think of others, the others think of you.
 |
| Karl MarxHulton-Deutsch Collection/Corbis, via Getty Image |
One of the links I am dropping in this week is an essay on Karl Marx, Abraham Lincoln and the relationship between the two, by the British historian Robin Blackburn. I knew Marx had covered the American Civil War as a journalist and that Marx and Lincoln were in correspondence at points. But the essay is a great read on the significance of that connection, and I highly recommend it. |
|
|
|
After reading it, I was motivated to seek out some their correspondence as well as Marx's work on the war. Which led me to Blackburn's "An Unfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln." It's a collection of writings and letters, with an introduction by the historian. The introduction could be a volume in its own right, but for now I want to focus on a primary source, an essay by Marx titled "The North American Civil War." |
|
|
|
First, a little context. Published in October 1861, Marx wrote this while working in London as a journalist. He had been the London correspondent for the New York Daily Tribune, but began writing for the Viennese paper Die Presse after the Tribune stopped paying him for his work. At Die Presse he was expected to cover the conflict in America, and much of his work on the subject was first published in the paper. |
|
|
|
What's striking about "The North American Civil War" is how contemporary it reads. Marx immediately cuts through rhetoric meant to downplay or obscure the cause of the conflict and justify support for the Confederacy, which was somewhat popular in the English press. The war, writes Marx" is not a "tariff war" and it's not an attempt to "preserve the Union by force." It is, instead, about "the slavery question." |
|
|
|
The question as to the principle underlying the American Civil War is answered by the battle slogan with which the South broke the peace. Stephens, the Vice President of the Southern Confederacy, declared in the secession Congress that what fundamentally distinguished the constitution recently hatched in Montgomery from that of Washington and Jefferson was that slavery was now recognized for the first time as an institution good in itself and as the foundation of the whole political edifice, whereas the revolutionary fathers, men encumbered by the prejudices of the eighteenth century, had treated slavery as an evil imported from England and to be eradicated in the course of time. Another Southern matador, Mr. Spratt, declared, "For us it is a question of the foundation of a great slave republic." |
|
|
|
This doesn't just cut through the euphemism and sophistry of Marx's contemporaries, it cuts through the euphemism and sophistry of the present, where people still argue for a non-racial reading of the Confederacy, where they still try to argue that the failed nation had a cause beyond human bondage. |
|
|
|
Marx continues with a discussion of the ways in which slavery came to dominate the politics of the United States, and how slaveholders had come to have a controlling interest in domestic and foreign policy. |
|
|
|
As in domestic policy, so also in the foreign policy of the United States the interests of the slaveholders served as the guiding star. Buchanan had in fact purchased the presidential office by issuing the Ostend Manifesto, 4 in which the acquisition of Cuba, whether by payment or by force of arms, is proclaimed as the great political task of the nation. Under his administration northern Mexico had already been divided up among American land speculators, who were impatiently awaiting the signal to fall upon Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Sonora. The incessant piratical filibusters against the Central American states were no less carried out under the direction of the White House in Washington. |
|
|
|
"Armed propaganda on behalf of slavery was the avowed aim of national policy," writes Marx. "The Union had in fact become the slave of the 300,000 slaveholders who rule the South." Something had to give, and when an anti-slavery Republican was elected president in 1860, this shocking turn of events "could not help but lead to open struggle between North and South." |
|
|
|
With that said, it's important to be clear about what Marx was arguing. He was not arguing that the war was a fight to end slavery. The Union, at least at the beginning, was not for emancipation. "The slave question," for Marx, was whether "the twenty million free Americans of the North should subordinate themselves any longer to an oligarchy of slaveholders" and "whether the vast territories of the Republic should become the nurseries of free states of slavery." |
|
|
|
It's fascinating stuff! But, you might wonder, why is it relevant? The answer, I think, is straightforward. |
|
|
|
