You should read more of what he wrote and what other historians write to see if this is part of a pattern in his work that isn't found in other historians before coming to a judgement like that.
He was too quick to assume that Lincoln had “ate up, digested, and assimilated” the major texts of 19th century political economy with the same zest that Herndon says he dug into Wayland's book, but if you found Shelby Davis writing
During my life I have been acquainted with very many able lawyers, and I have no hesitation in saying that Lincoln was the greatest trial lawyer I ever saw. He was a man of wonderful power before a court or jury. When he was sure he was right, his strength and resourcefulness were well-nigh irresistible. In the court-room he was at home. He was frank with the court, the juries, and the lawyers, to such an extent that he would state the case of the opposite side as fairly as the opposing counsel could do it; he would then disclose his client's case so strongly, with such honesty and candor, that the judge and jury would be almost convinced at once in advance of the testimony.
You might not automatically assume that his reported comment about Lincoln being "great" on political economy was wholly tongue in cheek. I wouldn't cite it as evidence in the way that Guelzo does, but there is a possible gray area there that you didn't acknowledge.
You said: “If you think of yourself as some sort of libertarian enforcer...”.
You do not know that, nor does the content of my posts support that.
That wasn't intended personally. It is the case that a lot of what we hear about history comes from people who have very strong political agendas who condemn those who don't belong to their own particular sect.
Over time these condemnations and accusations are spread beyond the cult and get separated from their original agenda. They take root with people who don't share the original ideology and can be hard to analyze properly and uproot.
But though I didn't intend it personally look at the sentence of yours immediately above your denial, "Guelzo ought to be exposed for what he is." And you don't think of yourself as some sort of enforcer?
I did and have. In order that you understand the magnitude of Guelzo’s use of blogs and non-footnoted publications to create a false reservoir of "factual" sources of support for his contentions, just simply do a search using the term “political economy”. I found 52 postings, 51 belonging to Guelzo...all listing his article, and it was posted on all sorts of locations...he really went to some trouble to get it where it went..
He essentially flooded the search engine platter. No one else except one provided any information on Lincoln's behavior. The one that was cited was the one I provided several posts ago that was either a misinformed comment or more likely one that was ridiculing Lincoln.
Next, regarding your long post on Lincoln...that is irrelevant to the article.
You said: “You might not automatically assume that his reported comment about Lincoln being “great” on political economy was wholly tongue in cheek.”
Taken in the context of the quote, how would you explain it?
“I wouldn't cite it as evidence in the way that Guelzo does,...”
Of course you wouldn't. It would be totally absurd.
You said: “..but there is a possible gray area there that you didn't acknowledge.”
And what would that be?
You said: “But though I didn't intend it personally look at the sentence of yours immediately above your denial, ‘Guelzo ought to be exposed for what he is.’ And you don't think of yourself as some sort of enforcer?”
That is such tripe that does not deserve any response other than to say that I expect you are looking forward to the next “Dirty Harry” movie starring Carl Bernstein.