American Civil War

Mark Lause MLause at
Wed Jul 9 16:57:13 MDT 2003


I don't see any questions in what you've written...just assertions that
are rather hard to dispute, aside from a few minor points and
formulations.  My impression was that "dms" is trying to refine a
description of Britain's role in all this.

To repeat what I wrote earlier:  (1) Ideologically, the secessionists
frequently and publicly claimed the mantle of Toryism and often
explicitly recanted the natural rights idea of 1776 because, they said,
it had led--and would lead--to all sorts of radicalism.  (2) The
secessionists thought they'd either get away with destroying the United
States without a war--or that they'd win the war--because of British
dependence on Southern cotton. On the basis of this, I think it is clear
that the Confederacy essentially applied for readmission to the British
sphere of influence.

Perhaps "dms" objects because the British didn't take the
bait--notwithstanding all sorts of duplicity--but began to look
elsewhere for cotton.

Is that the question being raised by "dms"?

If so, I'd suggest that he stop quoting Marx--a poor approach to this
problem.  Marx wasn't here and didn't have access to lots of
information--and the benefit of hindsight--that should give us insights
he and Engels didn't have.

If it happens again, I suggest that we break out the incense and holy


More information about the Marxism mailing list