Slavery and the Civil War

[Clarksist]

Around where I live, I have the constant battle of having to argue against the Confederacy, and the Union (go figure). But something appalling has just flabbergasted me.

I heard a redneck use the term "class war" when defining the Confederate agenda of revolution. And I almost barfed.

It seems that the south has gone on a PR campaign and erased any notion of them fighting for slavery in the Civil War. They talk about states rights and the economy. But all it comes down to is the states right to legalize slavery, and a slave based economy.

I realize many say that the Civil War had nothing to do with slaves because it is really unexpected and they think its "cool". But calling it class war is appalling to me. In the end South Carolina seceded because Abraham Lincoln said he would free the slaves if elected.

Bleh.

Anyone have any information to discredit them, or discuss this facet of the civil war?

[Hampton]

The Civil War was not really about slavery. In the end that was one of the results but it was about wanting to preserve the Union, if he could have done that without freeing any slaves he would have. If the orginal intent and goal of the Civil War was announced to free the slaves I doubt the Union troops would have bothered, New York and other places in the North were just as racist as many places in the South except that they had no need for slaves because of the Industrial Revolution, something that never reached the South before the war. The black soldiers received lower pay and were in segregated regiments, something that doesn't sound like a great liberating army would do if you ask me.

[Clarksist]

In the end that was one of the results but it was about wanting to preserve the Union


I realize that, but the secession was the catalyst. And the secession was based on Lincoln wanting to completely free the slaves, which South Carolina said was against "states rights".


The black soldiers received lower pay and were in segregated regiments, something that doesn't sound like a great liberating army would do if you ask me.


I don't think anyone here would say that the Union was a unifying army. But the basis of the entire war was slavery.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 02:33 AM
The Civil War was not really about slavery. In the end that was one of the results but it was about wanting to preserve the Union, if he could have done that without freeing any slaves he would have. If the orginal intent and goal of the Civil War was announced to free the slaves I doubt the Union troops would have bothered, New York and other places in the North were just as racist as many places in the South except that they had no need for slaves because of the Industrial Revolution, something that never reached the South before the war. The black soldiers received lower pay and were in segregated regiments, something that doesn't sound like a great liberating army would do if you ask me.
At its heart, the Civil War was a conflict over economic systems -- one based on "free labor" and the other based on slave labor. All of the surface disagreements (states' rights, tariffs, etc.) have at their root the struggle between these two systems.

It is true that Lincoln and the other leaders of the U.S. (political and military) did not recognize the necessity of abolition and emancipation, and concentrated on preservation of the Union and Constitution. But that is not much more than the shortsightedness of bourgeois politicians. The fact is that the Union could not have been preserved as long as the two disparate economic systems co-existed in the same country. Marx was one of the first to write about this in his articles for the New York World (available online at the Marxists Internet Archive). The first Union military commander to recognize this was John Fremont, who provoked a national incident by issuing an order that all Africans held as slaves that made it to his battle line would be considered emancipated.

If the original stated intent of the Civil War had been emancipation, they may have actually had an easier time of it. Remember, emancipation was announced after about 18 months of the Union Army of the Potomac being pummeled from Bull Run to Antietam, with only minor skirmish victories and the stalemate at Antietam as "victories". By hesitating so long, Lincoln made emancipation look like a desperate act, and that undermined his efforts. It's true that there were areas like New York City and the "Butternut" region of the Midwest that viewed emancipation as a diversion (or a disaster), but these were offset by a number of factors:

First, the massive influx of German immigrants into the U.S. after the failure of the 1848 revolution was a bulwark of grassroots (as opposed to intellectual) abolitionism, due in large part to the fact that many of them were "Red '48ers" and Communists. There were a number of "Dutch" regiments that were led by German Communist exiles, and many of these saw emancipation as part of their duty.

Second, there did exist a mass pro-Union and anti-slavery movement in the South, based in and around the Appalachin Mountains (western Virginia and N. Carolina; northern Georgia; eastern Tennessee). There were, for example, over 10,000 members of the underground pro-Union/anti-slavery Order of the Heroes of America in N. Carolina alone. Pro-Union communities of "hill people", which were also often anti-slavery, regularly cut the lines of communication and supply for the Confederate military, slowing down and/or stopping them. In the western Confederate states, whole counties and parrishes rebelled against the Confederate state governments, keeping tax collectors, military recruiters, etc., out of their areas.

