Whether or not Lincoln is Satan is a distraction. Whether the Bush's started three lost wars is much more germane to our conditions, epecially as the same party is getting poised for another shot at the Senate and presidency.
I think we would all be better off if we admitted that so-called social issues often boil down to economics, regardless of political party. Of course Lincoln believed in the superiority of his race, but dominating the South and its economy took precedence over his personal beliefs. Thus the carnage.
In my view history, both recent (Bush II) and not so recent (Lincoln) remains highly relevant. A persuasive libertarian narrative that explains the arc of history, where we've been and how it got us to where we are, is vitally important to winning the ideological battles of today. Average people may not know much about history or pay that much attention to it, but they often take their cues from those who do.
I read Thomas DiLorenzo's book "The Real Lincoln" not long ago and highly recommend it. I think most libertarians reading it would be forced to conclude that if he wasn't the worst U.S. president ever (personally I think only FDR and Wilson can compete with him for that ignoble distinction), he at least comes close. Even Bush and Obama are not as bad in my opinion -- neither of them wrought a worse transformation of the situation they inherited.
While I think there's some truth to saying that social issues boil down to economics, I also think there's some truth to saying that economics boil down to social issues. For instance the greater animosity toward extreme wealth among CEOs than among well-paid athletes or entertainers, or the broader tendency to view economic issues through the lens of nationalism (e.g. concern over how many Americans are unemployed but not over how many people in the world are unemployed). It's all inter-related.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))