Replies

Are you naturally a sanctimonious jerk

No, that seems to be your department.

They had me fooled for the better part of my life. I see you are still fooled.

I used to think as you did. Then I read some real history and grew up.

In conclusion, Foner's statement is historically accurate, according to the historical documents referenced.

Nonsense. You write a lot of opaque gobbledygook, but so far as I can figure out what you are saying, it basically supports my point. Foner uses a letter written at the end of May, after Sumter, to characterize the mood of the business community at the end of March, before Sumter. I don't have his lying Marxist book in front of me, so I don't know if you left anything out, but if the book is as you've excerpted it, Foner was being deceptive.

I don't have the time or the inclination to put up with your b.s.

BroJoe, you seem to have a higher tolerance for this clown. Maybe you could look into this.

>>Kalamata wrote: "Are you naturally a sanctimonious jerk"
>>x wrote: "No, that seems to be your department."

Well, aren't you clever?

****************

>>Kalamata wrote: "They had me fooled for the better part of my life. I see you are still fooled."
>>x wrote: "I used to think as you did. Then I read some real history and grew up."

When are you going to share that "real history" with us?

****************

>>Kalamata wrote: "In conclusion, Foner's statement is historically accurate, according to the historical documents referenced."
>>x wrote: "Nonsense. You write a lot of opaque gobbledygook, but so far as I can figure out what you are saying, it basically supports my point. Foner uses a letter written at the end of May, after Sumter, to characterize the mood of the business community at the end of March, before Sumter. I don't have his lying Marxist book in front of me, so I don't know if you left anything out, but if the book is as you've excerpted it, Foner was being deceptive."

I find it hard to believe you do not understand what Foner and the Refs are saying, which is, by the end of March, the mood of the merchants had changed from a peaceful solution to war. There is no ambiguity, but I will dissect it for you, anyway:

"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."

Translation: by the end of March, most businessmen believed war was inevitable.

"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."

Translation: the businessmen had also changed their understanding of the economic consequences if the South was allowed to secede, and survive. If that occurred, the Northern commercial industry would die.

"[August Belmont] had hitherto championed the cause of peaceful separation,"

Translation: in the footnote we find that before the merchants gave up on peace, a peaceful solution was the major issue at the the March Democratic state convention, which August chaired. It also occurred in private conversations which August was privy to.

"It is now a question of national existence and commercial prosperity," wrote August Belmont, "and the choice cannot be doubtful."

August wrote that letter in May, after he had given up on a peaceful solution.

So, in summary, the merchants were, generally speaking, hoping for a peaceful solution until the end of March, but gave up hope thereafter.

It appears you have a reading comprehension problem. That could explain your misunderstanding of history, at least in part.

****************

>>x wrote: "I don't have the time or the inclination to put up with your b.s.. BroJoe, you seem to have a higher tolerance for this clown. Maybe you could look into this."

If you want to take your toys and run home, again, that is fine with me. But try to learn some manners before posting to me again.

Mr. Kalamata

x to Kalamata: "I don't have the time or the inclination to put up with your b.s.
BroJoe, you seem to have a higher tolerance for this clown.
Maybe you could look into this."

I have a lot of tolerance & patience, but sadly, also not so much time.
But let's see what we can make of this...

In his post #1,558 Kalamata quotes for us the very New York financial elites who DiogenesLamp likes to refer to as "Northeastern Power Brokers", and though Kalamata quotes them in jumbled sequence, if you sort his quotes by date, you see how New York elites flipped from originally highly sympathetic to the Southern cause -- some even wanted to secede themselves -- to supporting the Union war effort, from which both Kalamata and DiogenesLamp tell us: "follow the money".

But as always with Democrats, there are both small and big lies mixed in with their presentation of "facts", and the biggest of them is hidden in plain sight.
DiogenesLamp tells us these "Northeastern Power Brokers" were pulling Lincoln's strings, that Lincoln was their puppet, mere putty in their hands -- so "follow the money".

And now comes Kalamata, seemingly taught as a child to lie with enthusiasm, but a rather poor student who occasionally mixes in, ahem, "inconvenient truth" with his lunatic diatribes against Lincoln.
In this case the truth of the entire matter is "hidden" in Kalamata's quotes, for everyone to see:

"...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....
...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."

Like Kalamata and DiogenesLamp, these people were all Democrats who hated their new Republican president just as much as Democrats today hate President Trump.
So claiming such "Northeastern Power Brokers" pulled Lincoln's strings is like pretending Pelosi or New Yorkers Schumer & Blumberg today pull President Trump's strings.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The real story here is that in 1860 these Democrat "Northeastern Power Brokers" represented a deep well of sympathy for Confederates which could have been nurtured, fertilized and helped to grow into effective political opposition to Republican President Lincoln.
In today's terms, think of secessionists as our AOC-wing radicals and "Northeastern Power Brokers" as Joe Biden-type "moderates."
Combined they represent a powerful & dangerous political force, and they know it, it's why they stick together so loyally.

But in 1861, the radical secessionists thoroughly screwed over & politically divorced their "moderate" Northern wing, and the result was the vast majority of Northern Democrats joined in the Republican war effort.
But their divorce didn't last long, within just a few years after the war Northern & Southern Democrats remarried, ending Reconstruction, nullifying the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments and bringing on nearly 100 years of terror against African Americans.

Democrats, not Republicans.