Marxist/class-based analysis of the US civil war?

[Black Dagger]

Need some help finding marxist or class-based analysis of the the US civil war, can anyone put me out to some web or book sources? Thank you! :)

[Tickin' TimebOmb John]

Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States is bound to have something about class origins of the US civil war from a marxist perspective, although i havent read it myself.

i know charles and mary beard have written on the topic stressing economic factors although im pretty sure there not marxists.

[chimx]

marx and engels wrote on the american civil war a bunch, none of which i have read. :)

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/186...l-war/index.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm)

[amanondeathrow]

Charles Sellers' The Market Revolution : Jacksonian America, 1815-1846 is good for precivil war backround

[amanondeathrow]

There is also a People's History of the Civil War, which I have not read but looks interesting.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:57 PM
marx and engels wrote on the american civil war a bunch, none of which i have read. :)

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/186...l-war/index.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm)
The Marx-Engels anthology on the U.S. Civil War is good for the theoretical side of it. Also, I would highly recommend James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. I have a fairly good grounding in the history of the Civil War, and you're welcome to ask any question you may have.

Miles

[Reuben]

there is a book i havent read but which is recommended called Capitalism and Slavery. presumably the northern capitalist wanted access to the labour power (and possibly the consumption power) of black slaves

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:04 AM
The Marx-Engels anthology on the U.S. Civil War is good for the theoretical side of it
Not just for the theory. I find some of Marx's (and Engel's) journalistic works to be good reads in themselves.

[Black Dagger]

Thanks very much to everyone who suggested books and gave links! If anyone else knows of other sources, please post em! Thanks everybody :)

[LoneRed]

i would also recomend searching marxists.org, there should be other marxists who wrote on the civil war

[TheSpoon]

Zinn is a good bet.

But ultimately it was Lincoln who stopped slavery, the only U.S president I could ever respect.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 08:36 PM
But ultimately it was Lincoln who stopped slavery, the only U.S president I could ever respect.
I tend to think that the 180,000 African men in the Union Army had a hand in it, too.

miles

[EusebioScrib]

Lincoln stopping slavery? He played a puppet role, but why would you respect him anyway? He didn't stop slavery because it was moral or he wanted equality between races.

The struggle between north and south was really a class struggle of Feudalism/Slavery vs Capitalism. The northern capitalist class wanted to free the slaves to increase the industrial reserve army so they could keep wages low and hours long. Yay! Not exactly a short-term benefit for our class. But t'all was necessary for the advancement of the means of production (something that will come in hand with our class's struggle).

*off topic*
Say, does anyone else do Civil War reenacting? I'm with the 3rd Arkansas "Arkansas Travellers."
I'm also heavily involved in Roman reenactment and hopefully soon to get involved in Soviet WWII.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 09:34 PM
*off topic*
Say, does anyone else do Civil War reenacting? I'm with the 3rd Arkansas "Arkansas Travellers."
I've done CW re-enacting before, when I was living in Greensboro. I was in the 3rd N.C. Mounted Infantry (Union).

Miles

[Raubleaux]

I know a lot about the Civil War -- it is one of the greatest episodes in American history! The comrade who suggested James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom is right on-point. It is by far the best history of the war. I don't know if McPherson is a socialist, but he is definitely some kind of leftist. At any rate, his anlysis is spot-on.

You might want to check out these two pages I made on Amazon:

Learn about the Civil War and its root causes (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/guides/guide-display/-/3ET1Z1YO2N02G/002-6576676-5250402)

Understand the impact of the Civil War and Reconstruction (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/guides/guide-display/-/5T9UDGOBDBSM/ref=1/002-6576676-5250402)


Originally posted by EusebioScrib+--> (EusebioScrib)Lincoln stopping slavery? He played a puppet role, but why would you respect him anyway? He didn't stop slavery because it was moral or he wanted equality between races.[/b]

Lincoln played a lot more than a puppet role. He was very much opposed to slavery for his entire life. Of course he was not a racial egalitarian by today's standards, but nobody was back then. Not even John Brown. Lincoln went against the advice of his cabinet when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and his moral opposition to slavery played no small part in his choice to issue it. He had other reasons, of course, that were more self-interested. He wanted to keep Europe out of the war, add blacks as a Union ally and thus weaken the Confederates, etc.

Marx had nice things to say about Lincoln:


Karl Marx
We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class.

Source (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm)

Marx's words were well-received by Lincoln.


The struggle between north and south was really a class struggle of Feudalism/Slavery vs Capitalism.

This is absolutely true. The Civil War was a capitalist revolution -- not long after the Reconstruction, American capitalism had consolidated and entered its highest stage: imperialism.

