It seems to me that almost all of that reviewer's complaints are a few typos in the footnotes (which, by the way, occur a lot more often in ANY book than most realize). If that is the worst thing about DiLorenzo's book, I'd say he's in pretty good shape.
But those who disagree with DiLorenzo really haven't yet had their say in the press
Excuse me? Where exactly have you been for the last year, x? For a few months after the book's initial publication, the Declaration Foundation and Claremont Institute were publishing/sharing attacks against DiLorenzo and his book on a weekly basis. One of those rant was even picked up by National Review (which has drifted from a forum of debate over Lincoln back in the days when Harry Jaffa and Frank Meyer did their point/counterpoint series of articles on him to the current publication, where little else about Lincoln but praise ever makes it into print).
To say that these types haven't had a chance to make their case on DiLorenzo's book is akin to claiming that Bill Clinton never got a chance to defend himself against impeachment. It just happens to be the case with both that when those cases were made, they came out intellectually deficient.
The theses DiLorenzo presents aren't new: they go back to the post bellum writings of Confederate apologists.
In my own reading of his book, I found greater similarities to the libertarian approach, which takes its most famous roots in Lysander Spooner's "No Treason." Call Spooner whatever else you like, but I don't believe you could get away with describing him as a "Confederate apologist."
Historians have long since disposed of most of his charges, and they'll disprove them again, when Di Lorenzo's book shows up on their radar screens.
News flash, x. It's already shown up on their radar screens and their supposed "best and brightest," including Harry Jaffa, the so-called "greatest living Lincoln scholar," have attempted to take it on. The product they have produced has been sorely dissappointing to date. I do not expect this to change for them at any time in the future.
The abolition of slavery was only one of Spooners many interests, including deism, banking and currency, jury nullification, and a crusade against the postal service. Wendell Phillips's 1847 response to Spooner's pamphlet on the constitutionality of slavery correctly identifies Spooner as essentially an anarchist -- and this well before the Civil War.
Spooner's 1867 publication of "No Treason" in De Bow's Magazine, which had been the premiere pro-secession, pro-slavery magazine, suggests that "Confederate apologist" is a pretty good characterization of one aspect of Spooner's activities. Certainly De Bow's published his work precisely as a defence of their own pro-Confederate activities. Their crowing about finding an abolitionist who supported their cause shows how welcome Spooner was to diehard Confederatists in the immediate aftermath of the war as well as today. Fellow travellers may have motives of their own for their actions, but it's the effect of those actions that makes them "fellow travellers" in the eyes of others, and that's as true then as it is now.
It's hard to find so scathing a review as Gamble's critique of DiLorenzo written by someone who actually agrees with the thesis of the work under consideration. Those who disagree with DiLorenzo will find even more to attack in DiLorenzo's myth book. Sloppy research is a sign of sloppy thinking.
Harry Jaffa has certainly been a major Lincoln scholar, but so far as I've seen, DiLorenzo's book has so far received little consideration from scholarly reviews or academic historians, as opposed to ideologues of one stripe or another. When actual historical experts get through with DiLorenzo, given all of the errors that have already been found in the book by laymen, I imagine there won't be very much left.
But then, the strength of the book hasn't been its documentation or accuracy but in its provision of a rationale for what people want to believe in spite of the facts, so it will always be cherished by true believers, regardless of how much it is discredited.