Leftist opinions on the American Civil War

[The Man]

What is the overall general opinion on wether or not the Union/U.S. should have fought the CSA?

[Jose Gracchus]

Uhm, the Left generally considers the Civil War the most progressive thing the United States Federal Government ever did.

[S.Artesian]

Civil War is the 2nd closest the bourgeoisie in the US ever came to being progressive; the closest they came was post Civil War, when Congress took over Reconstruction from the executive branch...

And since it's the bourgeoisie we are dealing with, the apex of their "emancipatory" impulse is at the same time the failure of that impulse and its abandonment to the commercial relations of building railroads in the South, restarting cotton production, and generally disciplining labor, black and white, before who knows? you get a commune of workers taking power in a city like St. Louis.

Anyway, the Civil War is the triumphal emergence of the Northern, and Northwest, bourgeoisie in all their miserable glory, incompetence, treachery, venality, pragamatism, and necessity.

Wouldhave been nice if the North fought harder, sooner; if Lincoln had gotten rid of the South-sympathetic generals; if emancipation had been declared sooner; if African-Americans had been armed sooner; and if the North had fought even harder even later-- suppressing the reconstitution of the plantation class, requiring more than just a loyalty oath before allowing secessionists to establish political, and commercial, rights and property; if the Union League Associations of the emancipated slaves had been armed by and protected by the Union army.

Would have been nice of the "stars and bars" were prohibited from every being displayed again; if all Confederate officers were permanently stripped of property, but hey then we're talking, if not socialism, something along the lines of a sans-culotte revolution, a black sans-culotte revolution, and we know where the white Northern bourgeoisie lined up on that possibility.

[CAleftist]

Other: the emergence of industrial capitalism at the expense of, and with the destruction of chattel slavery.

[Geiseric]

I think the Civil war was just for keeping the union togather, however the emancipation proclamation was the progressive thing.

[Das war einmal]

I have been informed that the abolishment of slavery was just a moral excuse for the North and that only 6 % of the Southern population owned slaves. That this war was in fact more about the taxes the Southern nations had to pay. But I'm not an expert on this.

[Tablo]

The Emancipation Proclamation was the good and progressive aspect of what happened. The war itself was not progressive at all and the Union went into the war with no intention of freeing slaves. The point was to preserve the Union. The war did start over differing opinions on the issue of slavery, though indirectly. Bourgeois wars are not waged for freedom or for the good of the people. Bourgeois wars are waged for control and profit.

[HEAD ICE]

I have been informed that the abolishment of slavery was just a moral excuse for the North and that only 6 % of the Southern population owned slaves. That this war was in fact more about the taxes the Southern nations had to pay. But I'm not an expert on this.

The war was very much about slavery. Neo-confederates today like to say it was about taxation and "states rights" but none of that is true.

This guy wrote some good stuff on the Civil War as it was happening. He also dispelled Lost Cause nonsense before it even started. This is also a good, brief history on the causes of the war.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm

[S.Artesian]

The Emancipation Proclamation was the good and progressive aspect of what happened. The war itself was not progressive at all and the Union went into the war with no intention of freeing slaves. The point was to preserve the Union. The war did start over differing opinions on the issue of slavery, though indirectly. Bourgeois wars are not waged for freedom or for the good of the people. Bourgeois wars are waged for control and profit.

Slavery was always the issue. Everything the South did from 1819 on was to preserve and expand slavery and limit the expansion of the "free" North.

The Missouri Compromise was about preserving and expanding slavery.

The Nullification and Secession crisis of 1832 was about protecting slavery from the expanding power of the industrial north.

The Mexican-American War was about preserving and expanding slavery, and it was a war taken by the South, for the South, with the South controlling the government and the military.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was about preserving and expanding slavery. And it was this act, leading to "Bleeding Kansas"-- the rehearsal for the Civil War, that fractured the Northern from the Southern Democrats, destroyed the Whigs and led to the creation of the Republican Party-- an organization founded on the principle that "political compromise with slavery was no longer possible."

