[Marxism] The US Civil War
MLause at cinci.rr.com
Mon Oct 10 15:02:06 MDT 2005
This is pretty much of fantasy on expansionism. I've ticked off the
reasons before....I guess I'll do it again.
First, the North had very little say in much of this. Much of the North
clearly opposed the admission of Texas and the War with Mexico, but it
didn't matter. The dominant party from the 1820s into the 1850s were
the Democrats and Democrats were dominated by the cotton South, which
was the engine of antebellum Manifest Destiny, rationalized most
explicitly in John C. Calhoun's fantasy of the "Golden Circle," the
"Caribbean empire for slavery."
Look at the map and see where the lines of western expansion were, north
and south, and the sectional difference on expansionism becomes evident.
On the Southern border, Texas was admitted to the Union in 1845; that
was the second state west from the Mississippi River--on the northern
border, Wisconsin would not be admitted until 1848 and that was still
east of the Mississippi river.
The emergence of sectionalized politics--the Liberty Party, the Free
Soilers, and the Republicans--further underscores the explicit hostility
of the insurgents to Manifest Destiny...with few notable exceptions like
William H. Seward.
The people who named the "Republican" Party also named it very
explicitly as "republican"--as opposed to "imperial." But what did they
More information about the Marxism