a revolutionary decision as it was a pragmatic one. Why ignore a possibility of utilizing a pool of manpower? More importantly, asserting Union power over the floundering Confederates.


Lincoln had his flaws, and he wavered on the question of slavery for a long time, but when he finally decided to emancipate the slaves his greatness was revealed in his unwavering resolve to carry out that end, even though carrying the war to its successful conclusion almost cost him re-election and eventually, did cost his life.

And this is why he is remembered.


The American Civil War was the last great revolutionary act of the capitalist class. Afterward, it became a reactionary force, with the Northern capitalists striking a Faustian bargin with the remnants of the Southern elite and throwing the black freedman to the wolves, condemning them to a century of segregation and lynchings.

I actually think that had Lincoln lived, he may have been a powerful force for safeguarding the rights of Southern blacks in the Reconstruction era. Instead, he was replaced by a traitor by the name of Andrew Johnson, who allowed the Klan to run wild and fought the Radical Republican Congress tooth and nail to prevent them from enforcing black suffrage.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/images/nast.gif
Thomas Nast cartoon showing President Andrew Johnson as Iago, whispering false promises to a Black Union veteran(Othello), while racist Southern mobs massacre black freedman in the background.

Abraham Lincoln wasn't in the faction of Radical Republicans either. Before his assassination he opposed many of their proposals and Radical Republicans were very displeased with him.

Lincoln's idea of re-integration was much less harsh than what the Radical Republicans were proposing. Whereas Lincoln's standards for re-integrating a former Confederate state back into a Union was simply to accept the new amendments and recognize the unity of the country. Radical Republicans suggested a so-called "Iron-Clad Oath" which stipulated that in order to hold office, a southerner had to swear they never fought for the Confederates or aided them in any form. Lincoln was strongly opposed to this measure.

This also tied into the Wade–Davis bill that the Radical Republicans tried to pass in 1864, that Lincoln rejected. Lincoln's proposal for reintegration was one that he only required 10% to take an oath of loyalty, the conditions of which I already listed. Radical Republicans wanted a majority of the state to take their ironclad oath before they could be readmitted to the Union.

Lincoln vetoed this measure as he did with any of the proposals that the Radical Republicans attempted to advance. For what it's worth Andrew Johnson's reconstruction plans wasn't all that different from Lincoln's more lenient proposals for a state to be readmitted in the Union.

Andrew Jackson's presidency honestly did not hamper the Radical Republicans, because he would be replaced by a more acceptable person- Grant- and it was then the Radical Republican's policies began to be implemented in full. Via the iron clad oath many southerners were disqualified for office or voting, leading to a sizable chunk of African Americans being elected to office, both in state legislatures and even the House of Representatives. Two were even able to be sent to the US Senate.

Now if you want to go for a politician that sold out the former slaves, you would have to go a decade later to the election of 1876, where President Hayes secured the election.

The election was contested and is still to this date one of the most contested elections in American history, along with the 2000 elections. From what I'm going to write, one would argue it was probably much more dirty than what happened in 2000.

Rutherford B. Hayes, running on the Republican ticket, was dealing with a backlash against Republican policies in the South. Radical Republican policies were getting unpopular and northern voters were angry with the corruption in Republican political machines. Samuel Tilden and the Democrats put himself in a position to gain much of these votes of discontent.

Samuel Tilden, on the Democratic Ticket, ended up getting the majority in the popular vote- 4,284,020 votes to Hayes's 4,036,572 votes. This means Tilden got 51% as opposed to Hayes's 47.9%.

There were 20 electoral votes in dispute. They came from three southern states- Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina. Tilden had already acquired 184 electoral votes, as opposed to Hayes's 165. Tilden only needed one to get to 185 and be declared the winner- Hayes needed to get all of the Electoral votes with out a single one being awarded to Tilden. Considering democratic support in the South, it seemed Tilden was en route to winning.

