[stainlessbanner]

That list has been refuted on prior threads. Many of the claims have little to do with the larger concepts and passages in DiLorenzo's book.

Epperson buids strawman arguments to "refute" DiLorenzo's work. A more factual account is linked from that website here

[x]

I've said in the past that Epperson sometimes lists errors of interpretation as errors of fact, but his list is a good starting place for those who've been taken in by DiLorenzo's bs to begin to free themselves from his influence.

The creature who wrote the article you linked to was under the impression that all he had to do was cut and paste arguments and write a response under them to "refute" something.

Thanks for posting it anyway. People will be able to make up their own minds (though it might help if they had an opportunity to see other examples of your source's tortured reasoning).

For a better discussion DiLorenzo's charlatanism take a look at Richard Gamble's review of DiLorenzo's first Lincoln book.

Gamble agrees with most of DiLorenzo's argument, but still finds him to be incredibly sloppy and his book to be "exasperating, maddening, and deeply disappointing."

Now imagine what those of us who aren't convinced by Tommy's book think of it.

It's too bad that more scholars didn't take Tommy's book seriously enough to subject it to real criticism.