Bennett is not a reputable historian because he takes as a valid source a story that cannot possibly be confirmed. All a reputable historian would say on this is that "Butler said Lincoln said." As it is, reputable historians like Stephen Oates, James McPherson and David Donald do not report the story because it is not credible, is at odds with many other statements made by both men, and cannot be corroborated.
Walt
Lincoln and Butler were to meet, that is a documented fact. Butler wrote what was discussed in the meeting, just like many people wrote what they discussed in meetings with Lincoln. You yourself have quoted many of them, I'm sure. No one disputed what Butler wrote back then. Disputing the meeting is a recent invention of revisionists. There is no reason to doubt Butler, other than you just don't like what Lincoln said. Applying your "Butler standard" to the Lincoln legacy eliminates more than it preserves. Just think, you would erase more of Lincoln than Booth could ever have hoped to do.
Donald and Oates are generally reputable but not without error or bias. McPherson is no more reputable than Marx or any other left wing hack job pushing a jacobin agenda as "history."
do not report the story because it is not credible, is at odds with many other statements made by both men
Then cite one statement by Butler or Lincoln then that shows or attests to the president repudiating his colonization beliefs. You cannot do so because no such document exists.