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.
Are you naturally a sanctimonious jerk, or did you evolve?
"****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "I thought you didn't want to debate me? You specifically asked me not to ping you in my replies?"
>>x wrote: "That was before you wrote something so breathtakingly ignorant that I felt like I had to respond."
There is nothing "ignorant" about criticizing Leftwing Lincoln cultists. Consider it an act of community service. Every true conservative should participate.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Philip Foner was pre-revisionism, so he is far more likely to have relied on actual source material from that day, than ideology."
>>x wrote: "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."
The claim that the war was caused by slavery is the narrative of the Left and neocons. They had me fooled for the better part of my life. I see you are still fooled. One day you will wake up and realize that the love-affair of a ruthless dictator named Lincoln with the crony-capitalist "American System" (so-called,) combined with his own greed and self-importance, were the precipitators of the Civil War. His refusal to compromise, choosing instead to engage in total war (which is another term for war crimes,) led to a million deaths.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "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... (more)... "
>>x wrote: "You have quoted someone who was not only a Communist and a plagiarist but also a liar."
All communists are liars, so that point is irrevelant.
****************
>>x wrote: "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."
You are incorrect. Foner said the mood among most of the merchants had already changed (e.g., from pacifist to hawk) by the end of March. At that time they realized that the real issue was economics, and not slavery. Read carefully:
"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, [13] "and the choice cannot be doubtful." [14]"
[13] Cf. letter of August Belmont to the Democratic State Convention held in Albany, Feb. 1, 1861, in pamphlet, Proceedings, p. 39. See also Russell, loc. cit.
[14] Belmont, Letters, Speeches and Addresses, p. 51.
Footnote 13 refers to a Jan 31, 1861 letter by Belmont to the Chairman of the NY Democratic State Convention of Jan 31-Feb 1, which reads (heavily excerpted):
"Dear Sir—It becomes our duty to notify you of the decision of the National Democratic delegates accredited from Tammany Hall, in view of the action of the State Convention this day… By order of the Convention. With respect, we have the honor to be, AUGUST BELMONT, Chairman"
Following that letter are the proceedings, which champion the cause of peaceful separation, exactly as Foner asserted. This is the first part of the last resolution:
"8. Resolved, Pending these remedied measures, we implore the States in the attitude of secession, to stay the sword and save the nation from Civil War, until the "sober second thought" of the people of all the states be rendered efficient, in perfecting the work of compromise and in the restoration of Peace."
So, that footnote pointed to the previous climate, promoting a peaceful separation, which was no longer an option after Lincoln blockaded the Southern ports in April, which was the first official act of war. The second ref in Footnote 13 is more of the same, with a few additional details:
"[Sunday, March 17, 1861] Mr. Bancroft conversed for some time on the aspect of affairs, but he appeared to be unable to arrive at any settled conclusion, except that the republic, though in danger, was the most stable and beneficial form of government in the world, and that as a Government it had no power to coerce the people of the South or to save itself from the danger. I was indeed astonished to hear from him and others so much philosophical abstract reasoning as to the right of seceding, or, what is next to it, the want of any power in the Government to prevent it…"
"I dined with a New York banker, who gave such a dinner as bankers generally give all over the world. He is a man still young, very kindly, hospitable, well-informed, with a most charming household — an American by theory, an Englishman in instincts and tastes — educated in Europe, and sprung from British stock. Considering the enormous interests he has at stake, I was astonished to perceive how calmly he spoke of the impending troubles. His friends, all men of position in New York society, had the same dilettante tone, and were as little anxious for the future, or excited by the present, as a party of savans chronicling the movements of a "magnetic storm."
"On going back to the hotel, I heard that Judge Daly and some gentlemen had called to request that I would dine with the Friendly Society of St. Patrick to-morrow at Astor House. In what is called "the bar," I met several gentlemen, one of whom said, "the majority of the people of New York, and all the respectable people, were disgusted at the election of such a fellow as Lincoln to be President, and would back the Southern States, if it came to a split."...
"[Tuesday, March 19, 1861] "Among the guests were the Hon. Horatio Seymour, a former Governor of the State of New York; Mr. Tylden, an acute lawyer; and Mr. Bancroft. The result left on my mind by their conversation and arguments was that, according to the Constitution, the Government could not employ force to prevent secession, or to compel States which had seceded by the will of the people to acknowledge the Federal power. In fact, according to them, the Federal Government was the mere machine put forward by a Society of Sovereign States, as a common instrument for certain ministerial acts, more particularly those which affected the external relations of the Confederation. I do not think that any of the guests sought to turn the channel of talk upon politics, but the occasion offered itself to Mr. Horatio Seymour to give me his views of the Constitution of the United States, and by degrees the theme spread over the table. I had bought the "Constitution" for three cents in Broadway in the forenoon, and had read it carefully, but I could not find that it was self-expounding; it referred itself to the Supreme Court, but what was, to support the Supreme Court in a contest with armed power, either of Government or people? There was not a man who maintained the Government had any power to coerce the people of a State, or to force a State to remain in the Union, or under the action of the Federal Government; in other words, the symbol of power at Washington is not at all analogous to that which represents an established Government in other countries. Quid prosunt leges sine armis? Although they admitted the Southern leaders had meditated "the treason against the Union" years ago, they could not bring themselves to allow their old opponents, the Republicans now in power, to dispose of the armed force of the Union against their brother democrats in the Southern States."
[William Howard Russell, "My Diary, North and South." T. O. H. P. Burnham, 1863, pp.13-14]
Footnote 14 refers to a May 28, 1861 letter from Belmont to Baron Lionel de Rothschild, London, written after the war began, expressing concerns that Britain had officially recognized the Confederacy:
"It would be difficult for me to convey to you an idea of the general feeling of disappointment and irritation produced in this country by this manifesto of the British Government, by which a few revolted States are placed, in their relations with Great Britain, upon the same footing as the Government of the United States. (pg.51)"
The statement quoted by Foner is on the next page:
"My fears that the position of England would only complicate matters are, unfortunately, very likely to be realized. The sympathy of the British Government for the South, so far from lessening the determination of our Government and people, has only increased their ardor. It is now a question of national existence and commercial prosperity, and the choice can, of course, not be doubtful. (pg.52)"
Follow the money . . .
In conclusion, Foner's statement is historically accurate, according to the historical documents referenced. I am not denying Foner is a plagiarist, but I haven't seen it thus far: not in this book.
I really don't know what your problem is, but you obviously had it before I showed up.
Mr. Kalamata