Third, if emancipation had been a goal from the beginning of the Civil War, it is likely that the Native American nations that made alliances with the Confederacy would have either stayed neutral or have sided with the Union (like most of them did after emancipation became a stated goal). One of the main reasons the Confederacy was able to survive its birth and early years was because of the agreements with the Native Americans, which allowed supplies and personnel to pass through their territories unmolested. Also, with emancipation as a stated goal from the beginning, many of these nations would not have sent battalions and regiments to fight alongside the Confederate armies.

Fourth, the declaration of emancipation was a deciding factor in dissuading the European Great Powers (Britain, France, Spain, Russia) from backing the Confederacy. However, for the first two years, these countries were helping to break the Union naval blockade. If emancipation had been a goal from the beginning, then the deprivations the Confederacy began to experience in 1864 would have happened three years earlier, and it is likely that the CSA would have collapsed fairly quickly. (Also, the British would not have allowed Canada to be used as a staging area for Confederate raids in the North.)

Fifth, and finally, declaring emancipation as a goal from the beginning would have allowed the Lincoln administration to arrest and detain prominent Copperheads like Valandigham, who was more or less untouchable until 1863, because he was agitating against emancipation, not for secession. Disrupting this counterrevolutionary movement would have also meant that places like New York City would not have had the agitators that fanned the flames during the so-called "Draft Riot" of 1863.

(Incidentally, the Industrial Revolution did make it into the South. Atlanta and Richmond were highly industrialized areas, as was New Orleans.)

Black soldiers receiving lower pay was short-lived. By 1865, pay equity was established. Segregated regiments, however, did continue to exist through 1948. The first integrated regiments of the U.S. Army since the First Revolution (1775-1781) saw action in Korea. At the same time, by the end of the Civil War, the rule barring Blacks from being commissioned officers was lifted. Many Black soldiers holding the rank of Sergeant Major at the end of the War were promoted to brevet Second Lieutenant and were awarded the commensurate pension through the Grand Army of the Republic (which was, in many places, an integrated organization).

Miles

[Martin Blank]

I've heard this argument before too. I've heard it from certain kinds of anarchists who read too much into Bakunin's support for the Confederacy. The argument is that the "farmers" (read: plantation owners) were fighting against the "banks and big business". It is, of course, a massive falsification of what was happening.

I would suggest reading Marx's writings on the Civil War. They should be able to give you enough information and "talking points" to deal with these idiots.

Miles

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 12:13 AM
I heard a redneck use the term "class war" when defining the Confederate agenda of revolution. And I almost barfed.

It was a class war, but he's mistaken about what class.

Rednecks of the time didn't want to secede; that's why West Virginia split off from Virginia to stay with the Union, and why Kentucky didn't secede, and East Tennessee and North Alabama didn't want to.

But the great advocates of states' rights didn't recognize states' right NOT to secede; the Confederacy declared "the South needs its entire territory" and started the Civil War. There's a book, "Marx and Engels On the United States", it's really useful for the historical facts to bring up in any argument over the Civil War.

The Confederacy passed a law that large slaveowners didn't have to fight; only poor whites were drafted. This led many to conclude that "it's a rich man's war and a poor man's fight."

The "Free State of Jones County" in Mississipppi and the "Free State of Winston" in Alabama were two of the rebellions by poor whites against the Confederacy. But Cullman, Alabama, which was part of Winston Country at the time, is one of the places in Alabama where you'd see the most Confederate flags today.

Why? I'd guess because the whole Confederate-flag thing is not really about the Civil War at all, it was the banner of the forces that smashed Radical Reconstruction, and, later, fought to resist the civil rights movement. Both times, proclaiming "states' rights" and denouncing federal interference. These radical, demagogic movements had a fair bit of success in recruiting people who see themselves as "the little guy" or the common people or even "the working man", lower middle-class especially but also working people.

