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. ![]()
>>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."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "I have a lot of tolerance & patience, but sadly, also not so much time. But let's see what we can make of this..."
Petulant children.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "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..."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "...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."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Like Kalamata and DiogenesLamp, these people were all Democrats who hated their new Republican president just as much as Democrats today hate President Trump."
Joey's posts are always deceptive. He is confounding the names "republican" and "democrat" of those days with similar modern names; but there is no comparison. The New York merchants of those days promoted free trade, and were naturally opposed to the Whig ("republican") policies of crony-capitalist protective tariffs; while the manufacturers, like the ever-nasty Thaddeus Stevens, who reaped the benefits of the protective tariffs of the "republicans," were vehement supporters.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "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."
That is extraordinarily deceptive; and extraordinary deception requires extraordinary discovery.
As aforementioned, there were two power brokers: the manufacturers who benefited from protective tariffs, and the free traders who made money off of shipping and merchandising. Think of it this way: if fewer goods come into ports due to high tariffs, the protected manufacturers make more money by selling at higher prices. If more goods come in due to free trade or low tariffs, the merchants and shipping industry makes more money. The power-brokers pulling Lincoln's strings (besides Lincoln, himself) where the crony-capitalist protectionists -- the "republicans."
From what I have read in the literature, even the Northern merchants and shippers turned toward war once they understood the potential impact of relatively free trade in the South. Read carefully:
"On April 12, 1861, Fort Sumter was fired upon by the guns of the Southern confederacy. Three days later, President Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth "the militia of the several states of the Union... to suppress combinations" in seven states, "too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings."
"On that very day, the Richmond Examiner inquired editorially: Will the City of New York "kiss the rod that smites her," and at the bidding of her Black Republican tyrants war upon her Southern friends and best customers? Will she sacrifice her commerce, her wealth, her population, her character in order to strengthen the arms of her oppressors?"
"A few journals in New York ventured to assure the Examiner, as well as many others in the South, that the answer to this question would be in the negative. The Daily News was convinced that there would be peace within a week, for the New York merchants would refuse to support the war. "The wealthy," it emphasized, "will not supply means to depreciate the rest of their property by prolonging this unnatural war." The Herald was even more positive. On April 14, two days after the firing on Fort Sumter, it reported that the business men were already taking steps to oppose the war."
"The leading merchants, traders, and professional men of the City of New York [it announced] intend to hold a preliminary meeting tomorrow, preparatory to a grand mass meeting, to be held in the Park some day during the week, to declare in favor of peace and against civil war and coercion."
"The editors of the Herald were shortly required to eat their words. On April 16, Bennett's organ reported, "A meeting of prominent citizens was held yesterday... to make arrangements for a grand mass meeting at an early day to strengthen the hands of the administration in repressing the Southern revolution."
"Had the editors of the Herald troubled themselves to read the reports of their financial and commercial writers, they would not have misjudged the reactions of the merchants at the outbreak of the war. For on April 14 and 15, these writers emphasized in their reports that the inauguration of armed conflict caught very few of the business men by surprise, and that the vast majority regarded it "as an event which had long been inevitable, and as a not unwelcome termination to a period of intolerable suspense." At the very least, it would end the "dreadful uncertainty" created by the conflict of the tariffs, as well as the danger of the loss of both the Southern and the Western trade. "Wall Street, as far as we can judge," they concluded, "is ready to sustain the government heartily and liberally." E. K. Alburtis, a leading merchant who had voted for Breckenridge in 1860, fought for compromise, and advocated peaceful separation until very late in March, summarized the attitude of the vast majority of the business men, when he wrote: "The action of the government has given confidence."
[Philip Sheldon Foner, "Business & slavery: the New York merchants & the irrepressible conflict." Russell & Russell, 1968, pp.304-305]
A good narrative on those events comes from the diary of British journalist William Howard Russell. In this first segment he is dining with Secretary of State William Seward:
"[March 26, 1861] I dined at Mr. [Henry Sheldon] Sanford's, where I was introduced to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State; Mr. Truman Smith, an ex-senator, much respected among the Republican party; Mr. Anthony, a senator of the United States, a journalist, a very intelligent-looking man, with an Israelitish cast of face; Colonel Foster of the Illinois railway, of reputation in the States as a geologist; and one or two more gentlemen… After dinner [Seward] told some stories of the pressure on the President for place, which very much amused the guests who knew the men, and talked freely and pleasantly of many things—stating, however, few facts positively. In reference to an assertion in a New York paper, that orders had been given to evacuate Sumter, "That," he said, "is a plain lie — no such orders have been given. We will give up nothing we have—abandon nothing that has been intrusted to us. If people would only read these statements by the light of the President's inaugural, they would not be deceived." He wanted no extra session of Congress. "History tells us that kings who call extra parliaments lose their heads," and he informed the company he had impressed the President with his historical parallels."
