[lit-ideas] Re: Marxi's influence in America
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:03:32 -0800
Nice try. But I think you'll find out from any reputable historian that
States Rights were the reason the Civil War began. Think about it. South
Carolina wanted to secede. The North said no cessation. Seceding is a
Right of a State, SC said, and went ahead with it. The North said no, lots
of fighting, blood, dying, etc.
Think about the slogan: "to preserve the union." Why would they be talking
like that if what they really meant was "to abolish slavery?"
The Abolition Movement wanted to abolish slavery, but they had no power in
government. Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist. The war did not start
over slavery. During the war Lincoln decided to abolish slavery.
The issue that got them fighting was States Rights. Southern States thought
they had the right to secede. Northern States wanted to preserve the Union.
The decision to abolish slavery was a serendipitous side effect.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 6:36 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Marxi's influence in America
The Civil War was about slavery, but because slavery was the economic
system of the South. The South was an agricultural economy and slaves did
all the work. Without slaves, how would the South function economically?
Who would grow and harvest the cotton and the tobacco? The Civil War was
about states having the right to hold slaves.
> [Original Message]
> From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2/7/2006 7:50:25 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Marxi's influence in America
>
>
> --- Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > The issue of Slavery was not at the forefront in
> > regard to the Cessation
> > Movement that led to the Civil War.
>
>
> I don't know how you're dating this, Lawrence. The
> Missouri Compromise was certainly "about slavery".
>
> In fact I
> > probably first learned that
> > from a Marxist.
>
>
> Some Marxists do try to argue like that (the economy
> being all and all-determinant), but it's a bit
> old-fashioned now.
>
>
> > The North controlled the transportation and squeezed
> > the South in regard to
> > the shipping of goods to European markets.
>
>
> True, also true that a feudal South faced a capitalist
> North.
>
> I accept that numerous factors were involved here.
> But I am inclined to stand by
>
>
>
> LK> >The Civil War was begun over States Rights and
> not
> > Slavery.
> >
> JE> But the States Rights at issue were bound up with
> > slavery.
>
>
> (But it is a long time since I studied US history)
> >
> >
> >
> > Judy Evans, Cardiff
>
>
> Judy Evans, Cardiff
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new
Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