[redstar2000]

It was indeed a "class war"...between an old ruling class and a new one.

If you look at American politics prior to 1860, it quickly becomes obvious that the slave-owning class dominated politics at the national level.

But the population growth was in the North; there was little point in a new immigrant moving to the South and attempting to compete with slave labor.

This was "ok" for a while; northern merchants were happy to oversee the trade in slave-produced commodities exported to Europe for manufactured goods. But some of those immigrants to the North were skilled laborers and even engineers...and they built small factories...and prospered. By the 1850s, there were enough of them to make their political influence felt...especially in railroads.

The efforts of the old plantation ruling class to use the Federal Government to maintain its "peculiar institution" were perceived as "arrogant" and even "despotic". Many whites in the North who were, indeed, "just as racist" as any slaveholder, nevertheless perceived the southern slave-holders to be planning a despotism over the entire country.

When the Republican Party was founded in 1856, it was nothing like it is today...but rather it was seen as an explicit alternative to rule by the slave-owning class. They did not pledge themselves to abolishing slavery -- though some of them probably had such intentions. But there was no doubt about their intentions of curbing the powers of the old slaveholding ruling class...permanently.

The Southern aristocracy found this totally unacceptable...and began a civil war to stop it. They saw themselves as "the real Americans" -- putting Washington and Jefferson on their postage stamps, for example.

They never fell victim to the illusion that they could conquer the North for slavery; but there's little doubt they would have imposed draconian peace terms on the North had they won...grabbing Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and probably Kansas as well.

We now know that the slaveholders had no chance to win; in both population and military productivity, the South was hopelessly weaker. Poor whites conscripted into southern armies deserted almost as fast as they were enrolled.

The Northern victory was a successful bourgeois revolution...and was never afterwards threatened by the remnants of the slaveholder class again.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vallegrande]

Henry David Thoreau noted that there was still slavery in the north after the civil war. He was truthful in that statement.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 06:02 PM
It was indeed a "class war"...between an old ruling class and a new one.

If you look at American politics prior to 1860, it quickly becomes obvious that the slave-owning class dominated politics at the national level.
Actually, that dominance was broken during & after the war for independance. The constitution established what amounted to a power sharing agreement between the two ruling classes. This worked for a while, but it wasn't stable in an expanding empire. Manifest destiny brought in new territories and fights over which ruling class would rule over the new states. The 20 years preceding the civil war are a period of increasing tension over slavery on a national level. The main cause of that rising tension is the conflict over which new states will be "free" and which will be slave-based. There were a number of attempts at compromise but they all failed and ultimately war broke out between the two ruling classes.

[Warren Peace]

Abe Lincoln was a good leader, but overall both sides were bad. The Confederacy was a fucking right-wing, racist oppressor. The Union was a merciless death machine that carried out "total war" against southern civilians. Then again, Southern civilians are usually rednecks, so killing them isn't as bad as killing people. :P

By the way, my favorite Abe Lincoln quote:

"Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

[codyvo]

I believe that in some senses, it was a class war. But the classes fought the wrong people. Like in any war the poor fought the rich man's war, in the south the poor white and even some black farmers fought against the poor white and black industrial workersof the north, while the aristocrats of both sides sipped tea and discussed borders. The confederate soldiers were not the slave owners they were the wage slaves and some actual slaves, and the northern soldiers were industrial workers, the two fought each other because they believed that the other was the enemy when in fact, they didn't have to look further then their own factories or cottonfields to find the true enemy.

I also, am one of few people that believes that in a way, the slaves had it better than minority and migrant workers in the north. The industrial workers had to pay for their own housing, food, clothes all with a wage that couldn't cover the cost to get to their job each day. The slaves of the south were given housing, food and clothes and usually were allowed their own church and such. This does not at all mean I think that either type of slavery is right, I would gladly fight against any slave owners. And I also do realize that their is no way to put a price on freedom and having basic human rights.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Morpheus
Actually, that dominance was broken during & after the war for independence. The constitution established what amounted to a power sharing agreement between the two ruling classes.

I must disagree.

