And stupidity isn't? Tommy DiLorenzo's a carrier of that malady.
Try to read beyond Harry Jaffa and Claremont, if you read.
DiLorenzo isn't getting "beyond" Jaffa. Really, pick up David Donald or any reputable historian or biographer and you'll see just how threadbare and worthless DiLorenzo's books really are.
Btw, do you have something in particular that DiLorenzo wrote that is actually wrong - as opposed to your thinking that whatever Lincoln did was really swell while DiLorenzo (and others) don’t agree?
The classic example was DiLorenzo saying "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."
That's simply not true. It's wholly false.
Go here for more mistakes or errors in DiLorenzo's work. To be fair they aren't all fabrications. Some are honest differences of interpretation, but DiLorenzo's unreliability is manifest.
Go here for a review by a professor sympathetic to DiLorenzo's thesis in a magazine that's likewise friendly to him. It's quite a scathing review of his The Real Lincoln. Somebody will doubtless say that if the reviewer agrees with DiLorenzo's argument, it doesn't matter, but really, if Tommy can't get a good review from his own friends, is it any wonder so many other people can't abide him?
My point had to do with Lincolnolotry. Most of the criticism of DiLorenzo that is substantive has to do with interpretation. Leaving interpretation aside, probably the best broad criticism of DiLorenzo is that the book just compiles a number of negative things about Lincoln that have been in the literature for a while, which is true. The overall points that Lincoln was, for example, generally a merchantilist and assumed extra-constitutional powers powers are correct, however.