Why? Just because he included details omitted by Alexander Stephens in his account? Or because you disagree with his message? You have to admit that the Henry J. Raymond version of the story puts an entirely different slant on the story. You would have us believe that Stephens is concerned only about the slaves, but why should we assume that? Mr. Hunter's concern seems to be about southern society as a whole, of which the freed slaves were only a part of it. And I doubt that they were the important part. No work would be done, he says. Nothing would be harvested. People would starve. Lincoln's response, in this case, is quite obviously a slap at a society that is accustomed to having others do all their work for them. Lincoln appears to be saying to the southerners that your chattel is gone and not coming back. You want to survive then it's up to you to shoulder the load. It is the priviledged planter aristocracy who have to 'root, hog, or die' and not the newly freed slave.
It should be remembered that account is given by Henry J. Raymond, a close friend and ally of Lincoln. Why wouldn't Lincoln be honsest and open and candid to him? If anything, I would place more credence with the Raymond story that the Stephens version, not because it supports Lincoln but because the Stephens recounting is a small and insignificant part of his work. The tale has nothing to do with the subject of the two volume work, which was the constitutional support of secession. Why should Stephens provide the same level of detail as Raymond, who was recounting Lincoln's talents as a story teller?
I was referring to the website where I found the quote I first posted. That was supposedly quoted from the Stephens' book. So, as there is no reference to the song there, I found the scholarship of the poster worthy of criticism. You seem perhaps to have misundersatood to what I was referring.
As for the disrepancy between the two accounts, I would tend to believe Stephens' account (you will say "of course" - but you attribute much less objectiviity to me than my relative indifference to this issue gives me) because: Stephens was an honorable man, he was writing at most 5 years after the event, and he had little to gain by misrepresenting the story. The other version would appear to have come out only 35 years after the event. Moreover, even if we do suppose McClure recollection of Lincoln's words was accurate, I can easily imagine Lincoln realizing the damage that might result if his candid remark got out and changing the story to make himself look better.
I really had not wished to debate further over which version is the truth. You had suggested that the original source of Stephens' quote should be consulted and since I had posted the questionable quote and had the Stephens' book, I thought it reasonable for me to post the relevent material. This was merely an effort to correct the record. But then you even take exception to my acknowledgement that the quote I originally poste proved to be in error. I don't understand.