Pelham (post #238): "I have no idea where you got that.
Reading problems? "
I was responding to your remark about "the 1860 episode", which I took you to mean the actions of Democrats to destroy the United States.
I disagree if you think Marx supported those.
Pelham: "Marx is all yours.
Marx supported Lincoln.
Marx was a featured columnist in the main Whig/GOP newspaper for a dozen years."
It looks like Marx wrote weekly columns for Horace Greeley's New York Tribune from 1852 until 1862.
Marx's contact was Tribune editor Charles Dana and when Dana left in 1868 to start the New York Sun, Marx began again to contribute.
I take that to mean Dana was the more "progressive" and so unhappy or forced out by Republican Greeley.
Here is a listing of Marx's articles.
So far as I can tell, only one, this one, from October 1, 1861, discusses anything American and it deals with Civil War politics in England:
- "Mrs. Beecher Stowe’s letter to Lord Shaftesbury, whatever its intrinsic merit may be, has done a great deal of good, by forcing the anti-Northern organs of the London press to speak out and lay before the general public the ostensible reasons for their hostile tone against the North, and their ill-concealed sympathies with the South, which looks rather strange on the part of people affecting an utter horror of Slavery.
Their first and main grievance is that the present American war is “not one for the abolition of Slavery,” and that, therefore, the high-minded Britisher, used to undertake wars of his own, and interest himself in other people’s wars only on the basis of “broad humanitarian principles,” cannot be expected to feel any sympathy with his Northern cousins."
- "Now, in the first instance, the premiss must be conceded.
The war has not been undertaken with a view to put down Slavery, and the United States authorities themselves have taken the greatest pains to protest against any such idea.
But then, it ought to be remembered that it was not the North, but the South, which undertook this war; the former acting only on the defense.
If it be true that the North, after long hesitations, and an exhibition of forbearance unknown in the annals of European history, drew at last the sword, not for crushing Slavery, but for saving the Union, the South, on its part, inaugurated the war by loudly proclaiming “the peculiar institution” as the only and main end of the rebellion.
It confessed to fight for the liberty of enslaving other people, a liberty which, despite the Northern protests, it asserted to be put in danger by the victory of the Republican party and the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidential chair.
The Confederate Congress boasted that its new-fangled constitution, as distinguished from the Constitution of the Washingtons, Jeffersons, and Adams’s, had recognized for the first time Slavery as a thing good in itself, a bulwark of civilization, and a divine institution.
If the North professed to fight but for the Union, the South gloried in rebellion for the supremacy of Slavery.
If Anti-Slavery and idealistic England felt not attracted by the profession of the North, how came it to pass that it was not violently repulsed by the cynical confessions of the South?"
- "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution."
- "The proletarians have nothing to lose, but their chains. .
- "Workers of the world unite!"