However, your post seems to have a cynical tone to it. I do not view the Civil War in such a negative light. As you say, the bourgeois capitalist revolution is often a prerequisite for the overthrow of feudalism. The Civil War liberated millions of slaves. It was one of the most radical expansions of liberty in human history!

There are many moving stories from this time. Such at this one, from a member of the 1st U.S. Colored Troops:


While out on a foraging expedition we captured Mr. Clayton, a noted reb in this part of the country . . . on the day before we captured several colored women that belonged to Mr. C., who had given them a most unmerciful whipping previous to their departure.

On the arrival of Mr. C. in camp, the commanding officer determined to let the women have their revenge, and ordered Mr. C. to be tied to a tree in front of headquarters . . .

After giving him some fifteen or twenty well-directed strokes, the ladies, one after another, came up and gave him a like number, to remind him that they were no longer his, but safely housed in Abraham's bosom, and under the protection of the Star Spangled Banner, and guarded by their own patriotic, though once down-trodden race.

Oh, that I had the tongue to express my feelings while standing upon the banks of the James river, on the soil of Virginia, the mother state of slavery, as a witness of such a sudden reverse!

The day is clear, the fields of grain are beautiful and the birds are singing sweet melodious songs, while poor Mr. C. is crying to his servants for mercy.

Source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3082t.html)

Remember, it was around this time that America had gone through a sort of cultural renaissance: Whitman's poetry, the work of the transcendentalists like Emerson and Thoreau, the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin and the growth of the abolitionist movment, the beginnnigs of the feminist movement (which was closely linked to the movement for the abolition of slavery). It was a time when great ideals gripped the American people. Check out McPherson's other book, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War. It underscores the importance of consciousness in struggle -- and the Civil War was very much an ideological war, on both sides.

[Raubleaux]

Zinn and Beard do not have anything particularly interesting to say about the Civil War. Actually, reading Zinn is what started me on the path to being a leftist when I was in junior high school, but the more I have learned about history, the more Zinn has fallen out of favor with me. Some of his views are really uninformed and stupid, especially about World War II.

The book Capitalism and Slavery is by Eric Williams -- I don't think it has much to do with the American Civil War. I believe it is more about the growth of the slave trade and the parallel growth of capitalism, and the question of whether racism caused slavery or slavery caused racism (it comes down in favor of the latter view). It is a good book nevertheless, though I've only read parts. It is considered a classic.

[praxis1966]

*sigh* So many misconceptions about Lincoln. The man was only about as abolitionist as a politician can be for or against any one thing. In other words, his abolitionism wasn't worth a feather or a fig. While he was on the campaign trail the first time around, within the space of a week he more or less said he had no intention of abolishing slavery, and later described it as morally repugnant in so many words. In other words, he gave different messages to different audiences, which was entirely possible since telecommunications wouldn't become a reality for another 60 or 70 years.

Ultimately, Lincoln was nothing more than the consumate unionist and the speeches of his early career showed it. One only has to look as far as his now legendary debates with Stephen Douglas in order to find that out. From Infoplease:


Accepting the nomination (in a speech delivered at Springfield on June 16), Lincoln gave a ringing declaration in support of the Union: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” The campaign that followed was impressive. Lincoln challenged Douglas to a series of debates (seven were held), in which he delivered masterful addresses for the Union and for the democratic idea. He was not an abolitionist, but he regarded slavery as an injustice and an evil, and uncompromisingly opposed its extension.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0859297.html

Further, if you'd read Zinn, for instance, you be aware that that even the Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more than a preemptory move. At the time, it was in the wind that the Confederacy was considering promising freedom to slaves who served in the Confederate Army, a recruiting tactic born of desperation which dated back to the Revolutionary War. Once Lincoln heard of this, he issued the Proclamation, which incidentally freed exactly zero slaves. It wasn't until the 13th, 14th, and 15th Ammendments (known collectively as the Reconstruction Acts) were passed that involuntary servitude was made illegal under the law. These were, by the way, passed a full two years after Lincloln's assasination so one can't even credit him with ending slavery.

As a matter of fact, were it not for Lincoln's assasination, the Reconstruction Acts may never have been passed. Reconstruction turned harsh and vitriolic (which was probably necessary to really change things) and prosecuted with much more vigor and much less conciliation than would have probably taken place under Lincoln.

Summation? No idol or hero is really worth the time and effort it takes to gloss over someone's mistakes that gravenly. Oh, yeah, and read Zinn's A People's History of the United States.

