In antebellum days wasn't the South basically an economic colony of Great Britain, whose textile mills were dependent upon Southern cotton? People might wish to keep in mind that during the Civil War much of the British Establishment was eager to intervene on the Confederate side, especially after Lincoln was able to more or less successfully impose a blockade on Southern ports. Part of the genius of his Emancipation Proclamation was that by turning the war into a war to end slavery, he made intervention by the British and French on the Confederate side politically impossible.
Jim F. -- andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
C.Vann Woodward argued the same thing.
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> I don't want to get up on a Yankee high horse -
> we've got a lot to
> answer for too - but the South is different somehow,
> isn't it? Chris
> Kromm, who was on this list in its early days and is
> now director of
> the Institute for Southern Studies, was thinking for
> a while of doing
> a book for Verso on the South as an internal colony,
> with all the
> associated maldevelopment. There's something to
> that, no?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk