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
I thought you didn't want to debate me? You specifically asked me not to ping you in my replies?
That was before you wrote something so breathtakingly ignorant that I felt like I had to respond.
Philip Foner was pre-revisionism, so he is far more likely to have relied on actual source material from that day, than ideology.
Revisionism was in its heyday in Philip Foner's youth. Revisionism was the attempt to deny the role of slavery in provoking the Civil 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."
You have quoted someone who was not only a Communist and a plagiarist but also a liar. August Belmont wrote those words in a letter at the end of May 1861, after war had already begun, and Foner uses his words to describe the mood of March 1861 before the war had begun. That is exactly what historians are not supposed to do. Raymond's quote came earlier, but as I understand it, he was not writing in support of coercion, but in opposition to those who were sending arms to the South. And Raymond was speaking to the merchant class, not for them. His editorials counseled firmness, but he wasn't calling for war.
"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."
I haven't been able to find that quotation, but I believe from previous discussions that it was a hypothetical - something that could be done - not a definite recommendation of what should or must be done.
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.
I said that the fact that these ideas came from a Marxist or from progressives or from Lost Cause revisionists didn't in itself mean that they were wrong, but the fact that a Communist and plagiarist worked out these theories might make you think twice about adopting them. But when a lying Communist plagiarist tells you what you want to hear, that's fine with you.
He wrote crazy stuff like this
Jaffa's comment makes sense. Yours is irrelevant gibberish. You don't engage the points he's making.
The doctrine of Hamilton and his disciples -- especially Lincoln, and his hero, Henry Clay -- are the bane of American civilization.
We have survived and prospered because we got beyond a simple plantation economy. Whatever it is that you are promoting, it has little to do with actual American civilization.
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.
Hamilton wanted a government that was strong enough to defend itself against foreign interference. He did not oppose representative republican government or the union of states under a federal government. Hamilton and Jefferson traded insults and portrayed each other in crude, exaggerated terms. There's no reason why we have to accept such oversimplifications today.