[Raubleaux]

Praxis:

Most leftists start out with an opinion of Abraham Lincoln not unlike your own. They believe Lincoln was a racist, and only reluctantly came around to supporting the abolition of slavery. However, those leftists who have actually studied this period in history in detail seem to usually come away with a great deal more respect for Lincoln. Take for example Eric Foner and James McPherson -- who, unlike Zinn, actually know something about this period of America's history. Their respect for Lincoln grew the more they learned.


The man was only about as abolitionist as a politician can be for or against any one thing. In other words, his abolitionism wasn't worth a feather or a fig. While he was on the campaign trail the first time around, within the space of a week he more or less said he had no intention of abolishing slavery, and later described it as morally repugnant in so many words.

Praxis, if Lincoln was so pro-slavery, then why did his election prompt seven Southern states to secede from the Union? If you actually read his famous "house divided" speech, you would know that he said that the Republicans wanted to ''arrest the further spread'' of slavery and thus place the institution ''in course of ultimate extinction.''

The Constitution explicitly allowed for slavery in the South, which is why the Republicans focused on stopping its spread into the territories -- it was the most practical way to oppose slavery, both from a legal and a political standpoint.


Further, if you'd read Zinn, for instance, you be aware that that even the Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more than a preemptory move. At the time, it was in the wind that the Confederacy was considering promising freedom to slaves who served in the Confederate Army, a recruiting tactic born of desperation which dated back to the Revolutionary War. Once Lincoln heard of this, he issued the Proclamation,

This is just false. There were three factors that weighed in on Lincoln's decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation: his opposition to slavery, keeping Europe out fo the war, and strengthening the Union hand in the war (both by depriving the South of its labor force and increasing Union morale by turning the war into a fight for freedom).


which incidentally freed exactly zero slaves.

Again, false. After the Emancipation Proclamation, freedom marched south with the Union Army, which became an army of liberation. Karl Marx disagrees with your assessment of the EP -- he said in a letter to Engels something like, "never has such a profound and dramatic turn of events transpired so quickly."


It wasn't until the 13th, 14th, and 15th Ammendments (known collectively as the Reconstruction Acts) were passed that involuntary servitude was made illegal under the law. These were, by the way, passed a full two years after Lincloln's assasination so one can't even credit him with ending slavery.

Once again, false. Not only was Lincoln alive when the 13th Amendment passed, but he was instrumental in pushing it through Congress. And the tenets of the 14th amendment were the basis of his re-election campaign in 1864. At any rate, by the time the 13th Amendment was fully ratified, there were hardly any slaves even left in the country thanks to the Union army, the Emancipation Proclamation (and hunreds of thousands of slaves who fled to Union lines).


As a matter of fact, were it not for Lincoln's assasination, the Reconstruction Acts may never have been passed. Reconstruction turned harsh and vitriolic (which was probably necessary to really change things) and prosecuted with much more vigor and much less conciliation than would have probably taken place under Lincoln.

This is really false. As a result of Lincoln's assassination, the worst president America has ever had came to power: Andrew Johnson. Johnson was a racist southern cracker who took an extremely conciliatory stance toward the South. "Radical Reconstruction" didn't happen until after the Republicans nearly impeached Johnson, but by then it was already too late.

After the South lost the Civil War, there were many indications that the South was ready to accept drastic changes. But Johnson's stance put the fighting spirit back into them; they realized that while they may have lost the war, they could win Reconstruction, which they did.

There is no way in hell Lincoln would've been as conciliatory as Johnson. In fact, in the last speech he ever gave, he talked about giving voting rights to some blacks in the South. One person in attendance didn't think his attitude was conciliatory: ''That means nigger citizenship,'' said John Wilkes Booth. ''Now by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.''


Summation? No idol or hero is really worth the time and effort it takes to gloss over someone's mistakes that gravenly. Oh, yeah, and read Zinn's A People's History of the United States

By all means, read Howard Zinn. But if you want to really learn something about the Civil War era read James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom and Eric Foner's Reconstruction.

[praxis1966]

Praxis, if Lincoln was so pro-slavery, then why did his election prompt seven Southern states to secede from the Union? If you actually read his famous "house divided" speech, you would know that he said that the Republicans wanted to ''arrest the further spread'' of slavery and thus place the institution ''in course of ultimate extinction.''

I like your inability to see nuance. You're kind of like a right winger that way. I didn't say he was pro-slavery, I said he wasn't an abolitionist. Basically what you're doing is what pro-lifers do when the call people who are pro-choice "pro-abortion". In other words, just because Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist didn't automatically make him pro-slavery. There is a difference, perhaps without distinction, but it's there. By the way, don't put words in my mouth. I never once said Lincoln was pro-slavery.


