I usually don't respond to Kalamata's nonsense, because I don't want to get pelted with his garbage, but this certainly invites a reponse:
Did you never wonder why the Far-left political hacks disguised as historians, such as Eric Foner, Allen Guelzo, and the late Harry Jaffa, have swooned over Lincoln?
Jaffa wrote for Barry Goldwater and contributed to conservative periodicals. He certainly wasn't everybody's idea of a conservative. He tread on a lot of toes in arguments. But he was not "far left" or a "political hack.
That's even more true of Guelzo, who has also contributed to leading conservative publications and is even something of an Evangelical. Conservatism can't be pure Lysander Spooner or Thomas Jefferson and certainly not pure Jefferson Davis. It needs realists as well as dreamers, and the more one cares about something, the more apt one is to be realistic about it, rather than engage in fantasies. That's why people like Hamilton, Clay and Lincoln, shouldn't simply be condemned - and certainly not in hysterical terms - for not conforming to libertarian fantasies.
Eric Foner definitely is on the left and very prominent there. His views on the Civil War and Reconstruction, though, are very different from those on the left a century ago, like Charles Beard, who was far more sympathetic to slaveowners and the Confederacy. Beard and other progressives had no use for slavery but they saw the Southerners as fellow opponents of big business, industrialism and the Republican Party.
[Charles W. Adams, "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession." Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, p.3]
Check out Adams’s bibliography. Who is one of Adams's main sources? None other than Eric Foner's uncle, Philip Foner. Uncle Philip has been accused of being a plagiarist himself, and he was generally acknowledged to have been a Communist, losing a teaching position for that in the Forties - about the time he was writing Business and Slavery: The New York Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict. What does Charles Adams say about that book? He calls it "remarkable" and says, "If money makes the world go around (private sector) and is the heart of war and the blood of governments (public sector), then the Foner book explains more about the Civil War than any other study."
Let us pause and reflect: the theory that Kalamata and Diogenes have been expounding for months, even years, rests largely on a book by a Marxist historian. Those ideas didn't start with Foner; they go back to Charles Beard and others. And Marxist or progressive or Lost Causer origins don't necessarily mean the theory is wrong, but it ought to make us think at least a little before dismissing other views and adopting economic determinism and the idea that the bad bankers were behind it all.
Have you ever heard of the American Society for Promoting National Unity? It was a group founded early in 1861 to preserve the union through compromise with the South on slavery. Its members included former presidents, former vice presidential candidates, politicians, a mob of ministers, New York and Massachusetts businessmen, and names from the cream of New York society.
In March and in April of 1861 - right up until Sumter - they were still calling for compromise to save the Union. Too late I know. But a good indication that peace was more on the minds of New York's elites than war.
Now that you know about American Society for Promoting National Unity, it's not hard to find the membership list on their prospectus - a broad cross-section of the wealthy and prominent who sought peace and unity through concessions to the South. Can anyone come up with the names of those who were supposedly beating the war drums in 1861? Not people who just expressed concern about revenue, or people who wanted a show of firmness, but people who actually wanted war. In the North, I mean. We all know about the wild war talk in the South.
I thought you didn't want to debate me? You specifically asked me not to ping you in my replies? I must have hit a progressive nerve.
****************
>>x wrote: "I usually don't respond to Kalamata's nonsense, because I don't want to get pelted with his garbage,"
Everything you post is nonsense, as are your preferred history "scholars," who are a bunch of rabid, big-government Leftists; except for Jaffa -- he is a dead, rabid, big-government Leftist.
****************
>>x wrote: "this certainly invites a reponse:"
>>Kalamata wrote: "Did you never wonder why the Far-left political hacks disguised as historians, such as Eric Foner, Allen Guelzo, and the late Harry Jaffa, have swooned over Lincoln? >>x wrote: "Jaffa wrote for Barry Goldwater and contributed to conservative periodicals. He certainly wasn't everybody's idea of a conservative. He tread on a lot of toes in arguments. But he was not "far left" or a "political hack."