Calls to rethink the memorialization of controversial historical figures are often met with a call to understand the context of the period. We can't impose our own morality on the past, goes the argument. Our forbearers understood these things in different ways than we do, and it's unfair to judge them for it. |
|
|
|
The problem is this flattens the scope of opinion and belief. Millions of Americans, at the time of the Civil War, thought the Confederacy was immoral (including roughly 4 million enslaved black Southerners). Many people with platforms and influence, like Marx, had an accurate diagnosis of the what and the why. That these are obscure voices is a testament to what Du Bois called the "propaganda of history" and the ways ideology can shape narrative for countless people across time. |
|
|
|
It's all something to think about as we live through, and try to understand, our own troubled times. |
|
|
|
One of my more niche intellectual interests is the insanely racist demagogues that dominated politics in the Deep South from the 1890s into the 1960s. I wrote about one of them, Ben "Pitchfork" Tillman of South Carolina, in the context of President Trump's decision to turn his racism up to 11 in an effort to energize his base. |
|
|
|
But I'm not interested in dwelling on the particulars of the president's prejudice. What I'm struck by is how Trump is explicitly operating in the old American political tradition of race baiting, which used to go by another name — of denouncing blacks, immigrants and other hated groups to win votes and turn attention from the actual material agendas at work. This type of politics dominated the South from the end of Reconstruction until the civil rights era, electing generations of Southern politicians, including now obscure but once infamous names like Senator James K. Vardaman of Mississippi (in office from 1913 to 1919), Senator Ellison (Cotton Ed) Smith of South Carolina (in office from 1909 to 1944) and Gov. Eugene Talmadge of Georgia (who served 1933 to 1937 and 1941 to 1943). This is not ancient history by any means. |
|
|
|
As always, let me know what you think! I also answered questions about the column in a Twitter live chat. You can check that out if you're interested. |
|
|
|
Marlene Daut on being black in the academy in the Chronicle of Higher Education. |
|
|
|
Alex Perry in Outside magazine on the last days of John Allen Chau, a 26-year-old American missionary killed on a remote island in the Indian Ocean. |
|
|
|
And also, Myke Cole on the problem of Sparta worship in The New Republic. |
|
|
|
If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at jamelle-newsletter@nytimes.com. |
|
|
|
 |
| Carter tries cake.Jamelle Bouie |
Sometimes I'm going to share a photo that has a story or which represents something I'm trying to do with my photography. And sometimes I'm just going to share a picture of my kid, especially when he hits milestones. This week was Carter's first birthday, and we had family over to celebrate. He's a wonderful little peanut, and this past year has been hard, but also infinitely rewarding. Here, he's trying his birthday cake, made by our favorite local bakery. He was a little apprehensive at first, but became much more enthusiastic once I ate some and he saw it was safe. |
|
|
|
Now Eating: Julia Reed's Summer-Squash Casserole |
|
|
|
In the interest of a little brand synergy, here's a recipe from the New York Times' Cooking section, a casserole designed to use up the huge amount of yellow summer squash that appears at farmer's markets this time of year. I had to make a few substitutions on account of not having some ingredients. Instead of sharp cheddar cheese, I used smoked gouda. Instead of jalapenos, I doubled the cayenne pepper. It was delicious all the same. The recipe is billed as a side dish but it works well as a standalone lunch, which is how I served it. |
|
|
|
2 pounds yellow summer squash 7 tablespoons butter 1 large onion, chopped 1 large clove garlic, chopped ½ red bell pepper, chopped ½ green bell pepper, chopped 1 jalapeño pepper, seeded and chopped (optional) 4 slices plain white bread, toasted 24 Ritz crackers, crumbed in food processor ½ pound sharp cheddar cheese, grated 4 large eggs, beaten ½ cup heavy whipping cream 1 teaspoon sugar 1 teaspoon salt ¼ teaspoon cayenne pepper
|
|
|
Heat the oven to 350 degrees. Butter a 2 1/2-quart baking dish. Cut the squash into 1/2-inch-thick slices. Cook in boiling, salted water until tender, about 10 minutes. Drain. Purée in a food processor. |
|
|
|
Melt 6 tablespoons of the butter over medium heat. Add the onion, garlic and peppers and cook until just tender. Meanwhile, crumb the toast in a food processor, melt remaining butter and toss together. |
|
|
|
Mix the squash purée, onions, peppers, garlic, cracker crumbs and cheese. Stir in the eggs, cream, sugar and seasonings. Blend well. Pour into the baking dish. Top with bread crumbs and bake until browned, about 40 minutes. |
|
|
|
歡迎蒞臨：https://ofa588.com/
娛樂推薦：https://www.ofa86.com/
沒有留言:
張貼留言