This is just false. There were three factors that weighed in on Lincoln's decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation: his opposition to slavery, keeping Europe out fo the war, and strengthening the Union hand in the war (both by depriving the South of its labor force and increasing Union morale by turning the war into a fight for freedom).

Again, Lincoln wasn't opposed to slavery in the first place, at least not professionally. I'd wager that he assumed, at least in part, that since the North and South were already at war, no further harm could come from emancipation. Secondly, I've never read anything (and what I've read is relatively substantial) on the period in question that ever said anything about Europe entering the war. The last part I could probably agree with, however.


Again, false. After the Emancipation Proclamation, freedom marched south with the Union Army, which became an army of liberation. Karl Marx disagrees with your assessment of the EP -- he said in a letter to Engels something like, "never has such a profound and dramatic turn of events transpired so quickly."

Except that it took another two years to liberate the slaves. Both you and Marx overestimate the de facto effect of the EP.


Once again, false. Not only was Lincoln alive when the 13th Amendment passed, but he was instrumental in pushing it through Congress. And the tenets of the 14th amendment were the basis of his re-election campaign in 1864. At any rate, by the time the 13th Amendment was fully ratified, there were hardly any slaves even left in the country thanks to the Union army, the Emancipation Proclamation (and hunreds of thousands of slaves who fled to Union lines).

Admittedly, I may have had my timeline screwed up, but there were no hundreds of thousands that fled to Union lines after the EP. Most of them knew nothing of it until the Union army marched up to their respective plantation's doorstep. If anything, the slaves that escaped to the North were the same slow trickle as before the war began. The point is the EP functionally carried no weight since at the time, the South was still capable of holding slaves via fiat just as they had always done.

As far as your assesment of Reconstruction under Johnson, of course he would have been more conciliatory. However, Reconstruction didn't begin with Johnson and it didn't end with him either. I dare say that Grant's furthering of Reconstruction was, well, analogous to his scorched earth campaign. If I'm not mistaken, it was under him that former Confederate soldiers and officials were stripped of their right to vote and hold office, something I would have supported yet I doubt Lincoln ever would have considered.

[EwokUtopia]

Slavery hasnt stopped, it has just changed. Chattel slavery is an absurdly outdated idea, it is far easier to simply pay your workers min wage (perhaps less if they are not legally allowed to be in the country) than it is to feed them, clothe them, make sure they dont escape, make sure they are broken, et cetera. Wage slavery is slavery, although the Slavery in the first world is much different than the true slavery in the developing world. We are the consumer class, its a scary thought actually, being cattle that is fed fat to support the ruling class with our endless want. That too is a form of slavery, the product of years of brainwash. Who needs chains when you have propaganda from birth everywhere? Every time i see a commercial, i really get scared, it is the chain and ball of the consumer class, and most dont even realize the full implications of its deeply psychological nature, IE you see people dancing around having completly irrelevant fun in a commercial for a certain product, the logo is allways there, when you see the logo, subconsciously, memories of fun, laughs and good times will be rekindled in your mind, and you are more likely to buy the product. If that isnt slavery, then I'm the Queen of France. I hate when people say slavery ended with the civil war. Slavery is very much alive in many different forms.

[Raubleaux]

I didn't say he was pro-slavery, I said he wasn't an abolitionist.

But he was an abolitionist. He was vehemently opposed to slavery, and made innumerable statements to that effect. He disliked the radical abolitionists like Garrison and Brown, but that doesn't mean he wasn't one himself.


Again, Lincoln wasn't opposed to slavery in the first place, at least not professionally.

What does it mean to be "professionally" opposed to slavery? If it means making a career out of opposing slavery, of course he wasn't. He was a politician. But as a politician he was absolutely opposed to slavery.


I'd wager that he assumed, at least in part, that since the North and South were already at war, no further harm could come from emancipation.

There is no need to "wager" anything. We have the record of correspondence between Lincoln and his cabinet members, as well as copious other sources of documentation that show exactly what his thinking was. Lincoln presented the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet as an irreversible decision -- many strongly objected to it. Public opinion in the North was still extremely racist. Many of Lincoln's cabinet members feared there would be a political backlash (and there was -- see the New York Draft Riots). But Lincoln chose to go ahead with it anyway, although he did take Seward's suggestion to wait until a Union victory.


Secondly, I've never read anything (and what I've read is relatively substantial) on the period in question that ever said anything about Europe entering the war.

