On The Anniversary Of The Start Of
The American Civil War-Karl Marx’s View
Frank Jackman comment:
I am always amazed when I run into
some younger leftists, or even older radicals who may have not read much Marx
and Engels, and find that they are surprised, very surprised to see that Marx
and Engels were avid partisans of the Abraham Lincoln-led Union side in the
American Civil War. In the age of advanced imperialism, of which the United
States is currently the prime example, and villain, we are almost always
negative about capitalism’s role in world politics. And are always harping on
the need to overthrow the system in order to bring forth a new socialist reconstruction
of society. Thus one could be excused for forgetting that at earlier points in
history capitalism played a progressive role. A role that Marx, Engels, Lenin,
Trotsky and other leading Marxists, if not applauded, then at least understood
represented human progress. Of course, one does not expect everyone to be a
historical materialist and therefore know that in the Marxist scheme of things
both the struggle to bring America under a unitary state that would create a
national capitalist market by virtue of a Union victory and the historically
more important struggle to abolish slavery that turned out to a necessary
outcome of that Union struggle were progressive in our eyes. Read on.
*********
Articles by Karl Marx in Die Presse
1862
The English Press and the Fall of
New Orleans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: MECW Volume 19, p. 199;
Written: on May 16, 1862;
First published: in Die Presse, May
20, 1862.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
London, May 16
On the arrival of the first rumours
of the fall of New Orleans, The Times, The Herald, The Standard, The Morning
Post, The Daily Telegraph, and other English “sympathisers” with the Southern
“nigger-drivers” proved strategically, tactically, philologically,
exegetically, politically, morally and fortificationally that the rumour was
one of the “canards” which Reuter, Havas, Wolff and their understrappers so often
let fly. The natural means of defence of New Orleans, it was said, had been
augmented not only by newly constructed forts, but by submarine infernal
machines of every sort and ironclad gunboats. Then there was the Spartan
character of the citizens of New Orleans and their deadly hatred of Lincoln’s
mercenaries. Finally, was it not at New Orleans that England suffered the
defeat that brought her second war against the United States (1812 to 1814) to
an ignominious end? Consequently, there was no reason to doubt that New Orleans
would immortalise itself as a second Saragossa or a Moscow of the “South”.
Besides, it harboured 15,000 bales of cotton, with which it could so easily
have kindled an inextinguishable fire to destroy itself, quite apart from the
fact that in 1814 the duly damped cotton bales proved more indestructible by
cannon fire than the earthworks of Sevastopol. It was therefore as clear as
daylight that the fall of New Orleans was a case of the familiar Yankee
bragging.
When the first rumours were
confirmed two days later by steamers arriving from New York, the bulk of the
English Ispro-slavery press persisted in its scepticism. The Evening Standard,
especially, was so positive in its unbelief that in the same number it
published a first leader which proved the Crescent City’s impregnability in
black and white, whilst its latest news” announced the impregnable city’s fall
in large type. The Times, however, which has always held discretion for the
better part of valour, veered round. It still doubted, but, at the same time,
it made ready for every eventuality, since New Orleans was a city of “rowdies”
and not of heroes. On this occasion, The Times was right. New Orleans is a
settlement of the dregs of the French bohème, in the true sense of the word, a
French convict colony -and never, with the changes of time, has it belied its
origin. Only, The Times came Post festum to this pretty widespread realisation.
Finally, however, the fait accompli
struck even the blindest Thomas. What was to be done? The English pro-slavery
press now proves that the fall of New Orleans means a gain for the Confederates
and a defeat for the Federals.
The fall of New Orleans allowed
General Lovell to reinforce Beauregard’s army with his troops; Beauregard was
all the more in need of reinforcements, since 160,000 men (surely an
exaggeration!) were said to have been concentrated on his front by Halleck and,
on the other hand, General Mitchel had cut Beauregard’s communications with the
East by breaking the railway connection between Memphis and Chattanooga, that
is, with Richmond, Charleston and Savannah. After his communications had been
cut (which we indicated as a necessary strategical move long before the battle
of Corinth), Beauregard had no longer any railway connections from Corinth,
save those with Mobile and New Orleans. After New Orleans had fallen and he was
only left with the single railway to Mobile to rely on, he naturally could no
longer procure the necessary provisions for his troops. He therefore fell back
on Tupelo and, in the estimation of the English p ro-slavery press, his
provisioning capacity has, of course, been increased by the entry of Lovell’s
troops!
On the other hand, the same oracles
remark, the yellow fever will take a heavy toll of the Federals in New Orleans
and, finally, if the city itself is no Moscow, is not its mayor a a Brutus?
Only read (cf. New York”) his melodramatically valorous epistle to Commodore
Farragut, “Brave words, Sir, brave words!” But hard words break no bones.
The press organs of the Southern
slaveholders, however, do not construe the fall of New Orleans so
optimistically as their English comforters. This will be seen from the
following extracts:
The Richmond Dispatch says:
‘What has become of the ironclad
gunboats, the Mississippi and the Louisiana, from which we expected the
salvation of the Crescent City? In respect of their effect on the foe, these
ships might just as well have been ships of glass. It is useless do deny that
the fall of New Orleans is a heavy blow. The Confederate government is thereby
cut off from West Louisiana, Texas, Missouri and Arkansas.”
The Norfolk Day Book observes:
“This is the most serious reverse
since the beginning of the war. It augurs privations and want for all classes
of society and, what is worse, it threatens our army supplies.”
The Atlantic Intelligencer laments:
“We expected that the outcome would
be different. The approach of the enemy was no surprise attack; it has long
been foreseen, and we had been promised that, should he even pass by Fort
Jackson, fearful artillery, contrivances would force him to withdraw or ensure
his annihilation. In all this, we have deceived ourselves, as on every occasion
when the defences were supposed to guarantee the safety of a place or town. It
appears that modern inventions have destroyed the defensive capacity of
fortification. Ironclad gunboats destroy them or sail past then)
unceremoniously. Memphis, we fear, will share the fate of New Orleans. Would it
not be folly to deceive ourselves with hope?”
Finally, the Petersburg Express:
“The capture of New Orleans by the Federals is the most extraordinary and fateful event of the whole war.”
No comments:
Post a Comment