If one looked only at the U.S. Senate during that period, an argument could be made for "dual power"...though I think that slave-holders and their small number of northern supporters had an actual, if small, majority up to 1860. It was probably a very rare southern politician that didn't own slaves.

But presidents and vice-presidents came mostly from the south and the border states and the same was true of Supreme Court justices. The Mexican war was fought for the benefit of Texan slave-holders and most of the volunteer soldiers were southerners.

There were some northern politicians that were nationally prominent -- mostly from New England, I think.

In other words, the northern merchant/capitalist class was permitted a good deal of regional autonomy...in the context of the slave-holding agenda. And, after the end of reconstruction, the remnants of the old southern aristocracy were likewise permitted some degree of regional autonomy...but now in the context of the capitalist agenda.

I think it was a real bourgeois revolution.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 08:17 PM
I also, am one of few people that believes that in a way, the slaves had it better than minority and migrant workers in the north.
Frederick Douglass - a former slave and abolitionist leader - used to respond to this by saying that his old job was open if anyone wanted it. For some reason he never got any takers. Are you volunteering?

[The Grapes of Wrath]

It seems that the south has gone on a PR campaign and erased any notion of them fighting for slavery in the Civil War. They talk about states rights and the economy. But all it comes down to is the states right to legalize slavery, and a slave based economy.

Well, I can tell you that in Minnesota and the other mid-western states I have lived in (Nebraska, Illinois, and Iowa) it is seen as being about slavery ... which on its own is discouraging given the numerous other factors which contributed. But overall, slavery is what almost everyone up here agree the war was truly about. The Old South can say what it wants, it's not fooling anybody about the war ... and the North had done a good job of ignoring the other factors and making them present to people. It goes both ways I'm afraid.


It was indeed a "class war"...between an old ruling class and a new one.

This I agree with greatly so, however, I do have reservations.

It seems that after the assassination of Lincoln, there was the power struggle between the Radical Republican Congress and the Southern Democrat President Johnson for control of the country (oh, the joys of separation of powers!).

This struggle led to, in essence, the allowance of the Old Southern Gentlemen to regain positions of power after a few "radical" years. During the 1870s, you saw the reemergence of the same people or else like-minded people into politics again ... the South again became a bastion of the Democrats (and would remain so well into the 1960s), an great force within the Senate again.

The whole point I am trying to make, is that this does seem like an effective bourgeois-ification of the South away from a simple and traditional landed aristocracy. However, at the same time, it becomes obvious that eventually the same people or same types of people were again the recievers of power after the war.

Bourgeois-ification may have succeeded economically, but politically it failed, and the old elements returned to power. Even if a new "bourgeois" man came to power through the election, it would sure serve him greatly to pronounce his support of the "lost cause" (oh, the joys of popular elections!).

In truth it touched all classes. The political and economic powers eventually came back but just the situation was different.


The Union was a merciless death machine that carried out "total war" against southern civilians. Then again, Southern civilians are usually rednecks, so killing them isn't as bad as killing people.

Hmm, I don't know about that. I'm sure there were occasional instances where individual civilians were killed by Union soldiers, but again, I don't think that an Ohio farmer wanted to kill a Mississippi shopkeeper walking down the street, and therefore I don't think he did. Few orders like that would have stood.

If you mean such campaigns as the "March to the Sea" and other acts they were there to destroy Southern infrastructure and impede the Southern armies which may be operating in those areas. Was it meant to hurt civilians? No doubt it was, but calling this a "killing machine" is a little harsh and unfounded.

TGOW

[codyvo]

Originally posted by Severian+Jul 9 2005, 07:58 AM--> (Severian @ Jul 9 2005, 07:58 AM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 08:17 PM
I also, am one of few people that believes that in a way, the slaves had it better than minority and migrant workers in the north.
Frederick Douglass - a former slave and abolitionist leader - used to respond to this by saying that his old job was open if anyone wanted it. For some reason he never got any takers. Are you volunteering? [/b]
Did you read the rest of my post? I explained that their is nothing better than freedom. I simply think that they were both being screwed not that the slave owners were good people.

[Vallegrande]

Frederick Douglass - a former slave and abolitionist leader - used to respond to this by saying that his old job was open if anyone wanted it.