A 15-member commission was formed to decide how the disputed electoral votes would be awarded. Five were taken from members of both the Republicans and Democrats, and another five were brought in from the Supreme Court.

It is believed that Republican politicians struck a deal with Democratic politicians to resolve this, through the so-called Compromise of 1877 that was done under the table between parties in Congress. This was a promise that if the Republicans gained office, Hayes would sign an order to withdraw northern troops from the South- essentially ending enforcement of policies beneficial to former slaves, and handing back control of the region to Southern Democrats and the new ruling class that was forming there.

And so we saw it- Hayes got all 20 electoral votes to put him at 185 to win the election. Grant had already began withdrawing soldiers, and Hayes continued this. And so we saw the end of Reconstruction and the Southern Democrats re-asserting themselves in the region, and so opening up the road to Jim Crow and other things we know the south for.

[S.Artesian]

The "betrayal" of the former slaves is initiated well before the elections of 1876. The Grant Administration had curtailed the use of troops significantly after the elections of 1872. The Freedmen Bureau's and Union League Associations were abandoned progressively to the terror of the Klan.

Retreat from Reconstruction actually begins around 1871.

Significantly, the "bagman" who delivered the electoral votes for Hayes was none other than Thomas Scott, he of the Pennsylvania RR, and he who had performed so brilliantly in moving the Army of the Potomac west via rail to Tennessee to relieve Rosencrans and set the stage for Sherman's march.

Scott had cut deals with "redemptionist" Southern politicians to front for his accumulation of railroad networks in the South, selling out the Reconstruction governments in the process.

And this same Scott was rewarded by Hayes in that the US govt decided to guarantee about $30 million in bonds of his foundering Texas & Pacific Railroad.

And come the great railroad strike of 1877, Scott of course was urging Hayes to feed the strikers a "diet of lead," which Hayes certainly did, withdrawing troops from the South and redeploying them in cities of the North, Midwest etc to battle the strikers.

Radical Reconstruction is the only decent moment in US history, and one the bourgeoisie couldn't abandon and bury quickly enough.

Couple of great books on these matters Rescue by Rail and Iron Confederacy.

[Fulanito de Tal]

The American Civil War is EXTREMELY complicated. Here are some more factors.

The South was selling the North its goods. The North would make stuff and sell it to the South. To start the problem, Europe began paying more for the South's commodities and as a result, increased the price. The North couldn't afford the new price, so congress passed a law restricting the South's sales to Europe. Europe also drop the prices of commodities that it would sell to the South, thus ruining the Norths market. The South said that they would secede and the war began.

At the same time England and France sent troops to Canada and Mexico to invade when the US was busy killing itself. Russia was still feudalistic, so it found France and England to be a threat. The Tsar, Alexander II, thought that if England and France take over the US, Russia would be in trouble. So, he sent troops to the US in order to prevent an invasion.

At the same time, the Bankers in Europe we making money off of financing wars. Their next target was to form a national bank in the US. This lead Lincoln to say something to the effect of, "I have two enemies: the Civil War on my front and the bankers to my back." (I couldn't find the quote now. Maybe later). So Lincoln got a policy enacted that gave the Federal Government the power to handle the currency issue going on at the time and that produced Greenbacks. The greenbacks weren't enough to fund the war efforts, so he eventually ended up borrowing money from the banks. In the end, Lincoln was shot, so were the Greenbacks, and now we have a fiat money system that is not publicly controlled (The Fed).

I know this is very simplistic. I did it from memory, so I'm off a little, but the main points are there.

[Red Commissar]

The "betrayal" of the former slaves is initiated well before the elections of 1876. The Grant Administration had curtailed the use of troops significantly after the elections of 1872. The Freedmen Bureau's and Union League Associations were abandoned progressively to the terror of the Klan.

Retreat from Reconstruction actually begins around 1871.