The South initiated the Civil War to protect slavery. That the North responded to "preserve" the Union does not change the fact that the Union could not be preserved without abolishing slavery.

Doesn't mean bourgeois wars aren't wage for control and profit, it just means that in this case, war and profit coincided with the abolition of slavery.

[pastradamus]

The Emancipation Proclamation was the good and progressive aspect of what happened. The war itself was not progressive at all and the Union went into the war with no intention of freeing slaves. The point was to preserve the Union. The war did start over differing opinions on the issue of slavery, though indirectly. Bourgeois wars are not waged for freedom or for the good of the people. Bourgeois wars are waged for control and profit.

100% spot-on! The above statement is exactly what the likes of Marx said on the matter and in my opinion it is a complete truth on the underlying reasons for the war.

Excellent post Tsukae!

[S.Artesian]

100% spot-on! The above statement is exactly what the likes of Marx said on the matter and in my opinion it is a complete truth on the underlying reasons for the war.

Excellent post Tsukae!

That is certainly not what Marx wrote in his articles on the Civil War.

[Das war einmal]

The Emancipation Proclamation was the good and progressive aspect of what happened. The war itself was not progressive at all and the Union went into the war with no intention of freeing slaves. The point was to preserve the Union. The war did start over differing opinions on the issue of slavery, though indirectly. Bourgeois wars are not waged for freedom or for the good of the people. Bourgeois wars are waged for control and profit.

Yes this was a bourgeois war. The bourgeois didn't end slavery at all, they still enforce it in other countries. The colonization of the US early 1900 of Cuba and the Philippines (in the last case they still occupy the country) is proof of this.

The abolishment of slavery was the only good thing that might have came out of the Civil War, but came at a terrible price and as far as I know was never the main reason for the war. If that was the only intention the Northern states would probably made a deal to buy out all the slaves. The same happened in the Netherlands. I think thats appalling too, cause here former slave owners gain huge amounts of money in compensation while it should have gone to the victims, but that would still be a better solution.

[Das war einmal]

The war was very much about slavery. Neo-confederates today like to say it was about taxation and "states rights" but none of that is true.

This guy wrote some good stuff on the Civil War as it was happening. He also dispelled Lost Cause nonsense before it even started. This is also a good, brief history on the causes of the war.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm

Thank you, I've read small parts of this analysis in Dutch, but couldn't find the whole text

[gorillafuck]

The war itself was not progressive at all and the Union went into the war with no intention of freeing slaves.It didn't go to war for that reason, but it did have that reason. It did legitimately want to abolish the slave system.

The civil war was a mix of progressive and not progressive, for the reasons S. Artesian laid out.

It would have been more progressive it the whole south had a John Brown/Nat Turner style rebellion.

[S.Artesian]

Yes this was a bourgeois war. The bourgeois didn't end slavery at all, they still enforce it in other countries. The colonization of the US early 1900 of Cuba and the Philippines (in the last case they still occupy the country) is proof of this.

The abolishment of slavery was the only good thing that might have came out of the Civil War, but came at a terrible price and as far as I know was never the main reason for the war. If that was the only intention the Northern states would probably made a deal to buy out all the slaves. The same happened in the Netherlands. I think thats appalling too, cause here former slave owners gain huge amounts of money in compensation while it should have gone to the victims, but that would still be a better solution.


1. Slavery was abolished in Cuba in 1883, well before the Spanish-American War. The US did not restore or impose slavery upon Cuba after the war.

And slavery was never widespread in the Philippines-- there was no commercial basis for the slave trade in the Philippines as the islands themselves functioned as a warehouse, a transfer point, i.e the "Galleon Trade" than as a focus of production.

2. The domination of the US in the Philippines is much less than it used to be, and is not based on military occupation, with both Subic Bay and Clark Air Force base having been closed for years.

3. The North didn't go to war to abolish slavery, but the South DID go to war to preserve, protect, and expand slavery. To do that, the South need to dissolve the Union. To oppose that dissolution, the North had to abolish slavery. If you follow the course of the Civil War, it is evident that abolition of slavery grows in importance after 1862 and becomes the critical and defining purpose after 1863.