Thats why the owners looked to the mexican immigrants for even cheaper wages, and it's been that way ever since the Great Migration.

[codyvo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:20 AM

Frederick Douglass - a former slave and abolitionist leader - used to respond to this by saying that his old job was open if anyone wanted it.

Thats why the owners looked to the mexican immigrants for even cheaper wages, and it's been that way ever since the Great Migration.
And, thats why, here in Florida slavery exists still very much. The migrant workers from then got in debt and had to pay it off but couldn't so their kids had to work on the farms and the cycles continued and as more migrants came, more cycles started. Their conditions are terrible just shacks, to live in and having to eat high-price, low-quality food and work at least 12 hours a day.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by TheGrapesOfWrath
If you mean such campaigns as the "March to the Sea" and other acts they were there to destroy Southern infrastructure and impede the Southern armies which may be operating in those areas. Was it meant to hurt civilians? No doubt it was, but calling this a "killing machine" is a little harsh and unfounded.

Well, I'm not so sure about that. It's rather difficult to come up with a "military excuse" for the burning of Atlanta, for example. There was a large armaments factory in Atlanta that was vital to the Confederacy -- demolishing that factory and destroying its machinery would have served legitimate military purposes.

But burning down the city?

What purpose did that serve?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 9 2005, 10:25 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 9 2005, 10:25 PM)
TheGrapesOfWrath
If you mean such campaigns as the "March to the Sea" and other acts they were there to destroy Southern infrastructure and impede the Southern armies which may be operating in those areas. Was it meant to hurt civilians? No doubt it was, but calling this a "killing machine" is a little harsh and unfounded.

Well, I'm not so sure about that. It's rather difficult to come up with a "military excuse" for the burning of Atlanta, for example. There was a large armaments factory in Atlanta that was vital to the Confederacy -- demolishing that factory and destroying its machinery would have served legitimate military purposes.

But burning down the city?

What purpose did that serve?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
The Union Army did NOT burn down Atlanta. Residents of the town, aided by paroled ex-Confederate soldiers, started the fire as they were looting it. Read McPherson's book on the Civil War, Battle Cry of Freedom.

Miles

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Miles
Read McPherson's book on the Civil War, Battle Cry of Freedom.

I will do so. Thank you for the recommendation.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by codyvo+Jul 9 2005, 01:23 PM--> (codyvo @ Jul 9 2005, 01:23 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:58 AM

[email protected] 8 2005, 08:17 PM
I also, am one of few people that believes that in a way, the slaves had it better than minority and migrant workers in the north.
Frederick Douglass - a former slave and abolitionist leader - used to respond to this by saying that his old job was open if anyone wanted it. For some reason he never got any takers. Are you volunteering?
Did you read the rest of my post? I explained that their is nothing better than freedom. I simply think that they were both being screwed not that the slave owners were good people. [/b]
Yes, I read it. I have little patience for the idea that wage slavery is worse than just plain slavery, however that idea is hedged, contitioned or limited.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Grapes of [email protected] 9 2005, 10:05 AM
The whole point I am trying to make, is that this does seem like an effective bourgeois-ification of the South away from a simple and traditional landed aristocracy. However, at the same time, it becomes obvious that eventually the same people or same types of people were again the recievers of power after the war.
Radical Reconstruction (starting after the congressional Republicans overrode Johnson) was part of the Second American Revolution (along with the Civil War.) There was a bloody counter-revolution in 1877, which the federal government decided to allow.

To what extent the counterrevolutionary, segregationist "Redeemer" governments represented the old plantation-owner class, and to what extent Northern or new capitalists, is debatable and I'm not fully up on that debate. In some cases old Confederate figures were basically candidates of the railroads. Certainly segregation and night-riding terror became instruments that served the capitalist class in dividing and repressing workers.

As far as the social relations resulting when the dust had settled, it certainly was "bourgeoisified" compared to slavery, but a long way from fully bourgeois-democratic. As in most places in the world, the bourgeois revolution didn't fully sweep away every kind of pre-capitalist oppression, and left unfinished business for the working class to take care of. Eliminating racist oppression will be one of the most, if not the most, bourgeois-democratic task of the workers' revolution in this country.


