Leftist opinions on the American Civil War

[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-e...n-civil-war-i/
http://mccaine.org/2010/03/27/marx-e...-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.