Jaffa is a progressive liberal hack who, like Lincoln, promotes a "living constitution" over the plain words of the legal document. Using Lincolnese, he injects the Declaration into jurisprudence, which can mean anything, to any judge, at any time. He wrote crazy stuff like this:
"[I]t was necessary, [Lincoln] said, to vindicate the Union against the "ingenious sophism" that "any State of the Union may, consistently with the national Constitution, and therefore lawfully, and peacefully, withdraw from the Union, without the consent of the Union or of any other State." Lincoln held that the alleged constitutional right of secession, as distinct from the natural right of revolution, was a prescription for anarchy. Third, it was necessary, as Lincoln put it in the epigraph of this chapter, to vindicate the principle of free elections. It was necessary to use bullets to establish the right, not of bullets, but of ballots to decide who should rule. It will, I believe, prove to be true that in Lincoln's mind the idea of a popular government that unites liberty and order, the idea of the Union, and the idea of rule by free elections are one and the same."
[Harry V. Jaffa, "A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War." 2000, p.2]
In a free republic, a Constitution sets the rules and determines "natural rights:" not the elected representatives (who are always corruptible;) nor the judiciary (who are even moreso;) and especially not an executive (who can become a dictator at the drop of a hat, like Lincoln did.) Only a tyrant or a fool would think otherwise.
****************
>>x wrote: "That's even more true of Guelzo, who has also contributed to leading conservative publications and is even something of an Evangelical. Conservatism can't be pure Lysander Spooner or Thomas Jefferson and certainly not pure Jefferson Davis. It needs realists as well as dreamers, and the more one cares about something, the more apt one is to be realistic about it, rather than engage in fantasies. That's why people like Hamilton, Clay and Lincoln, shouldn't simply be condemned - and certainly not in hysterical terms - for not conforming to libertarian fantasies."
I am a conservative republican, not a libertarian, and Hamilton was the original crony-capitalist of our nation. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution before he schemed ways to usurp it -- to usurp power from the states and the people, mostly with the intent to transfer money from the pockets of the common man into the pockets of the politically-connected.
Henry Clay, according to Guelzo, originally ran on an anti-Hamiltonian (anti-bank, anti-corporation) ticket:
"Some of these new "War Hawks" were more Jeffersonian than Jefferson. Henry Clay, born in 1777 and elected to Congress in 1810 as an enemy of banks, corporations, and Federalist privilege, helped sink Alexander Hamilton's old Bank of the United States when it came up for rechartering before Congress in 1811. A national bank, announced Clay, "is a splendid association of favored individuals, taken from the mass of society, and invested with exemptions and surrounded by immunities and privileges." But his greatest fixation was on the conspiratorial threat of Great Britain, the mother of monarchy, aristocracy, and of course, international banking. "We have complete proof that [Britain] will do everything to destroy us — our resolution and spirit are our only dependence." The fact that Britain was now distracted by its life-or-death struggle with France, leaving British Canada vulnerable and undefended, seemed to Clay to offer the United States the chance of a lifetime to bring the British to heel. Invade Canada, the "War Hawks" chanted, and either hold it hostage to good British behavior on the high seas or add it to America's republican empire."
[Allen C. Guelzo, "Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President." William B. Eerdmans, 1999, p.53]
But Clay's vision was soon corrupted into promoting the crony-capitalist, Hamiltonian "American System" (Lincoln's campaign platform, in a nutshell,) which included chartering a National Bank, high protective tariffs, and "internal improvements," the last of which is a euphemism for corporate welfare. Clay became a strong advocate for turning America into a crony-capitalist paradise; but it is difficult to blame him. The lure of money and power, "constitutionalized" by Hamilton and John Marshall, is too strong for most politicians to ignore.
The doctrine of Hamilton and his disciples -- especially Lincoln, and his hero, Henry Clay -- are the bane of American civilization. Yet, Guelzo seems to adore them, and their doctrine. Worse, he provides cover for them by watering down and even redefining political principles for them, so they can appear to be republicans. For example, he wrote:
"Alexander Hamilton, fully as much as Thomas Jefferson, believed wholeheartedly that the most natural form of government was a republic in which everyone would have the freedom to exercise their natural rights."