[Tablo]

Slavery was always the issue. Everything the South did from 1819 on was to preserve and expand slavery and limit the expansion of the "free" North.
The issue was not directly slavery, the issue was states rights to make their own decisions. This all is a continuation of political division between the republican-democrats and the Federalists, only the opposing parties were now under different names. The issue that pushed the south to the point of wanting secession was slavery though. It is fair to say the issue was primarily slavery, but not directly. The war wasn't directly about slavery until the emancipation proclamation.


The Missouri Compromise was about preserving and expanding slavery.

The Nullification and Secession crisis of 1832 was about protecting slavery from the expanding power of the industrial north.

The Mexican-American War was about preserving and expanding slavery, and it was a war taken by the South, for the South, with the South controlling the government and the military.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was about preserving and expanding slavery. And it was this act, leading to "Bleeding Kansas"-- the rehearsal for the Civil War, that fractured the Northern from the Southern Democrats, destroyed the Whigs and led to the creation of the Republican Party-- an organization founded on the principle that "political compromise with slavery was no longer possible."
Okay, I agree with all of this.


The South initiated the Civil War to protect slavery. That the North responded to "preserve" the Union does not change the fact that the Union could not be preserved without abolishing slavery.
The Confederacy did not really initiate the war. They did move to take Fort Sumter, but that was because it was in the Confederacy. They had no desire to go to war as they knew they were at a disadvantage with a smaller population and little production capacity.


Doesn't mean bourgeois wars aren't wage for control and profit, it just means that in this case, war and profit coincided with the abolition of slavery.
Many in the North wanted an end to slavery, but that was not the reason Lincoln decided to go to war. The reason he did this was to preserve the Union. The reason the Confederacy was involved was to establish and maintain sovereignty.

[Tablo]

It didn't go to war for that reason, but it did have that reason. It did legitimately want to abolish the slave system.

The civil war was a mix of progressive and not progressive.

It would have been more progressive it the whole south had a John Brown/Nat Turner style rebellion.
Indeed.

Also, I would like to add that I cannot vote on the poll as there is not the third option of opposing both and supporting slave revolt.

[gorillafuck]

The issue was not directly slavery, the issue was states rights to make their own decisions. This all is a continuation of political division between the republican-democrats and the Federalists, only the opposing parties were now under different names. The issue that pushed the south to the point of wanting secession was slavery though. It is fair to say the issue was primarily slavery, but not directly.It was directly about slavery, the idea that it was a states rights issue is southern conservative propaganda. The South, when they seceded and throughout the war even before the emancipation proclamation, were organized around the issue of slavery, it was their cause. And it was the only "states right" that mattered to them in the civil war.

Hell, even the Daily Show (which has basically become a more hip news source for centrism) did a segment debunking the idea that slavery was not the primary cause. I'll see if I can find it.

[S.Artesian]

The issue was not directly slavery, the issue was states rights to make their own decisions. This all is a continuation of political division between the republican-democrats and the Federalists, only the opposing parties were now under different names. The issue that pushed the south to the point of wanting secession was slavery though. It is fair to say the issue was primarily slavery, but not directly. The war wasn't directly about slavery until the emancipation proclamation.

That's just ideological cover. The issue was always slavery. The issue was slavery in the drafting of the Constitution. Slavery is why there are 2 houses in the US legislature and every state is guaranteed 2 senators. Slavery is why there wasn't direct election of the President, but election of electors based on a state's congressional representation. Slavery is why slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person to bulk up the South's representation in the HOR.

This is not the split between the Federalists and the Rep/Dems as the economics had radically changed. Prior to 1815, you get the Northern intellectuals and political leaders opining that the South's treatment of slaves is no worse than the North's treatment of "wage-slaves."

Soon after, that falls away and is replaced by increasing abolitionist sentiment and demands for free soil and free labor.

The old parties, built upon the veneer covering this fundamental economic conflict, fade away and die. The Rep/Dems, the Whigs die and are replaced by the slaveholder dominated Democrats and the new Republican Party which was formed in direct response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the terrorist attacks the slaveholders in Missouri launched against the free soil farmers of Kansas.