Significantly, the "bagman" who delivered the electoral votes for Hayes was none other than Thomas Scott, he of the Pennsylvania RR, and he who had performed so brilliantly in moving the Army of the Potomac west via rail to Tennessee to relieve Rosencrans and set the stage for Sherman's march.

Scott had cut deals with "redemptionist" Southern politicians to front for his accumulation of railroad networks in the South, selling out the Reconstruction governments in the process.

And this same Scott was rewarded by Hayes in that the US govt decided to guarantee about $30 million in bonds of his foundering Texas & Pacific Railroad.

And come the great railroad strike of 1877, Scott of course was urging Hayes to feed the strikers a "diet of lead," which Hayes certainly did, withdrawing troops from the South and redeploying them in cities of the North, Midwest etc to battle the strikers.

Radical Reconstruction is the only decent moment in US history, and one the bourgeoisie couldn't abandon and bury quickly enough.

Couple of great books on these matters Rescue by Rail and Iron Confederacy.

Yes, it did begin before election of 1876. The main point I was getting at though is that it wasn't Andrew Johnson who buried reconstruction- it wouldn't be fair to lay it all at the feet of one person, but to rather see the political machinations in play that were interested in keeping and securing power.

Many who had voted Radical Republicans in done so because they thought they would be tougher on the south and 'punish' them. Like you said in light of violence and actions in the south and the need to retain political control, they began to back off on this. Many of the Blacks who had begun to be elected to State Assemblies found themselves harassed and unable to attend them. And the violence directed at blacks attempting to vote.

Considering House election performances: in 1868 and 1870 Republicans incurred losses to the Democrats. In 1872 they regained this, but in 1874 lost big time and caused Democrats to secure a majority in the House. Democrats would retain control of the House until 1880.

The Republican Party Machine was concerned with retaining its power, and was willing to abandon reconstruction to do so.

[S.Artesian]

Absolutely correct.

[Barry Lyndon]

a) This wasn't so much a revolutionary decision as it was a pragmatic one. Why ignore a possibility of utilizing a pool of manpower? More importantly, asserting Union power over the floundering Confederates.

b) Abraham Lincoln wasn't in the faction of Radical Republicans either. Before his assassination he opposed many of their proposals and Radical Republicans were very displeased with him.

Lincoln's idea of re-integration was much less harsh than what the Radical Republicans were proposing. Whereas Lincoln's standards for re-integrating a former Confederate state back into a Union was simply to accept the new amendments and recognize the unity of the country. Radical Republicans suggested a so-called "Iron-Clad Oath" which stipulated that in order to hold office, a southerner had to swear they never fought for the Confederates or aided them in any form. Lincoln was strongly opposed to this measure.

This also tied into the Wade–Davis bill that the Radical Republicans tried to pass in 1864, that Lincoln rejected. Lincoln's proposal for reintegration was one that he only required 10% to take an oath of loyalty, the conditions of which I already listed. Radical Republicans wanted a majority of the state to take their ironclad oath before they could be readmitted to the Union.

Lincoln vetoed this measure as he did with any of the proposals that the Radical Republicans attempted to advance. For what it's worth Andrew Johnson's reconstruction plans wasn't all that different from Lincoln's more lenient proposals for a state to be readmitted in the Union.

c) Andrew Jackson's presidency honestly did not hamper the Radical Republicans, because he would be replaced by a more acceptable person- Grant- and it was then the Radical Republican's policies began to be implemented in full. Via the iron clad oath many southerners were disqualified for office or voting, leading to a sizable chunk of African Americans being elected to office, both in state legislatures and even the House of Representatives. Two were even able to be sent to the US Senate.

d) Now if you want to go for a politician that sold out the former slaves, you would have to go a decade later to the election of 1876, where President Hayes secured the election.

The election was contested and is still to this date one of the most contested elections in American history, along with the 2000 elections. From what I'm going to write, one would argue it was probably much more dirty than what happened in 2000.