"All through this conversation his tone was that of a man very sanguine, and with a supreme contempt for those who thought there was anything serious in secession... "You are all very angry," [Seward] said, "about the Morrill tariff. You must, however, let us be best judges of our own affairs. If we judge rightly, you have no right to complain; if we judge wrongly, we shall soon be taught by the results, and shall correct our error. It is evident that if the Morrill tariff fulfils expectations, and raises a revenue, British manufacturers suffer nothing, and we suffer nothing, for the revenue is raised here, and trade is not injured. If the tariff fails to create a revenue, we shall be driven to modify or repeal it."
[William Howard Russell, "My Diary, North and South, Vol I." Bradbury and Evans, 1863, pp.49-51]
Apparently the sincerity and determination of Seward helped change the minds of the merchant class, because, later, after the war began, Russell wrote this in his diary:
"[July 2nd] As long as there was a chance that the struggle might not take place, the merchants of New York were silent, fearful of offending their Southern friends and connections, but inflicting infinite damage on their own government and misleading both sides. Their sentiments, sympathies, and business bound them with the South; and, indeed, till "the glorious uprising" the South believed New York was with them, as might be credited from the tone of some organs in the press, and I remember hearing it said by Southerners in Washington, that it was very likely New York would go out of the Union! When the merchants, however, saw that the South was determined to quit the Union, they resolved to avert the permanent loss of the great profits derived from their connection with the South by some present sacrifices. They rushed to the platforms—the battle-cry was sounded from almost very pulpit—flag raisings took place in every square, like the planting of the tree of liberty in France in 1848, and the oath was taken to trample Secession under foot, and to quench the fire of the Southern heart for ever."
"The change in manner, in tone, in argument, is most remarkable. I met men to-day who last March argued coolly and philosophically about the right of Secession. They are now furious at the idea of such wickedness—furious with England [August Belmont, perhaps?], because she does not deny their own famous doctrine of the sacred right of insurrection. "We must maintain our glorious Union, sir." "We must have a country." "We cannot allow two nations to grow up on this Continent, sir." "We must possess the entire control of the Mississippi." These "musts," and "can'ts," and "won'ts," are the angry utterances of a spirited people who have had their will so long that they at last believe it is omnipotent. Assuredly, they will not have it over the South without a tremendous and long sustained contest, in which they must put forth every exertion, and use all the resources and superior means they so abundantly possess."
"It is absurd to assert, as do the New York people, to give some semblance of reason to their sudden outburst, that it was caused by the insult to the flag at Sumter. Why, the flag had been fired on long before Sumter was attacked by the Charleston batteries! It had been torn down from United States' arsenals and forts all over the South; and but for the accident which placed Major Anderson in a position from which he could not retire, there would have been no bombardment of the fort, and it would, when evacuated, have shared the fate of all the other Federal works on the Southern coast. Some of the gentlemen who are now so patriotic and Unionistic, were last March prepared to maintain that if the President attempted to re-inforce Sumter or Pickens, he would be responsible for the destruction of the Union. Many journals in New York and out of it held the same doctrine."
"One word to these gentlemen. I am pretty well satisfied that if they had always spoke, written, and acted as they do now, the people of Charleston would not have attacked Sumter so readily. The abrupt outburst of the North and the demonstration at New York filled the South, first with astonishment, and then with something like fear, which was rapidly fanned into anger by the press and the politicians, as well as by the pride inherent in slaveholders."
[Russell, Vol II, pp.111-113]
Again, follow the money.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "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."
That is revisionist lunacy. The so-called "Reconstruction" was an even darker blot on American History than Lincoln's war crimes. While Carpetbaggers and Skalawags continued the plunder of the South that began during the war, the hateful Northern "Black Codes" were introduced in the South, along with the doctrine of turning blacks against the whites, and vice versa. "Divide and conquer is the maxim," as Freneau wrote in 1792; the Lincoln-Left continues to promote that doctrine to this very day.
Mr. Kalamata