Plus the added bonus of your usual feigned humility. But to no end, You just can't resist your need to amuse yourself by inserting numerous insults; some obvious, some disguised as ‘scholarly’ appearing commentary, while laying out your favorite canards.
Just look back....nine paragraphs to support your contentions. You must have exhausted yourself in defending what this writer is up to.
If one wanted to establish another Lincoln myth, then what would be the methodology to quickly obtain acceptance and source credibility in today's historical publishing community? You would begin with a general, loosely examined place to posit your contentions...say a blog. So you write a thesis like contention and post it on the web, knowing that you and others will refer back to it in future expansions of this Lincoln lore.
Then on to some other publication with obvious liberal standards of scholarly documentation. One uses this to quote the original blog, as well as now inserting other writers or historians that can be quoted, without adding their sources. So, what do you have? Nothing more than a superficially convincing series of contentions that appear to be documented, while in fact containing nothing but the opinions of others.
Then once you have deposited your assertions in several places that can be sourced, you move on to another publisher that will accept your work if you have the educational credentials and some relevant source, like National Review.
Voila!.....Mr. Guelzo gets his opinions posted without sourcing himself. Now he is free to make opinion seem like scholarly fact.
Since you believe that this is scholarly work for your thinking, fine.
But others do not agree with yours and his contentions, which is acceptable in the world of historical examination and scholarly query.
Unless you disagree with this, then why don't you post his sources, his secondary sources, and their sources. Then point out specific patterns of Lincoln behavior that manifest the Guelzo contentions. This will completely clear any conflict. If you are willing to spend the time composing nine paragraphs of rebuttal, you can do a search.
Let us see the evidence that Mr Lincoln's actual behavior was affected by the Guelzo factor.
Pot=Kettle. LOL, and your "You did too/you did not!" took eleven.
You take 11 paragraphs to respond and say ... virtually nothing.
If one wanted to establish another Lincoln myth, then what would be the methodology to quickly obtain acceptance and source credibility in today's historical publishing community? You would begin with a general, loosely examined place to posit your contentions...say a blog. So you write a thesis like contention and post it on the web, knowing that you and others will refer back to it in future expansions of this Lincoln lore.
I'll do you a favor and assume you have the flu, rather than some more serious and permanent condition. Are we talking about Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan or Epeli Nailatikau of Fiji? You could certainly create a great lore based on a tiny bit of fact of we were talking about such obscure figures.
But Guelzo was writing about Lincoln and the documentation and information about Lincoln is already available. The pyramid of facts and interpretation is already there. You don't have to construct an inverted one based on a blog post or two.
And what he writes is already known to those familiar with Lincoln and Civil War studies in recent years. You only have to get a copy of Gabor Boritt's Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream to understand where Guelzo is coming from and probably to see the citations for his quotations.
If you're not familiar with Boritt's work, that could be a sign that you guys only see Lincoln from one very narrow Confederocentric point of view.