Rutherford B. Hayes, running on the Republican ticket, was dealing with a backlash against Republican policies in the South. Radical Republican policies were getting unpopular and northern voters were angry with the corruption in Republican political machines. Samuel Tilden and the Democrats put himself in a position to gain much of these votes of discontent.

Samuel Tilden, on the Democratic Ticket, ended up getting the majority in the popular vote- 4,284,020 votes to Hayes's 4,036,572 votes. This means Tilden got 51% as opposed to Hayes's 47.9%.

There were 20 electoral votes in dispute. They came from three southern states- Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina. Tilden had already acquired 184 electoral votes, as opposed to Hayes's 165. Tilden only needed one to get to 185 and be declared the winner- Hayes needed to get all of the Electoral votes with out a single one being awarded to Tilden. Considering democratic support in the South, it seemed Tilden was en route to winning.

A 15-member commission was formed to decide how the disputed electoral votes would be awarded. Five were taken from members of both the Republicans and Democrats, and another five were brought in from the Supreme Court.

It is believed that Republican politicians struck a deal with Democratic politicians to resolve this, through the so-called Compromise of 1877 that was done under the table between parties in Congress. This was a promise that if the Republicans gained office, Hayes would sign an order to withdraw northern troops from the South- essentially ending enforcement of policies beneficial to former slaves, and handing back control of the region to Southern Democrats and the new ruling class that was forming there.

And so we saw it- Hayes got all 20 electoral votes to put him at 185 to win the election. Grant had already began withdrawing soldiers, and Hayes continued this. And so we saw the end of Reconstruction and the Southern Democrats re-asserting themselves in the region, and so opening up the road to Jim Crow and other things we know the south for.

a) There are points in which the revolutionary route becomes the pragmatic. Lincoln was at that fork in the road- his choice was to authorize the arming of the former slaves, or face the prospect of losing the war, the continued existence of slavery, and the permanent division of the North American continent into two hostile countries.

b) I'm not denying any of that. But Lincoln had proven that he could change his position when confronted with the necessity of the political situation. He originally wasn't opposed to slavery in the South either, but only to its expansion into the Western territories. The necessities of war, however, made him change his point of view.
I have few doubts that he would have made his policies more draconian in the face of Klan terror and bogus 'vagrancy laws'. Remember, Lincoln authorized and approved of Sherman's March. He could be hard on the South if he wanted to

c & d) Andrew Johnson(not Jackson), stonewalled and undermined Congress at every turn, refusing to send more federal troops to the South even when blacks were literally being massacred in Memphis and New Orleans. He also issued an unconditional amnesty to all Confederates. Even Lincoln's policy required them to sign an oath of loyalty to the Union, and excluded certain groups(such as the former Confederate leadership) from such an easy process. Any positive gains that blacks achieved in those years was due to the overwhelming majority of the Congress pushing policies over the head of Johnson, kicking and screaming. He was still so obstructionist that he repeatedly refused to enforce such laws, and was impeached over his treasonous derailing.

By the time Grant took office and sent federal troops South to fight the Klan in 1871, it was too late. The KKK, allowed to rampage for nearly six years across the South, had already achieved its purposes of terrorizing enough blacks away from the polling booth that white power was assured a political comeback. Grant himself was only half-hearted, distracted by Westward expansion and his administration's own corruption scandals.

Hayes was instrumental but merely put the nail in the coffin of Radical Reconstruction.

[S.Artesian]

The American Civil War is EXTREMELY complicated. Here are some more factors.

The South was selling the North its goods. The North would make stuff and sell it to the South. To start the problem, Europe began paying more for the South's commodities and as a result, increased the price. The North couldn't afford the new price, so congress passed a law restricting the South's sales to Europe. Europe also drop the prices of commodities that it would sell to the South, thus ruining the Norths market. The South said that they would secede and the war began.

