American Civil War
MLause at cinci.rr.com
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