The war absolutely was about slavery. Whether the North recognized it as such has nothing to do with the objective material basis of the war. Woodrow Wilson/FDR pushed the US into WW 1/WW2 as wars to save democracy. Does that mean the war wasn't really about capitalist overproduction, and declining profits?


The Confederacy did not really initiate the war. They did move to take Fort Sumter, but that was because it was in the Confederacy. They had no desire to go to war as they knew they were at a disadvantage with a smaller population and little production capacity.
Where did you come up with that? The South was preparing for secession and war from even before Lincoln was nominated much less victorious in the election. The North was the side unprepared for war as the South EDIT: had previously controlled the presidency, the Senate, and the US military.

The South didn't "reluctantly" attack Fort Sumter. It deliberately attacked Fort Sumter hoping thereby to be awarded "official" "national" status in Europe so that it might receive aid from Britain and France.


Many in the North wanted an end to slavery, but that was not the reason Lincoln decided to go to war. The reason he did this was to preserve the Union. The reason the Confederacy was involved was to establish and maintain sovereignty.You're simply repeating your earlier unsubstantiated assertions. Lincoln worked mightily to conciliate the border states, to appeal to Union sentiment in the South to prevent the war. He did not lead initiate an attack on Richmond. He did not impose martial law on the South to prevent secession.

However, when the South did attack, Lincoln did recognize that this was a fight to the death, a fight for survival-- he realized that more clearly than most and more clearly than most of his generals.

The "sovereignty" of the Confederacy had only one purpose-- that was to preserve slavery. Civil wars are not initiated over abstract notions of sovereignty but over real issues of property and production. That's what historical materialism is based upon.

[AthenaAwakened]

the civil war was about slavery because the people who were fighting in and commenting on the war said it was about slavery.

do a goggle search on the editorials of the day in papers north and south.

look-up the constitutions of the confederate states (I think the word slavery is mentioned something like 15 times or more in the SC constitution alone)

and if that is not enough, and you still think the civil war was just about states rights, then explain jim crow.

[southernmissfan]

the civil war was about slavery because the people who were fighting in and commenting on the war said it was about slavery.

do a goggle search on the editorials of the day in papers north and south.

look-up the constitutions of the confederate states (I think the word slavery is mentioned something like 15 times or more in the SC constitution alone)

and if that is not enough, and you still think the civil war was just about states rights, then explain jim crow.

You're right. But it is important to recognize it was a conflict about competing economic systems--one of slave-based agriculture and one of young industry. The debates over tariffs, states' rights, etc., are all inseparably linked with this. The main debate of the antebellum period was clearly expansion of slavery though. Virtually nobody was actually calling for an abolition of slavery where it already existed, including Lincoln himself (who by the way, was certainly of the more moderate wing of the Republican party). So while slavery essentially defines the Civil War, it certainly wasn't for "moralistic" reasons, as sometimes portrayed.

[Kiev Communard]

Excellent post, S. Artesian. To that, I must only add that the Northern bourgeoisie was led to the conflict with planters of the American South due to the fact that their production was intrinsically linked to the British demands for cotton, and the further development of independent capitalist economy of the U.S. as the great power would have been impossible, if the economy of the South had continued to be closely linked, and subordinate to that of Great Britain. Many forget that Great Britain and Second French Empire supported the Confederacy up to 1863 at least, until it became clear that the CSA lost the war, and that the British capitalists had had a vested interest in the continuation of British market-oriented cotton production in the South.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Would the tariffs have even been an issue without slavery? I mean, the fact that they were so reliant on exports, and that those exports were so profitable, was due to the agricultural use of slaves.

What's the most interesting is the false consciousness of the south where they convinced the millions of white non-slave owners that the civil war was in their interests, and after the civil war the use of these people and their ancestors to keep blacks down by the ruling classes of the south.

[PhoenixAsh]

A lot (although that is a very subjective term) rich burgeoisie in the North owned slaves in the south.

