"I’m wondering if he thinks Rothbard was a “cultist” who “romantacized” that period. His work would likely be one of the most recommended from folks of an Austro-libertarian persuasion, which one would have to assume means it would be considered quite “revisionist” from a mainstream perspective. Although I’m not sure what Cain would consider revisionist.
I’m also curious about Woods and Gutzman. Are they “cultists” too, Cain?"
No I do not think Rothbard was “cultist” about Jefferson. In fact I remember listening to a lecture by Rothbard in which he criticized Jefferson for coping out on his beliefs when he was in the office. He said something like Jefferson was nice but a Jeffersonian was better. If I can recall the exact lecture I will be sure to pass it along. I would not call Woods cultist either, merely more Whiggish in the sense that historians use it today. I personally think Woods overromanticizes revolutionary history to a degree but I think that is just because of my personal taste. I do not fall into the love-affair that many have with the “founding fathers” They were inciters of mobs and mob justice and when those mobs grew their own beliefs, they would violently oppress them. A revolution to get them into power and an army to keep them there.