[Grand Old Partisan]

Politics aside, his book has been critically panned as a mish-mash of lies and quotes deliberately taken out of context. There's plenty to criticize Lincoln for without having to make stuff up. His book is not at all "the other side."

[Lady Eileen]

Politics aside, his book has been critically panned as a mish-mash of lies and quotes deliberately taken out of context. There's plenty to criticize Lincoln for without having to make stuff up. His book is not at all "the other side."

If so, then those who love Lincoln should make corrections during the Q&A period of the seminar, and those dislike Lincoln should help DiLorenzo improve the next edition of his book... representatives from both sides still have reasons to participate.

[GOPcapitalist]

Politics aside, his book has been critically panned as a mish-mash of lies and quotes deliberately taken out of context.

To claim that such an event has occurred is a gross distortion of the facts in itself. The complaints you mention have been alleged almost entirely from persons that are closely affiliated with a single source, the Claremont Institute. After having read through each of their attacks on this book, I may only conclude that they are all heavy on rhetoric but short on substance. The most damning complaint they offer, if you can even call it that, refers to a single mistaken quote which has since been corrected. Beyond that, they have obsessed over and over and over again on a total of about 2 typos and a disputed interpretation of another historian's words. The sum of it all ammounts to about 5 complaints, some of them moot and others very shaky at best, from the same source of complainers. The truly amusing thing is that they've devoted literally dozens of "articles" reiterating these same 5 complaints and patting each other on the back as if they have somehow discredited a 200 page book when in fact they have yet to even address any of its main arguments.