Then your reading must not be as substantial as you say. The international machinations of the Confederacy played very heavily on Lincoln's mind. If England or France recognized th Confederacy (and before Antietam, they were very close to doing so), it would have been an enormous blow to the Union. This is why McPherson argues that it was Antietam that was the turning point of the war, rather than Gettysburg. It kept Europe from recognizing the Confederacy and gave Lincoln the victory he needed so that he could issue the Emancipation Proclamation (he didn't want to do it until the Union had a victory to avoid the impression that it was an act of desperation).


Except that it took another two years to liberate the slaves. Both you and Marx overestimate the de facto effect of the EP.

How? By the time the Reconstruction Acts passed there were hardly any slaves! Practically all of them had been freed by the Union army. The Emancipation Proclamation was by far the most radical act in American history. It amounted to Lincoln forcibly expropriating trillions of dollars (in today's money) worth of property from the slave-owning aristocrats, with no payment at all. The Emancipation Proclamation makes Fidel Castro's confiscation of U.S. corporate property look like a conservative act!


Admittedly, I may have had my timeline screwed up, but there were no hundreds of thousands that fled to Union lines after the EP. Most of them knew nothing of it until the Union army marched up to their respective plantation's doorstep. If anything, the slaves that escaped to the North were the same slow trickle as before the war began.

This is very, very false. After the war started slaves immediately started to flood into Union lines. In fact, this is the basis of what is called the "self-emancipation thesis" in Civil War historiography (which argues that the slaves themselves deserve the most credit for bringing about emancipation, rather than the people who are usually credited like Lincoln or the Republicans or the abolitionists).

The fact that so many slaves were fleeing to the Union army is what forced Congress to pass the Confiscation Acts, which allowed the Union army to use escaped slave as laborers, and later as the first black fighting regiments of the war (known as "contraband" regiments).

It was also because of these numerous runaway slaves that we have the phrase "40 acres and a mule," which came from General Sherman's Field Order #15. By the time Sherman finished his "march to the sea," he had thousands of blacks tagging along with his army, and didn't really know what to do with them. So he issued order #15, which parceled out the coastal territories (in 40 acre plots) to the blacks. And since the army had an excess of mules, they gave those to the blacks too.

The coming of the Union army has deep meaning in the religious tradition of black America.


The point is the EP functionally carried no weight since at the time, the South was still capable of holding slaves via fiat just as they had always done.

No they couldn't. It was extremely hard for slave-owners to hold on to their slaves after the war. The threat of runaways was always there, but after the war started it increased greatly. Many of them tried to move their slaves to the Southern interior, but this rarely worked. Often times the slaves had no supervision because their owners were off fighting the war.


I dare say that Grant's furthering of Reconstruction was, well, analogous to his scorched earth campaign.

The "scorched earth campaign" refers to Sherman's march through the South, not Grant.


If I'm not mistaken, it was under him that former Confederate soldiers and officials were stripped of their right to vote and hold office, something I would have supported yet I doubt Lincoln ever would have considered.

The decision to deprive former Confederates of the vote was done at the state level (but the state officials were able to do this because of the Radical Republicans in Congress).

[Raubleaux]

EwokUtopia, I agree with everything you said, but I assume that people understand I am talking about chattel slavery. I think we all agree that getting rid of that was a good thing, right?

[EwokUtopia]

Ahh, but chattel slavery isnt completly abolished. Even today, there are millions of people who live in what can only be described as utter slavery. Oh sure, technically its illegal, but it is the source of many consumer products (particularly Chocolate) which is the source of the wealth of the few. On a side note, I once heard that although the rate of slavery (in the chattel sense) is lower than ever from a percentage of the population standpoint, never in human history have so many people lived in sheer unpaid servitude. between 2-5 million are the current estimates, but its also possible that many are completely uncounted. The civil war stoped slavery in America, but the industrialization process that was occuring at that time also made it easier to exploit the slaves abroad for a relativly cheap price, and less moral qualms in their backyards. Thats about the way of things in the last century or so.

[Raubleaux]

I agree with you completely EwokUtopia. In fact, chattel slavery has not exactly been wiped out in America. I believe the government's "trafficking in persons" estimates show that hundreds of thousands (if not over a million) "slaves" are living in America today -- typically illegal immigrants who are used as exploitable manual laborers, or females who are used as sex slaves.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:08 AM
I agree with you completely EwokUtopia. In fact, chattel slavery has not exactly been wiped out in America. I believe the government's "trafficking in persons" estimates show that hundreds of thousands (if not over a million) "slaves" are living in America today -- typically illegal immigrants who are used as exploitable manual laborers, or females who are used as sex slaves.
Let's not forget prison labor, which is also a very distinct form of chattel slavery in modern capitalism.

Miles