[Allen C. Guelzo, "Alexander Hamilton: His Ideal Republic." Great Courses Daily, Aug 24, 2017]
Alexander Hamilton: His Ideal Republic
That is pure fantasy. Hamilton was a statist: one who believed in a strong central government, rather than a representative republic of smaller States banded together under a legal compact.
****************
>>x wrote: "Eric Foner definitely is on the left and very prominent there. His views on the Civil War and Reconstruction, though, are very different from those on the left a century ago, like Charles Beard, who was far more sympathetic to slaveowners and the Confederacy. Beard and other progressives had no use for slavery but they saw the Southerners as fellow opponents of big business, industrialism and the Republican Party."
Foner is a card-carrying Marxist. The fact that he and others on the far-left have adopted the Jaffa-ized revision of Lincoln's political history, says more about Jaffa than it does about them.
Have you read this?
"What is different about Trump is how open he is about it all. Normally, the appeals to white racism are done through code words, like “law and order.” Trump campaigned saying all black people are living in hellholes and asking them, “What do you have to lose?” by voting for Trump. It’s become pretty clear what they have to lose: They can lose the right to vote. They can lose affirmative action. They can lose the notion the federal government sees racism as a serious problem in the United States."
[Jon Wiener, "Eric Foner: White Nationalists, Neo-Confederates, and Donald Trump." The Nation, August 16, 2017]
Eric Foner: White Nationalists, Neo-Confederates, and Donald Trump
Few are more rabid than Foner. According to him, it is racist to even mention the plight of the blacks in the inner-city Democrat plantations.
But who is the true racist? Foner, for certain; and of course, Lincoln. Donald Trump, on the other hand, doesn't have a racist bone in his body.
Mr. Kalamata
>>x wrote: "[Charles W. Adams, "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession." Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, p.3] Check out Adams’s bibliography. Who is one of Adams's main sources? None other than Eric Foner's uncle, Philip Foner. Uncle Philip has been accused of being a plagiarist himself, and he was generally acknowledged to have been a Communist, losing a teaching position for that in the Forties - about the time he was writing Business and Slavery: The New York Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict. What does Charles Adams say about that book? He calls it "remarkable" and says, "If money makes the world go around (private sector) and is the heart of war and the blood of governments (public sector), then the Foner book explains more about the Civil War than any other study."
Philip Foner was pre-revisionism, so he is far more likely to have relied on actual source material from that day, than ideology. This is Adam's quote from Philip Foner's book:
"Peaceful separation had died in the war of the tariffs, "wrote Professor Philip Foner in 1941, in his remarkable book The New York Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict. There was only one path for the government to follow, wrote Foner: "Collect the revenue at the seceded states, impose duties on goods entering the ports of these cities, and in general enforce the laws and compel obedience to the government. This might bring war, but even that would hardly mean "a change for the worse."
"Lincoln got the message in many ways-from leading newspapers, as we shall see, but perhaps even more from public letters sent to the president from America's leading moneymen, demanding that the federal government act firmly to protect Northern commerce."
[Charles W. Adams, "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession." Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, p.63]
Now, let's see the full context, directly from Philip Foner:
"The very same forces that caused some merchants to urge the establishment of a free city [Mayor Wood's secession plan] compelled the vast majority of business men to rally to the support of the government in its efforts to maintain the existence of the Union. These merchants recognized that the free city plan offered some solutions for the serious difficulties confronting them, but they also knew that the proposal created more problems than it solved. There were benefits in free trade, but an independent "Republic of New York" would probably soon find itself cut off from the trade of the West by "prohibitory tolls and duties." Free trade would provide profits for importers, but no commission merchants affiliated with domestic manufactures could possibly share in these profits. And even importers had to eat. "Velvets are good in their way," one reviewer observed, "but could not satisfy hunger; silk and shawls are excellent things for ladies, but would be rather tough if boiled and put on the table." Finally, it would have been the height of folly if the merchants had supported a movement which would only have aided in spreading secessionism throughout the entire nation, especially since they feared that the West might secede from the Union and join the Southern confederacy."
