History of Demo/Rep party - Very informative

[packman]

?t=258

[Mrdie]

1. To get an idea of differences...

Lincoln: "Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Boy that played fast and loose with history

It's revisionist history to be skeptical of Lincoln, but

Lincoln was a railroad lawyer, paid tons of money for his fees. He
received gifts of land from railroads. He was a front man, adept at
erudite general platitudes to assuage the masses. He was
pro-growth for the railroad barons. He was put into power by
northern business interests and railroad money. The video above makes it
sound like that happened later. The Civil War was about economics.
Southern states had been agitating against northern business interests
since the 1820s. Slavery was a sideshow at the war's start.

[packman]

3. Opinion or fact?

How about some sources- Some of what you say is news to me and , to be honest, sounds suspicious.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. I'm no Lincoln scholar

nor have I read widely about Lincoln

As I said revisionist, much from the author in the video, who is
an Austrian School and Von Mises economist as I understand, and I
am no fan of classical economics or libertarianism, though I'm not
really sure where one places Von Mises.

But he has written 2 books on Lincoln, and I would say revisionist
because he interprets documents differently and has created a whole
rift among Lincoln historians. This site has as
about a succinct alternative and cynical take on Lincoln as one
can find:

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo53.html

It is really a book review of the book "Lincoln Reconsidered"

I might also add that little has been written or is known about early
American financial history. And this book has some tasty tidbits about
how early capitalism functioned in the US. Loans and finance in big
cities had to trickle out to the prairies. Andrew Jackson owned
country stores on the frontier, basically the first convenience stores.

https://www.amazon.com/Nation-Deadbeats-Uncommon-Financial-Disasters/dp/0307474321?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc

[FighttheFuture]

6. What do you feel is "revisionist" in this video? It is presenting 150+ years of history and it hits

certain high points. I would not expect a lot of nuance.

I agree with your assessment of the Austrian School Von Missus (-leading and lying) and its LIEbertarian bullcrap, but where it shown that Andrew Prokop if some follower of them?

[FighttheFuture]

5. No, the civil War was about Slavery, ultimately. The South which was dependent on Slavery for

Last edited Fri Jul 22, 2016, 09:42 AM - Edit history (5)

its economic system could not afford to loose them. The North, evolving for years without Slaves had developed other means of productive labor; mainly people being paid for their work. Slavery was an issue in this country since its founding, especially on the expansion of the country to the West, as the video explained. The North was very much against allowing the inclusion of Slavery into the Western expansion. This was a primary catalyst for Secession, and the ensuing conflicts that led to the Civil War.

As for what you say about Lincoln, I see little relevance to what is presented. I am not going to argue against your facts presented in the most seedy way possible. He was, like all men, and politicians especially, a product of his times. Rather I will point what he ultimately accomplished: the preservation of the Union, abolition of Slavery, and his plans for a forgiving and productive reconstruction. This has placed Lincoln, by most scholars, as the greatest American President we have ever had. Followed by either Washington or FDR; opinions vary.

It's a real tragedy that his plans for reconstruction and forgiveness was cut short by his assassination. The South's and this country lost so much because of that, even though many in the South cheered his death. The South, staying ignorant and stupid ever since. Very sad.