At the same time England and France sent troops to Canada and Mexico to invade when the US was busy killing itself. Russia was still feudalistic, so it found France and England to be a threat. The Tsar, Alexander II, thought that if England and France take over the US, Russia would be in trouble. So, he sent troops to the US in order to prevent an invasion.

At the same time, the Bankers in Europe we making money off of financing wars. Their next target was to form a national bank in the US. This lead Lincoln to say something to the effect of, "I have two enemies: the Civil War on my front and the bankers to my back." (I couldn't find the quote now. Maybe later). So Lincoln got a policy enacted that gave the Federal Government the power to handle the currency issue going on at the time and that produced Greenbacks. The greenbacks weren't enough to fund the war efforts, so he eventually ended up borrowing money from the banks. In the end, Lincoln was shot, so were the Greenbacks, and now we have a fiat money system that is not publicly controlled (The Fed).

I know this is very simplistic. I did it from memory, so I'm off a little, but the main points are there.

Sources? I don't recall any national legislation limiting the South's sales of tobacco, cotton, or sugar-- actually sugar isn't an issue, given the intense overproduction. But legislation limiting cotton sales? I don't recall that, nor do I see how that legislation could have passed both houses, with South still controlling the senate, and with its numerous Dem allies in the North, able to block any legislation in the HOR.

Nor do I recall any evidence for Europe undercutting Northern manufacturing in the Southern markets-- the Southern markets being quite limited in their "elasticity" given the lower population, the lower population density, the lower development of industry, transportation, communication.

As a matter of fact, what brought Northern business interests around to supporting the use of the military against secession, after the failure of the Crittenden Compromise, was the realization that they would never be able to collect the app $300 million that merchants, planters, etc. in the South owed them, the North, if the South seceded, and export taxes on Southern cotton would wipe out any advantage emerging Northern textile/garment producers had in the domestic markets of the US.

I don't think this notion that the US was struggling to maintain itself against a form of "imperial" encroachment by Europe regarding the South has very much validity.

[Reznov]

I hear it was more about States Rights than it was about having slaves.

Also, is it true that Lincoln planned on shipping the slaves back one they were freed?


These are two things that I have heard of brought up in a debate, and am quite interested in the answers to these. (An explanation would be nice as well!)

[S.Artesian]

I hear it was more about States Rights than it was about having slaves.

Also, is it true that Lincoln planned on shipping the slaves back one they were freed?


These are two things that I have heard of brought up in a debate, and am quite interested in the answers to these. (An explanation would be nice as well!)

It was NOT about state's rights. That's the mask. The face behind the mask was slavery. Economics, property, determines political ideology.

Lincoln, earlier on, entertained notions of voluntary return of former slaves to Africa. It's difficult to say how realistic he thought such an option was, or how strongly he believed in it even for the brief time in which it held some attraction.

As the war progressed, Lincoln pretty much abandoned that approach. As the tide of the war turned in favor of the North, as he "finally found my general [Grant]," there is strong evidence that he thought more about the problems of the post-war society, and was increasingly certain that the only solution would be found in racial equality.

[Red Commissar]

a) There are points in which the revolutionary route becomes the pragmatic. Lincoln was at that fork in the road- his choice was to authorize the arming of the former slaves, or face the prospect of losing the war, the continued existence of slavery, and the permanent division of the North American continent into two hostile countries.

It didn't have that large of an impact to be honest. It was again more of a sign to the world that the Union was now the one calling the shots in the war, the same reason why the Emancipation Proclamation got issued.


b) I'm not denying any of that. But Lincoln had proven that he could change his position when confronted with the necessity of the political situation. He originally wasn't opposed to slavery in the South either, but only to its expansion into the Western territories. The necessities of war, however, made him change his point of view.
I have few doubts that he would have made his policies more draconian in the face of Klan terror and bogus 'vagrancy laws'. Remember, Lincoln authorized and approved of Sherman's March. He could be hard on the South if he wanted to

Lincoln's focus in the aftermath of the Civil War was to peacefully reintegrate. What he did before really has no bearing on what decision he made then. It doesn't change the fact that Lincoln was not among the ranks of the Radical Republicans and wanted nothing to do with them.

