Replies

At this point we gratefully acknowledge that all the information above about diLorenzo's book and the sources he misquotes comes from an article by Professor David Quackenbush.

So Ditto trots out another acquaintance/friend(?) of Ferrier, Quackenbush, and the Declaration Foundation to trumpet the notion that Di Lorenzo is a shoddy scholar and a liar while admitting that his only source of information is an article from, lo and behold, Quackenbush himself.

With such sourcing, just how is anyone supposed to take him seriously?

Oh well, another day, another Lincoln was a saint/tyrant thread.

Listen closely guys, that is the sound of your one hand clapping.

OK, muleboy, let's cut to the chase. Is the article wrong? Forget the source for a moment. Is anything in the article a lie? Show where DiLorenzo did not take the quotes out of context. Show where DiLorenzo was not incorrect when Quackenbush and other's say he was. You're as blind in your bias against Lincoln as you accuse others of being towards Lincoln.

With such sourcing, just how is anyone supposed to take him seriously?

To help you or anyone confirm the most egregious error, I provide the following sources.

1] You may find the quotation from Lincoln in Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings, ed. by Roy Basler, pg. 275. It is easy to find Lincoln's speeches on the internet, if you don't own a copy of the book.

2] DiLorenzo's garbled citation is found on pg. 12 of The Real Lincoln. You will see there that DiLorenzo falsely cites pg. 444 of Basler in his footnote 9, pg. 282.

DiLorenzo's writings are not generally on the internet at present, except for his columns and some articles. But "Aurelius" here at FR owns the book, and you could ask him to check for you. I happen to have the DiLorenzo book before me as I write, but perhaps you won't take my word.

I will be glad give you the other sources to prove the other errors, if you will be so good as to promise to read them.

Cheers,

Richard F.