::

As far as I can remember...it has been a while...Marx said the south was a slogan and not a nation and argued the South actually instigated the war by its attack on fort Sumpter and argued the war was between freedom and slavery against the imperialist ambition of the Confederacy. Ablotion was absolutely necessary to be able to add to the forces of the new order against the old order and to make the war turn into a revolutionary war.

...maybe I have misunderstood or misremembered what he said...but I think this was the general gist...

Marx was a contemporary...which means his analysis and opinions should be regarded historically in that context. Given as he very much relied on news paper reports and personal correspondence for the information necessary for his conclusions and opinions and may not have held all the facts or correct and truthful representation of facts as we now know them. Obviously we now know journalims during the civil war was by and large worthless propaganda and fiction...with regards to factual representation of events....and therefore not a source you can base your opinion on.

That does not mean Marxis´s analysis were wrong or should be dismissed. But I also do not think they were based on all the information to be taken as absolutes.

[southernmissfan]

Excellent post, S. Artesian. To that, I must only add that the Northern bourgeoisie was led to the conflict with planters of the American South due to the fact that their production was intrinsically linked to the British demands for cotton, and the further development of independent capitalist economy of the U.S. as the great power would have been impossible, if the economy of the South had continued to be closely linked, and subordinate to that of Great Britain. Many forget that Great Britain and Second French Empire supported the Confederacy up to 1863 at least, until it became clear that the CSA lost the war, and that the British capitalists had had a vested interest in the continuation of British market-oriented cotton production in the South.

Well to add to that, the Confederacy was convinced that "King Cotton" would force Britain and France to at least recognize them as an independent nation state, if not officially intervene (though recognition as much as meant war). Unfortunately for them, "cotton diplomacy" failed due to British surpluses and then alternative sources from Egypt and India. With the economic angle of cotton out of the picture largely, neither Britain or France were willing to take that kind of risk.

[S.Artesian]

Would the tariffs have even been an issue without slavery? I mean, the fact that they were so reliant on exports, and that those exports were so profitable, was due to the agricultural use of slaves.

What's the most interesting is the false consciousness of the south where they convinced the millions of white non-slave owners that the civil war was in their interests, and after the civil war the use of these people and their ancestors to keep blacks down by the ruling classes of the south.

Tariffs were designed to protect emerging US industrial capital. The antipathy of the South to the tariffs was based on its fear of emerging industry and a less developed fear of retaliation from other countries on its cotton.

The Nullification and Secession crisis of 1832, when that most despicable of despicable slave states, South Carolina, decided it would nullify the tariffs enacted by Congress against industrial good imported through its ports, and then claimed it would secede if the federal government attempted to interfere was really about protecting the slave system from the growth of Northern industry.

Yes, the South convinced many-- but not all. There was significant Union sentiment in upstate Alabama, in Arkansas, Georgia and even Louisiana. Many of the poorer white farmers in Alabama refused to serve in the Confederate Army, and took to living in the forests to avoid impressment. In additions, there were pro-Union guerrilla bands operating in the South.

Even some plantation owners in Louisiana resisted the Confederacy and openly opposed secession at the convention called to approve joining the Confederacy.

[S.Artesian]

Well to add to that, the Confederacy was convinced that "King Cotton" would force Britain and France to at least recognize them as an independent nation state, if not officially intervene (though recognition as much as meant war). Unfortunately for them, "cotton diplomacy" failed due to British surpluses and then alternative sources from Egypt and India. With the economic angle of cotton out of the picture largely, neither Britain or France were willing to take that kind of risk.

Actually, the British ruling class wavered, and the waver was directly a result of the British working class's pro-union, anti-slavery response. Textile workers endured unemployment and reduced income when the Northern blockade took hold, but their anti-slavery resolve was pretty firm, and the British ruling class didn't relish a confrontation with its own workers over supporting a slaveholders' rebellion.

France wasn't about to take overt action on behalf of the South without Britain. However, it's "adventure" in Mexico, imposing the chicken-empire of Louis Napoleon was designed, in part, to provide support to the South, and safe haven for the slaveholders, if necessary.

