And yet you are apparently totally at a loss to point out any of the imagined fallacies.
Typical.
The man has written US history books that have wound up on the NYT bestseller lists. He is highly thought of here on these boards and acknowledged to be one of the nation’s best conservative historians. Although I agree that more in depth discussion is in order I think his opinion should not be dismissed lightly. What, pray tell, are your qualifications?
Maybe he's just tired of this ignorant neoconfederate s___t excreted month after month, year after year.
Just about everybody is at this point.
Fortunately, there are always new people coming in who still have the energy and the interest to dissect this garbage.
Whoever wrote the article has a simplistic view of politics and 19th century American history. Just about everybody who entered major party electoral politics when Lincoln did would have to live with slavery in ways that no one today has to. No one who was elected to major offices could have been a passionate and uncompromising self-professed abolitionist.
It's surprising that Illinois's (not very vigorously enforced) constitutional provision is used to attack Lincoln. Should we then assume that every politician, soldier, or citizen from a slave state was likewise tainted by the policy of his state?
Lincoln's letter to Greeley refers to preserving the union as his "paramount object" not his only intent. It was an expression of his government's policy, not of his private feelings. Obviously, Lincoln's refusal to compromise on the expansion of slavery to the territories indicates that he did have a firm position that he wouldn't compromise on, and the speculation at the time was that slavery couldn't survive without expansion.
Nor was it clear that Lincoln ever intended to "colonize all African Americans." The idea was voluntary colonization. Lincoln's expressed intention in 1865 to extend the right to vote to Black veterans indicates that there was no plan or intention to deport or expel all African-Americans.
Tariffs weren't the cause of secession or of the war. The North wasn't notably less free than the South during the war years. Hostile editors and agitators weren't treated better in the South than in the North. Lincoln didn't start the war, and he certainly didn't "personally directed key activities of the Union Army."
George Armistead's nephew Lewis took up arms against the United States. If his grandson was of the same opinion, was it scandalous or surprising if he was imprisoned? Would he have fared any better if he'd been a self-professed and active unionist in rebel territory?