If you mean such campaigns as the "March to the Sea" and other acts they were there to destroy Southern infrastructure and impede the Southern armies which may be operating in those areas. Was it meant to hurt civilians? No doubt it was, but calling this a "killing machine" is a little harsh and unfounded.

Yeah...Sherman and others waged total war on the property of southern civilians. I haven't seen any allegations of massacres. The goal was to deny food to Confederate armies...as Sheridan made the Shenandoah Valley "such a waste that even a crow flying over would be compelled to carry his own rations." Atlanta was a rail nexus, that's the main reason Sherman marched on it. He burned his way across Georgia to destroy crops.

Whether this was really all that effective in helping defeat the Confederacy can be and has been debated, but after all these years, what's the point.

[bolshevik butcher]

It was about slavery, but it was i think a clash of the old agriculture based economy against the new free market, industrialsied economy.

[Warren Peace]

The goal was to deny food to Confederate armies

It also denied food to civilians. Not to mention shelter. Union soldiers killed livestock, wipes out farms, and burnt down houses.

Don't think I'm defending the south. Like I said earlier, both sides were bad, unless you're talking about Abe Lincoln.

[encephalon]

The civil war was not a war about slavery alone or even the large majority of it. It was indeed a class war. One must remember that complete abolition of slavery was not the original intent of the north, but instead the policy was one of containment of slavery to the states already using slavery. The reason was simple enough: the bourgeoisie wanted the newly "acquired" resources beyond the mississippi for capital gain, and if those territories became slave states their gains would be slashed.

The poor whites in the south didn't really have too much to say about the war, other than the fact that they supported it by a privileged position in society compared to the slaves; no matter how poor a white person was, they were always part of the ruling class/race, and the laws of the south reflected that.

On a side-note: I live in General Sherman's hometown (about a mile from his house, actually) and they treat him like a fucking hero here. Every time I drive down main street, I gaze upon a rather large mural of his face. It's lovely. I'll have to take pictures some time of that and his house, so you can recognize it easier to vandalize if you ever happen upon the area.

[encephalon]

Don't think I'm defending the south. Like I said earlier, both sides were bad, unless you're talking about Abe Lincoln.

Abe Lincoln was supreme capitalist. Don't let his anti-slavery position blind you for everything else he stood for.

[Warren Peace]

Abe Lincoln was supreme capitalist. Don't let his anti-slavery position blind you for everything else he stood for.

We don't know if Lincoln was a supreme capitalist, because the capitalist/communist conflict did not exist back then. Simon Bolivar could be called a supreme capitalist by the same logic, and he's an inspiration to communist revolutionaries across Latin America.

Lincoln is also Fidel Castro's hero. Lincoln stressed the importance of revolution and the right of the people to overthrow the government if they're not satisfied with it. Lincoln was very liberal; the Republican Party did not become reactionary until much later.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 11:36 AM
The civil war was not a war about slavery alone or even the large majority of it. It was indeed a class war. One must remember that complete abolition of slavery was not the original intent of the north, but instead the policy was one of containment of slavery to the states already using slavery. The reason was simple enough: the bourgeoisie wanted the newly "acquired" resources beyond the mississippi for capital gain, and if those territories became slave states their gains would be slashed.
What!? :o

You don't refute that the reason South Carolina seceeded was due to Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery across the States, so on the condition of him winning SC would secede. He won, and viola, you get a conflict. Then to preserve the Union, the North fought at the South. So, as you can see... slavery was the very CORE of it.

[encephalon]

We don't know if Lincoln was a supreme capitalist, because the capitalist/communist conflict did not exist back then. Simon Bolivar could be called a supreme capitalist by the same logic, and he's an inspiration to communist revolutionaries across Latin America.

We do in fact know Lincoln was the supreme capitalist, read his writings (other than political speeches). And politicians in the US were aware of Communists then, just not yet worried.


You don't refute that the reason South Carolina seceeded was due to Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery across the States, so on the condition of him winning SC would secede. He won, and viola, you get a conflict. Then to preserve the Union, the North fought at the South. So, as you can see... slavery was the very CORE of it.