"Peaceful separation had died in the war of the tariffs. The free city remedy for the troubles facing the merchants was worse than the disease. There remained only one path to follow. Let the President call out the militia and volunteers, collect the revenue at the seceded states, impose duties on goods entering the ports of these states, and in general enforce the laws and compel obedience to the government. This might bring war, but even that would hardly mean "a change for the worse." It had not been easy for most merchants to reach this decision. They believed in a firm policy toward the secessionists and, as has been seen, had not hesitated to inform President Buchanan of this fact. They had rejoiced, moreover, when the President had abandoned his vacillating attitude and had taken steps to uphold the dignity of the government. Again, on March 5, 1861, when John A. Dix retired from his post as Secretary of the Treasury, more than one hundred leading merchants, Democrats and Republicans alike, signed a public letter praising him for having displayed "decision and firmness" in managing the national treasury "at a period when distrust and disorder seriously menaced the public welfare." Among those who endorsed this sentiment were: William B. Astor, Peletiah Perit, ..., & etc...."
"William H. Aspinwall, one of the merchants who signed the letter, had already taken steps to aid the government in enforcing the laws. Late in February, he had joined hands with John Murray Forbes, the Boston capitalist, in a venture to reinforce Fort Sumter. At the last moment, the navy had refused to permit the undertaking, but the incident revealed how far Aspinwall had traveled since the days of the Pine Street meeting."
"Most merchants, however, had moved much more slowly. Although they supported a firm policy on the part of the government, they were reluctant to endorse the use of force to preserve the Union, fearing that this would make civil war a certainty. Many even denied that the government had the power to "coerce" a state to remain in the Union. Either the Union should be preserved peacefully, they argued, or the Southern states should be permitted to depart in peace. Coercion was "out of the question." It would only lead to civil war—a war, as one merchant put it, "for some vagabond negroes, for a patch of territory the whole not worth as much as the vicissitudes of a single day of war."
"By the last week in March, the vast majority of New York business men saw clearly that it was no longer an issue involving "vagabond negroes" or a "patch of territory." The war of the tariffs had cleared away the clouds of confusion, and in so doing, it brought home to each business man the real issue in the crisis. Lincoln had put his finger on the issue when he said in his inaugural address that "physically speaking," the North and South could not separate, and that no "impassable wall" could be erected between the sections. No merchant could sit by idly and watch the South destroy a business system which had been built up over so many years. It was no longer an issue, for him, of slavery, states' rights, nullification or secession. "It is now a question of national existence and commercial prosperity," wrote August Belmont, who had hitherto championed the cause of peaceful separation, "and the choice cannot be doubtful." Or, as Henry J. Raymond put it:"
"There is no class of men in this country who have so large a stake in sustaining the Government, whose prosperity depends so completely upon its being upheld against all enemies, and who have so much to lose by its overthrow as the merchants of this city."
"Though there were no mass meetings and no memorials to indicate it, there was much evidence by the end of March to prove that the merchants had finally grasped the significance of Raymond's remarks, and were prepared to support a decisive policy toward the South, regardless of the consequences."
[Philip Sheldon Foner, "Business & slavery: the New York merchants & the irrepressible conflict." Russell & Russell, 1968, p.297-299]
So, it appears Foner is guilty of committing an act of history. That could get him banned from Twitter, these days. LOL!
Why is it that merchants always come across as the bad guys?
"And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived." -- Rev 18:23 KJV
****************
x wrote: "Let us pause and reflect: the theory that Kalamata and Diogenes have been expounding for months, even years, rests largely on a book by a Marxist historian. Those ideas didn't start with Foner; they go back to Charles Beard and others. And Marxist or progressive or Lost Causer origins don't necessarily mean the theory is wrong, but it ought to make us think at least a little before dismissing other views and adopting economic determinism and the idea that the bad bankers were behind it all."