[southernmissfan]

Actually, the British ruling class wavered, and the waver was directly a result of the British working class's pro-union, anti-slavery response. Textile workers endured unemployment and reduced income when the Northern blockade took hold, but their anti-slavery resolve was pretty firm, and the British ruling class didn't relish a confrontation with its own workers over supporting a slaveholders' rebellion.

France wasn't about to take overt action on behalf of the South without Britain. However, it's "adventure" in Mexico, imposing the chicken-empire of Louis Napoleon was designed, in part, to provide support to the South, and safe haven for the slaveholders, if necessary.

Agreed. The liability of slavery amongst the working class of Britain in particular was part of the "risk" I alluded to (though should have expanded upon!). Certainly the British ruling class was sympathetic to the CSA but once it became clear that the economic advantage of the South's cotton couldn't match up to the political liability, it was off the table.

Certainly. France, from what I can tell, was sort of the junior player in the diplomatic games. The real prize was Britain. I agree about France's actions in Mexico. Though I'm sure in large part it was simply a matter of taking advantage of the instability to the north. They saw their chance and went for it.

[syndicat]

by rights all the wealth...land, big houses, bank accounts, etc...of the planter class should have been given to the slaves as compensation for generations of vicious exploitation and rape. but under Andrew Johnson orders went out to the generals to not allow seizure of the land of the planter class by the slaves. Some estates were confiscated under a war time measure that allowed taking of the plantations of people "in rebellion." these were to be distributed to the freed men under the program created by the Radical Republicans. but Andrew Johnson, who as a virulent racist and southerner, sabotaged this program, and much of the land was sold to capitalist investors.

[S.Artesian]

by rights all the wealth...land, big houses, bank accounts, etc...of the planter class should have been given to the slaves as compensation for generations of vicious exploitation and rape. but under Andrew Johnson orders went out to the generals to not allow seizure of the land of the planter class by the slaves. Some estates were confiscated under a war time measure that allowed taking of the plantations of people "in rebellion." these were to be distributed to the freed men under the program created by the Radical Republicans. but Andrew Johnson, who as a virulent racist and southerner, sabotaged this program, and much of the land was sold to capitalist investors.

It goes way beyond Johnson. Even during the peak of Radical Reconstruction, confiscation and distribution of land to former slaves was never regarded, much less undertaken seriously.

And as the election of 1872 drew closer, the Grant administration was, to say the least, inconsistent in its protection of the Freedmen Bureaus, the former slaves; in its requirements for the constitution of state governments in the former Confederacy.

And after the election of 1872? Even worse-- in the main. The trend from 1871 onward is pretty clear, culminating in the terrorist war waged by the former Confederates in Louisiana against Reconstructionists, the former slaves.

[Ismail]

Two good reads on Marx and Engels' views on the ACW:

http://mccaine.org/2010/03/26/marx-engels-and-the-american-civil-war-i/
http://mccaine.org/2010/03/27/marx-engels-and-the-american-civil-war-ii/

[S.Artesian]

But you know what kind of freaks me out? That Marx appears to have paid so little attention to what happened after the ACW; he doesn't appear to write a word about Reconstruction; he doesn't write a thing about the period called the "long deflation" starting around 1873 when the capital began its transformation from the "formal" domination of labor to the real "domination"--

And neither he nor Engels seem to recognize the tremendous historical transformation surrounding the ACW as a historical transformation of capitalism. We have the Meijii Restoration in Japan, Bismarck's unification of Germany and the establishment of Juncker capitalism, the first long struggle in Cuba [ the "Ten Years" war] etc etc etc. The expansion of railways in Argentina and the transformation of that economy.

Sometimes I just stop and shake my head and wonder "What were those guys thinking?"

Is it possible that the flow of information was so spotty, it was difficult to actually see the contours of the time?

[southernmissfan]

Yeah I know what you are saying. I wrote a brief paper exploring the idea that the Freedmen's Bureau was, despite being an official government agency, often represented an early example of the new black working class organizing.