Lincoln did not think it was a viable option when he entered office to eliminate slavery, although he was against slavery. His main intent was to stop the spread of slavery to the new territories--that was the catalyst for the war. They didn't want slavery in the territories because it would impede upon capitalist gains (who supported lincoln) and it would give the south more votes than the north, which would destroy the balance they'd had for the last 75 years. A vast number of people in the north were just as racist as those in the south. It was a matter of economic gain far more than a matter of human rights.

[Clarksist]

Lincoln did not think it was a viable option when he entered office to eliminate slavery, although he was against slavery. His main intent was to stop the spread of slavery to the new territories--that was the catalyst for the war. They didn't want slavery in the territories because it would impede upon capitalist gains (who supported lincoln) and it would give the south more votes than the north, which would destroy the balance they'd had for the last 75 years. A vast number of people in the north were just as racist as those in the south. It was a matter of economic gain far more than a matter of human rights.


Still, it was over SLAVERY that the war was fought. Above you have admitted that the debacle WAS over slavery. Perhaps not human rights, but the slave trade nonetheless.

When earlier you said:


The civil war was not a war about slavery alone or even the large majority of it.


But it was clearly the large majority of it. Without the slave trade, the basis of the Civil War isn't there.

[encephalon]

Still, it was over SLAVERY that the war was fought. Above you have admitted that the debacle WAS over slavery. Perhaps not human rights, but the slave trade nonetheless.

eh, I guess that depends.. from the look of it, it seemed that people were arguing that the civil war was fought over slavery regarding human rights rather than economic models, as they were denying it was a class war. The was the position I was disagreeing with. It was by and large a war of one class against another with two different economic systems and cultural institutions, which did include slavery--that much is true. However, it was primarily a war between industrialized capitalism and the Agricultural pseudo-feudalism that served as the foundation of the Americas.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 02:04 AM
We do in fact know Lincoln was the supreme capitalist, read his writings (other than political speeches). And politicians in the US were aware of Communists then, just not yet worried.

I would suggest reading Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, by Eric Foner. He talks a lot in there about the kind of capitalist philosophy Lincoln and other early Republicans subscribed to.

But, for the moment, here are Lincoln's words on the state of class relations in his day. I find them insightful and hauntingly prophetic.


In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism. It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

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. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class -- neither work for others nor have others working for them [communists call them the petty bourgeoisie -- HJM]. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families -- wives, sons, and daughters, -- work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class [not at that time, anyway -- HJM]. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.

--Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861. Emphasis mine.

You can rightly consider Lincoln a petty-bourgeois democrat, as were most of the Free Soil Republicans of the day. They formed the basis for the Radical (and Red) Republicanism of the Reconstruction Era. Lincoln's "support" for capitalism is consistently framed by this philosophical view, going back to his early days in Illinois. To attempt to pass of his views on capitalism as having anything to do with the way that modern politicians see this system is little more than a nod to the real historical revisionism that swirls around the Civil War -- neo-Confederate inspired revisionism.

Miles

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Jul 10 2005, 03:34 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Jul 10 2005, 03:34 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 10:25 PM

TheGrapesOfWrath
If you mean such campaigns as the "March to the Sea" and other acts they were there to destroy Southern infrastructure and impede the Southern armies which may be operating in those areas. Was it meant to hurt civilians? No doubt it was, but calling this a "killing machine" is a little harsh and unfounded.

Well, I'm not so sure about that. It's rather difficult to come up with a "military excuse" for the burning of Atlanta, for example. There was a large armaments factory in Atlanta that was vital to the Confederacy -- demolishing that factory and destroying its machinery would have served legitimate military purposes.

But burning down the city?

What purpose did that serve?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
The Union Army did NOT burn down Atlanta. Residents of the town, aided by paroled ex-Confederate soldiers, started the fire as they were looting it. Read McPherson's book on the Civil War, Battle Cry of Freedom.

Miles [/b]
I've heard the same thing from other sources, too.

More telling is the fact that as the Union army swept deeper south, the more the Confederate army melted away. You could easily infer that crimes against civilians would've had the effect of rallying the Confederates.