Have you ever read anything so dishonest in your life? Our complaint is not who is writing the history, but how it is being manipulated for political purposes. You chose the manipulators – I have chosen the straight-shooters.
****************
x wrote: "Have you ever heard of the American Society for Promoting National Unity? It was a group founded early in 1861 to preserve the union through compromise with the South on slavery. Its members included former presidents, former vice presidential candidates, politicians, a mob of ministers, New York and Massachusetts businessmen, and names from the cream of New York society. In March and in April of 1861 - right up until Sumter - they were still calling for compromise to save the Union. Too late I know. But a good indication that peace was more on the minds of New York's elites than war."
Let's read more about them:
"Lincoln made it clear [in the 1st inaugural] that the government could not and would not recognize secession; that it proposed to maintain its authority come what might, and that he intended "to hold, occupy, and possess the property belonging to the government."
"The vast majority of the merchants read the inaugural address with sinking hearts. After investigating the reactions of leading business men, the Tribune said:"
"They see in his expressed determination to enforce the laws and public property the element of collision with the Southern Confederacy. They fear that any morning may bring startling advices of action at the South which may precipitate the two sections into civil war."
"Thus ended the long struggle of the merchants to achieve a peaceful solution to the secession crisis. Some business men still believed that compromise could be accomplished if only the politicians and agitators could be ousted from power and the issue left to the people to decide. Indeed, an organization was formed, early in March, in a desperate effort to achieve this goal. It assumed the name, "The American Society for Promoting National Unity." Among the organizers were: Samuel F. B. Morse, Thomas Tileston, William B. Astor, James Harper, James Brown, Henry Grinnell, Gerard Hallock, James Boorman, August Belmont, Erastus Corning, Robert B. Minturn, Bronson C. Greene, Royal Phelps, Stewart Brown, Watts Sherman, Hiram Ketchum, Charles A. Davis, Peter Cooper, Daniel Develin, Isaac Bell, Edward I. Pierrepont, and William F. Havemeyer."
"The organization (according to its Declaration of Principles) dedicated itself to the task of reconstructing the American Union which had been destroyed by reformers and politicians—"the one incompetent to reconstruct what the other destroys." It would seek to accomplish this aim by means of educating the people to abandon the "false" doctrines which had gained headway in both sections—in the South the theory of secession and in the North "the dreams of abolitionism, of woman's rights, of free love, of spiritualism, of socialism, of agrarianism, and of all similar visionary schemes," which had engendered "a feeling of hostility between the North and the South... which threatens a final dissolution of the Federal Union." The merchants also invited all lovers of "our common country" who put the Union above "any existing party," to "unite with us in endeavors to disseminate sound and wholesome teachings, to conciliate differences and restore peace and harmony." Finally, they appealed:"
"Why should we contend? Why paralyze business, turn thousands of the industrious and worthy poor out of employment, sunder the last ties of affection, that can bind these States together, destroy our once prosperous and happy nation, and perhaps send multitudes to premature graves—and all for what?"
"Nothing, of course, came of the plan. The time for compromise had passed."
[Philip Sheldon Foner, "Business & slavery: the New York merchants & the irrepressible conflict." Russell & Russell, 1968]
****************
x wrote: "Now that you know about American Society for Promoting National Unity, it's not hard to find the membership list on their prospectus - a broad cross-section of the wealthy and prominent who sought peace and unity through concessions to the South. Can anyone come up with the names of those who were supposedly beating the war drums in 1861? Not people who just expressed concern about revenue, or people who wanted a show of firmness, but people who actually wanted war. In the North, I mean. We all know about the wild war talk in the South."
