[OPE] Marx's explanation regarding the need for the U.S. South to obtain new territory

Marx wrote that the deteriorating soil resulting from the crops being
grown in the U.S. South led to the need for slave masters to expand onto
new land. There are two pillars of such a view: 1. the soil was truly
deteriorating, and 2. the movement into new territories would resolve
the economic problem.

Regarding the second point, I cite the following:

"Since slavery was unadaptable to much of the territorial lands, which
eventually would be admitted as free states, the South became more
anxious about maintaining its position as an equal in the Union.
Southerners thus strongly supported the annexation of Texas (certain to
be a slave state) and the Mexican War and even agitated for the
annexation of Cuba." (www.us-civilwar.com)

In other words, it is stated above the Marx is wrong that slavery could
be incorporated into the new lands (it was 'unadaptable' thereto).

If he is wrong on this point, then Marx was incorrect in his explanation
for the expansion drive of slave masters. Slavery becomes disconnected
from that economic basis Marx presented.

Comments?

Paul Z.

-- 
=====
(V23) HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11, Seven Stories Press, 2nd ed. softcover
(V24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA (V25) WHY CAPITALISM SURVIVES CRISES
(V26) THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND THE QUESTION OF CRISIS
====>   Research in Political Economy, Emerald Group, Bingley, UK
====>   P.Zarembka, ed., www.emeraldinsight.com/books.htm?issn=0161-7230
====>   or www.buffalo.edu/~zarembka
.

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Tue Feb 15 12:35:22 2011