You wrote: "That's a far cry from the article line of your complaint. I'll agree that it is still an overstatement, but DiLorenzo is accurate that Lincoln discussed the bank in those debates, contrary to McPherson's claim that not a word was said of them."
From the article:
In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda.
Even when commenting on the Dred Scott decision on June 26, 1857, he bitterly denounced Andrew Jackson's refusal, some 30 years earlier, to recharter the Second Bank of the United States. He repeated this complaint a month later in a debate with Douglas.
From the book:
"Even when commenting on the Dred Scott decision on June 26, 1857, Lincoln apparently couldn't resist once again criticizing Andrew Jackson's refusal thirty years earlier to recharter the Bank of the United States, insinuating that Jackson had acted unconstitutionally; he tarred Stephen Douglas with the same criticism.
He made the same arguments a month later in a response to Douglas. In virtually every one of the Lincoln Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion the nationalization of money and to demonize Jackson and the Democrats for their opposition to it."
Somehow I'm not struck by the difference.
Am I missing something?
Wait ... I SEE IT! HE CHANGED THE ORDER!!!
Cheers,
Richard F.
Mad Dawg,
I had to ping you on this one. It's too perfect.
Actually Richard, you are. In the book, he specifically cites only the monetary issue of the bank. That appears to be accurate at its core, as Lincoln did cite the bank issue. In the article, he extends it to the entire economic agenda. That is inaccurate, and it is what prompted the calling upon McPherson's quote.