It certainly appears from the first paragraph in the above quote, that Lincoln was the one beating the war drums. This is another one:
"We love the Union, because at home and abroad, collectively and individually, it gives us character as a nation and as citizens of the Great Republic; because it gives us nationality as a People, renders us now the equal of the greatest European Power, and in another half century, will make us the greatest, richest, and most powerful people on the face of the earth. We love the Union, because already in commerce, wealth and resources of every kind, we are the equal of the greatest; and because, while it secures us peace, happiness and prosperity at home, like the Roman of old we have only to exclaim" I am an American Citizen" to insure us respect and security abroad. And so loving this great and glorious Union, we are ready if need be, to shed our blood in its preservation, and in transmitting it in all its greatness, to our latest posterity." [New York Courier and Enquirer, December 1, 1860, in Kenneth M. Stampp, "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, pp.55-56]
I have yet to verify the following quote, but it sounds like the NY Times:
"The New York Times wrote in March 1861 that the North should "destroy its commerce, and bring utter ruin on the Confederate states," and this was before the bombardment at Fort Sumter." [Ibid. Adams, p.54]
This is supposedly more context:
"At once shut up every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States... a state of war would almost be preferable to the passive action the government has been following." -- New York Times 22 and 23 March 1861
Nasty! Speaking of nasty, this is the Philadelphia Press pushing for a blockade – an act of war:
"One of the most important benefits which the Federal Government has conferred upon the nation is unrestricted trade between many prosperous States with divers productions and industrial pursuits. But now, since the Montgomery [Confederate] Congress has passed a new tariff, and duties are exacted upon Northern goods sent to ports in the Cotton States, the traffic between the two sections will be materially decreased.... Another, and a more serious difficulty arises out of our foreign commerce, and the different rates of duty established by the two tariffs which will soon be in force..."
"The General Government,... to prevent the serious diminution of its revenues, will be compelled to blockade the Southern ports... and prevent the importation of foreign goods into them, or to put another expensive guard upon the frontiers to prevent smuggling into the Union States. Even if the independence of the seceding Commonwealths should be recognized, and two distinct nations thus established, we should still experience all the vexations, and be subjected to all the expenses and annoyances which the people of Europe have long suffered, on account of their numerous Governments, and many inland lines of custom-houses. Thus, trade of all kinds, which has already been seriously crippled would be permanently embarrassed..."
"It is easy for men to deride and underestimate the value of the Union, but its destruction would speedily be followed by fearful proofs of its importance to the whole American people."
[Philadelphia Press, March 18, 1861, in Stampp, Kenneth M., "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, p.69]
All of that occurred prior to Lincoln provoking the South into firing the first shot. In the meantime, Lincoln was still thinking only of his precious revenue:
"Yours giving an account of an interview with Gen. Scott, is received, and for which I thank you. According to my present view, if the forts shall be given up before the inaugeration, the General must retake them afterwards. Yours truly." [Letter to Hon. F. P. Blair, Ser. Springfield, Ills., Dec 21, 1860, in Roy P. Basler, "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 4." Rutgers University Press, 1953, p.157]
"Last night I received your letter giving an account of your interview with Gen. Scott, and for which I thank you. Please present my respects to the General, and tell him, confidentially, I shall be obliged to him to be as well prepared as he can to either hold, or retake, the forts, as the case may require, at, and after the inaugeration. Yours as ever" [Letter to Hon. E. B. Washbume Springfield, Ills., Dec 21, 1860, p.159]
"My dear Sir: I am much obliged by the receipt of yours of the 18th. The most we can do now is to watch events, and be as well prepared as possible for any turn things may take. If the forts fall, my judgment is that they are to be retaken. When I shall determine definitely my time of starting to Washington, I will notify you. Yours truly" [Letter to Major David Hunter, Springfield, Ills., Dec 22, 1860, p.159]
"Yours kindly seeking my view as to the proper mode of dealing with secession, was received several days ago, but, for want of time I could not answer it till now. I think we should hold the forts, or retake them, as the case may be, and collect the revenue. We shall have to forego the use of the federal courts, and they that of the mails, for a while. We can not fight them in to holding courts, or receiving the mails. This is an outline of my view; and perhaps suggests sufficiently, the whole of it. [Letter of A. Lincoln to Col. J. W. Webb. Springfield, Ills., Dec. 29, 1860, pp.164-165]
To Lincoln, the action of "preserving the union," was synonymous with "keeping the Crony Gravy Train running."
Mr. Kalamata
