> > That logic would only be justified if the imperial war brought actual
>>progress (cf. Marx's argument about the British rule in India). But I do
>>not think that this is the case of the United States.
-I'm not sure what the context of this argument is. But I do know that Marx -viewed the American Civil War as "the one great historical event" of his -lifetime, and had nothing but contempt for those who believed, like Wojtek -(I believe?) here, that it was an imperial war fought by the North over the -tariff or for other narrow commercial reasons.
Here, here. There is a good argument that the "progressive view" on the Civil War as serving northern corporate interests was part of a racist justification by working class-oriented intellectuals to justify alliances with the racist southern Democrats.
In fact, the Radical Republicans represented a whole range of economic views, including folks like Congressman Benjamin Butler who favored the eight-hour day, greenback currency, and was often derided as Marx's ally-- Butlerism was often used as a substitute for Marxism. Also Senator Benjamin Wade, who linked the fight against black inequality to the inequality between wage workers and capital.
There were other Radical Republicans like Charles Sumner who fit the stereotype of pro-corporate, anti-slavery Republicans, but they were hardly dominant. In fact, it was the Liberal Republicans, who opposed Grant and supported Greeley in 1872, who most fit the model of pro-corporate laissez-faire elitists.
The real economic ideological shift of the Republicans came only with the crushing of the southeren Republicans and the expansion of the Democrats again after 1874 and 1876-- no doubt winning power from Republicans in working class districts in many case, which helped shift the ideological balance within the Republican Party to the more corporate elements.
So I return to the fact that all reasonable evidence shows that the Radical Republicans were deeply commited to ending slavery and racial equality. Their positions were progressive not by standards of the day but by modern standards. They were foresquare in most cases for integrating even controversial institutions like public schools.
[Okay, I'm passionate on this issue, since I'm writing a policy brief right now on the "second founding" of the Constitution and the heroic views of the Radical Republicans, which deserve far more respect than the slave-holding "Founding Fathers" of 1789.]
-- Nathan Newman