“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.”
You allege familiarity yet you use the word ‘probably’ for citation validation.
And that is the point exactly....quoting the quotes of others do not demonstrate that Lincoln manifested anything that Guelzo would have the public believe.
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 multiple rebuttals, you can do a search and post for everyone to see.
Let us see the evidence that Mr Lincoln's actual behavior was affected by the Guelzo factor.
You again? You are wasting my time and everyone's space. I referred you to Boritt's book and you're welcome to read or ignore it as you see fit.
There's nothing controversial about Guelzo's article: Lincoln did promote a free labor economy by encouraging industry, and railroad construction, and settlement of the West. Guelzo even gives you the legislation by name. And his actions were a culmination of a long concern with economic development.
Look at Lincoln's early speeches on discoveries and inventions. Read a basic biography to learn about his interest in establishing banks, roads, and canals in his early career. None of that is disputed.
Look at the 1860 speech in New Haven that Guelzo explicitly refers to, at Lincoln's "Annual Address Before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, September 30, 1859" on free and slave labor, at his "Speech on the Kansas-Nebraska Act, March 21, 1854," at his 1854 "Fragment on Government." If I could locate these documents in a few minutes, what's stopping you?
Some people attack Lincoln for not being a perfect free marketeer, but Guelzo makes clear that he wasn't a 20th century liberal or socialist, and many of those free traders who win the praise of today's libertarian fanatics had a blind spot about slavery and weren't opposed to the US remaining merely a source of raw materials for foreign industry.
Really there's nothing controversial in what Guelzo says. Whatever he leaves out you can find for yourself. It's not my job to remedy the gaps in your education and I'm not running a tutorial for you. Still less am I interested in arguing with you, given how irrelevant what you brought to the table in your original post was to Guelzo's article.
Maybe you'll find somebody else interested in rewriting the article for you and tutoring you on basic points of Lincoln's biography, but that's not something you have a right to demand of those who respond to you.