As does he coming out solidly behind a government founded expressly to protect slavery. One kind of offsets the other, don't you think?
His paper was on why Lincoln set aside the federal constitution (costing the lives of 600,000 American) and not incorporating the slavery issue until two years after the war started
It's more the fact that he roasts Lincoln while completely ignoring actions as bad or worse on the part of the Southern leadership that identifies him as the hypocrite he is. It's hard to take anyone seriously when their bias is showing as badly as his is.
That being the case, it's hard to take anyone seriously, for everyone is biased. But apart from personalities, and his error in not including the sins of the south, what did you think of his assessment of Lincoln's actions relating to his setting aside the constitution?