======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================


First off,  why isn't Matt speaking for himself.  Talk about putting words
in mouths...

Secondly,  Matt said "this is true even in their [the abolitionists]
ostensible role as provocateurs..."

OSTENSIBLE:  adj. & noun

A adjective:  1.  Able to be shown or exhibited; presentable.  Also, made or
intended to be shown.  2.  Declared, professed, expecially while concealing
the actual or genuine; pretended but not necessarily real. 3. That presents
itself to or is open to view.

Oxford English Dictionary.

It's at this point we ask Matt to take the microphone and tell us which
definition he was intending. I thought number 1 was the most likely
candidate.  But if he meant number 2, I don't think the abolitionists were
professing one thing in order to conceal something else, that something
being their actual goals.

Thirdly,  I don't quite agree that it was the issue of free soil in the
territories that drove the Civil war. The free soil "yeoman" farmers of the
Northwest territories were not blind expansionists, accumulating soil solely
for the purposes of accumulation.  The slaveholders on the other hand, while
not driven economically toward unimpeded expansion, saw their geographical
expansion into new territories as the counterweight to the North's expanding
population within the already existing territorial limits of the North.

No doubt railroads etc. wanted to expand, needed to expand, and no doubt
free soil farming created a greater need for the railroad's than the
plantation economy, but the country's leading railroad at the time of the
Civil War was the B&O and its management and ownership were hardly
tub-thumbers for the Union and against the Confederacy.  They were
neutralists or at best "hedged" supporters of the Union, who might never
have moved off their hedged position, if the Confederacy had not destroyed
so much of the railroad during their raids, and retreats, from the Union
forces.

Were the Northern bourgeoisie, the bigger bourgeoisie motivated by
abolitionism?  No, no more than the South was motivated by the fear of slave
revolts.  However, once the battle was engaged, the North's response to the
attack had to become abolitionist-- the destruction of the slaveholders'
power to secede meant the destruction of the slaveholders' property which
had to become the destruction of slaveholders' ability to own human beings
as property.

If that makes me insane... wait a minute, forget that.  Let's move on.

Regarding Matt's 2nd paragraph-- that certainly is an interesting thesis--
is there evidence to support the view that the free soil farmers saw slavery
as driving down the market price of their land?  Is their evidence of these
free soil farmers from Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Kansas, etc. demanding
the elimination, expulsion, exclusion of black farmers in those territories
and states?
----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Anthony Boynton" <[email protected]>

Now Artesian says Matt called the abolitionists provacateurs, when what he
was actually saying was almost the opposite ("This is true even in their
ostensible role as provocateurs,
pushing the slaveholders to an overreaction they could have easily
"rationally" avoided.")

Can't you guys read a little more carefully!

If you don't agree with Matt, argue with what he says, don't put words into
his mouth.

The key idea Matt advanced is that the driving force for westward expansion
in the north was "free soil" not abolitionism or opposition to slavery as
such. Artesian has in his saner moods said almost the same thing, and Mark
probably also agrees with this notion. The deeper implications of "free
soil" for the formation of social classes in the United States are hinted at
in Matt's second paragraph. Please take a sober moment to read it.



________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: [email protected]
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to