Posted on 06/04/2017 9:57:31 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I see Trump on the “twenty!”
I like to imagine Trump as Sulla. He solved Rome’s middle-east terror problem.
Imperfect but effective ... for a time.
I see logic and it makes sense. But Johnny Horton has this song that really reminds me of the strength of Trump. :)
Great thinking! Still Johnny Horton has this song about the War of 1812 and it has Trump’s name written all over it. Cheesy I know.... :)
I think he might be Moses in some ways. Hope he makes it to the promised land with a great again America.
I agree. Glad he is on our side. There is no one even close to VDH on the left.
I wouldn’t call VDH a NeverTrumper. Here’s what he wrote in September 2016 “It may be discomforting for some conservatives to vote for the Republican party’s duly nominated candidate, but as this Manichean two-person race ends, it is now becoming suicidal not to.”
Maybe that’s not a ringing endorsement, but VDH knew which lever to pull.
Trump had better remain married to his third wife, for more reasons than one.
Claudius' ancestry was actually more distinguished than Augustus'...Augustus was born Gaius Octavius, a plebeian, and became a patrician only by virtue of his adoption, whereas the Claudii had been one of the most distinguished patrician families throughout the history of the Roman Republic. Unfortunately for their reputations, the dominant interpretation of Roman political history was hostile to them and painted several of them as monsters.
Ah, that patrician ancestry could explain why the Praetorian Guard helped Claudius to ascend to the throne. The Praetorian Guard acted in a way that our current ‘Field’ FBI is acting today.
He was the only male left in the imperial family when Caligula was assassinated...the Guard wanted to keep their jobs and privileges so they wanted the system created by Augustus to continue. The Senate debated restoring the Republic...the Guard did not want that.
VDH’s comparisons are at odds with your facts. It appears to me you are in command of the history whereas VDH is writing fluff more or less. His comparison makes for interesting thoughts but starts off shaky as the United States is still a Republic whereas Claudius did not have that going for him.
Regardless, there are more important fish to fry.
I recently read of a book written back in the 1940’s that pretty much told the truth of how he really was, then more recently there are two books by Thomas J. Dilorenzo that delve into Lincoln even more.
Ping
No. DiLorenzo is a boob. We completely destroy him in “A Patriot’s History of the United States.” Lincoln has been very well written about by any number of great historians, including Allan Nevins. See our section on Lincoln, second best president to GW.
DiLorenzo is a Lincoln hater & not worth the time.
BULL, HE WAS TYRANT.
Yep, the first gold rush was in Georgia.
Consider that even with that the economy still floundered under Jackson.
You are right. Jackson is not a good comparison.
Not hardly. Been listening to way too many lefties. Don’t forget Dems founded the KKK, and the Dems were CREATED for one purpose only, to protect & preserve slavery. (Thank you Martin van Buren and Andy Jackson). Lincoln & Rs were the only party in US dedicated to ending slavery in the territories (which would end it everywhere).
Don’t buy DiLorenzo’s garbage. Read “A Patriot’s History of the United States.”
Your view of history is skewed and somewhat wrong. The Democrat Party was not created to preserve Slavery per se, although that might have been one aspect of it. It became the Dominant party in the South after the Civil War due to Reconstruction and other reasons.
The KKK actually went through three variations in it's history. The original KKK had nothing to do with oppressing blacks, it had to do with battling the Carpet Baggers that came south after the war. When Reconstruction was over the KKK disbanded. It did not become into existence again till 1915, and then had another transformation in about 1950. You can look all this up like I did.
By the way Lincoln was not that interested in stopping slavery, his documented remarks about Blacks are out there to see. You just have no real interest in researching this and finding out the truth. You are more persuaded by the Myth that has been written, much like we have witnessed by Martin Luther King and Ronald Reagan.
Thanks for the ping c_I_c. Interesting discussion.
No, my view of Jacksonian history is not skewed in the slightest. Read my chapter in “Seven Events that Made America.” TONS of primary sources, none of DiLorenzos goofball crap.
Van Buren stated his goal was to prevent a Civil War. Undeniable. He decided the only way to do that was to create a PARTY that was governed by the SPOILS SYSTEM ($$) that would supercede people’s individual views on slavery. A slaveholder himself as a teenager, Van Buren knew exactly what he was doing-—preventing ANY discussion of slavery from coming to a national vote, either by the legislature or through a presidential election. Look at the sources. They are irrefutable. No one really denies this, including his most famous biographer (and Democrat) Robert Remini.
It was not “one aspect,” it was the SOLE FOUNDING PURPOSE because there was already a party that had all the “other aspects,” the Jeffersonian Republicans.
It didn’t work BECAUSE of people like Lincoln, who would not be bought, and who thought slavery’s expansion into the territories would lead to it coming back into the Free States (as of course it HAD TO constitutionally). here you can look at (which I cite) “Calculating the Value of the Union” by Huston who shows the definition of PROPERTY was the key element being fought over-—whether people were people or property.
No, this is my field. I’ve written five or six books specifically on this, found documents NO ONE (especially DiLorenzo) ever found, and know this stuff inside out. The Dem party WAS the party of protecting and preserving slavery.
Lincoln caused secession because (like Trump) he was an outsider, NOT beholden to the spoils system, and someone who couldn’t be bought off by it. He was committed to no slavery in the TERRITORIES (he always said he’d leave slavery alone in the South-—but of course, as Huston points out, this would mean the death of slavery if it couldn’t expand due to the definition of property).
You really need to read more. Yes, the original KKK was completely racist, had EVERYTHING to do with oppressing blacks, was led by the guy who Ulysses Grant saw slaughter black POWs at Fort Pillow (well, Grant saw the bodies in heaps). If you believe DiLorenzo on anything, you are completely ill served.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.