Lincoln's position on slavery was again more of a pragmatic one that set him aside from the more radical elements of the Republicans. He opposed the expansion of slavery because he knew it would be on the outs anyways- industrialization would make sure of that- and it is this the Southern landowners were well aware of.



c & d) Andrew Johnson(not Jackson), stonewalled and undermined Congress at every turn, refusing to send more federal troops to the South even when blacks were literally being massacred in Memphis and New Orleans. He also issued an unconditional amnesty to all Confederates. Even Lincoln's policy required them to sign an oath of loyalty to the Union, and excluded certain groups(such as the former Confederate leadership) from such an easy process. Any positive gains that blacks achieved in those years was due to the overwhelming majority of the Congress pushing policies over the head of Johnson, kicking and screaming. He was still so obstructionist that he repeatedly refused to enforce such laws, and was impeached over his treasonous derailing.

I said Johnson first, but I guess it slipped the second time. It does not, however, change the fact that one can not blame Johnson for reconstruction failing. Was he harmful? Certainly- this is why he is viewed as one of the worst presidents in US history, but the Republicans did most of the damage themselves and we can not forget that.

Johnson's policy wasn't really all that different from what Lincoln had laid out. The only difference between his and Lincoln is that Lincoln was not afraid to use the military to enforce them. It's been said that the South probably lost its best friend after Lincoln's death, because Lincoln was the only one willing for a more gradual process, as opposed to many within the Republican party who wanted to impose a "punishment" on the former Confederate states.

Lincoln's policy for re-admittance into the union went on these guidelines

-Slavery be banned in the states' constitutions
-Recognize the validity of the new amendments
-Recognize the unbreakable unity of the country

And to this he only needed 10% of the populace to agree. Amnesty was already signed for former southern soldiers and officers. The thing that worried the Radical Republicans in Congress was how quickly this process was taking place and how little Johnson cared for any change to the social fabric of the south. Lincoln was much more willing to do that, I think, than Johnson ever wanted to. But he probably would have found some way to do this with out inflaming the populace and creating support for reactionary elements in the region.



By the time Grant took office and sent federal troops South to fight the Klan in 1871, it was too late. The KKK, allowed to rampage for nearly six years across the South, had already achieved its purposes of terrorizing enough blacks away from the polling booth that white power was assured a political comeback. Grant himself was only half-hearted, distracted by Westward expansion and his administration's own corruption scandals.

Hayes was instrumental but merely put the nail in the coffin of Radical Reconstruction.

The thing is though, I think the Republicans dug their own grave. It's easy to blame Andrew Johnson for this but he was not nearly as influential as the party officials in the Republicans who were doing power plays behind the scene in order to guarantee their own dominance in the US for the next few decades. The South was by and large already under military occupation, and the Radical Republicans had free reign where they wished, as they did under Johnson's administration despite his obstructions.

This approach also ignores that the Radical Republicans were losing support among their constituency- many of whom did not care much for their progressive tenets, because they did not have much sympathy with the freed slaves. It is for this that the Radical Republicans lost the hold over power they had because the party bosses of the Republicans saw that the radicals were causing more harm than good for their long term political agenda.

[S.Artesian]

This approach also ignores that the Radical Republicans were losing support among their constituency- many of whom did not care much for their progressive tenets, because they did not have much sympathy with the freed slaves. It is for this that the Radical Republicans lost the hold over power they had because the party bosses of the Republicans saw that the radicals were causing more harm than good for their long term political agenda.

This is quite true. The Republicans were the ones abandoning Reconstruction; and abandoning their own Reconstruction governments.

Very interesting books on this aspect of the process: Retreat from Reconstruction 1869-1879 by William Gillette and The Union League Movement in the Deep South by Michael W. Fitzgerald.