From the Lincoln-supporting Philadelphia Press on March 18, 1861
The publisher of the Press supported Buchanan and gradually shifted over to the Republicans. It shouldn't be assumed that he was staunchly "Lincoln-supporting" at that point. The Philadelphia Public Ledger was very much a Copperhead paper and looking for anything that could undermine the unionist cause.
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 United States.
In the same way that the Confederate government would be forced to "blockade" its Northern border to keep its labor force from running off? In both cases, mass smuggling and mass runaways were things that might happen further on in time, not the pressing concerns of the present moment.
From the New Orleans Daily Crescent newspaper of May 15, 1861 quoting the New York Day Book newspaper [again, my emphasis below]:
All New York is failing. The suspensions and failures of the past few days have been fearful, and the war promises to bankrupt every merchant in New York. The retail business is as bad off as the wholesale. Nobody is purchasing anything, and trade is killed.
The famous New York Day-Book Weekly? "Acknowledged the Best of the Democratic Weeklies ... Having the best circulation of any Democratic Weekly in the country ..."? They even put "Caucasian" in the masthead in the 1860s. And added the slogan "White Men Must Rule." Not exactly an unbiased source of information. New York's economy in ruins! Mass bankruptcy! Okay, if you want to believe that. In the mean time, you might want look up the publisher, John H. Van Evrie. If his paper is evidence that the war was all about tariffs, it really is a lost cause.
It’s interesting to listen to the lost causers bleating about blockaded ports and notice that they fail to mention that on January 12th of 1861 the insurrectionists blockaded the Mississippi River.
Yes, I am. Thank you.
The publisher of the Press supported Buchanan and gradually shifted over to the Republicans. It shouldn't be assumed that he was staunchly "Lincoln-supporting" at that point.
Ah, but yes he was. John W. Forney was an open supporter of Lincoln at the time. See: Link [My emphasis below]:
Meanwhile, Senator Douglas won the 1858 Senate election but lost the 1860 presidential election. Forney’s private allegiances switched before the votes were counted. He played an important role in keeping Democrats divided and helping elect Mr. Lincoln president. According to Robert S. Harper: “When, in December of 1860, The Press endorsed John Hickman, a former slavery-advocating Democrat turned Republican, to fill a vacancy in the United States Senate, it was open admission that Forney had joined the new party. When Lincoln took office, The Press made a public announcement of adherence to his administration by lauding the inaugural address and giving its editorial word ‘to strengthen Mr. Lincoln in all honorable endeavors to promote the general welfare.’ After Fort Sumter, The Press, called the secessionists ‘envenomed and implacable enemies’ and praised preparations for war made by the Union.”4
Sorry, but I have an advantage on you perhaps. Years ago, I purchased a copy of the old book quoted above, Lincoln and the Press" by Robert S. Harper. It cost me $50. Best book by far about Lincoln and the press that I have found. I recommend it to you. It has far more information than what you provided about the Press in your post, which looked roughly similar to what is in Wikipedia.
I also quoted the New York Times. I haven't made an in depth study of the Times during the March April time period, although I have a disk of all their war-time articles. The Times was effusive in its praise of Lincoln's first inaugural speech [Link], but fairly quickly became frustrated with Lincoln over his apparent lack of a policy to deal with the Confederacy and the tariff problem. My March 30 quote from the Times is fairly similar to what the Democrat papers were saying at this time. So, all the papers I quoted that pointed out the situation we were in (including the Times) biased in your view? Obviously all of them had their biases and slant.
The Day Book was one of the New York and Brooklyn papers banned from the mails by the Postmaster-General later in 1861 (part of Lincoln Administration's war on the opposition press, I think). Do you have any indication that the Day Book was misrepresenting New York City business failings in my quote from it above? I'd be very interested in hearing about it if you did.
The rapid fall of the tariff revenue surely would have had serious consequences on NYC import related businesses.
PeaRidge, you are the whiz about Civil War economics. Are there other sources about what was happening to New York businesses in this time period?