Replies

No offense meant ... I thought you were being a stickler for accurate quotation,

In one respect I was. This gets down into what I call the "He said he said"s; the point being that both your side and DiLorenzo's side has been guilty of... shall we say.... presenting the other's words to our own perceived advantage.

So I guess it kind of comes down, at least to me, to who attacked whom first (and why).

This gets down into what I call the "He said he said"s; the point being that both your side and DiLorenzo's side has been guilty of... shall we say.... presenting the other's words to our own perceived advantage.
So I guess it kind of comes down, at least to me, to who attacked whom first (and why).

Who attacked whom first may interest you, although I can't see why except as a way to discover who is telling the truth. So why why don't you "guess it kind of comes down, at least to you," whether the book which is the topic of this thread contains manufactured evidence for a key assertion? Why won't you speak to the specific evidence laid before you?

DiLorenzo says specific texts contain Lincoln's economic zealotry in the most crucial decade before his presidency. He offers them in reply to the challenge that he can find NO texts which reveal that zealotry, because he made it up. He has cited these texts twice in WND columns and again in his book as key evidence. I say the texts are nothing of the kind, and that he either knows better and is lying, or is incompetent. I have put the texts before you. You continue to talk about everything else but this.

Caught a nap, and have time for one more.

Here goes.

I flatly and vigorously deny this. Quackenbush and I have been scrupulous to quote DiLorenzo exactly, and to represent directly and honestly his assertions. I even took your summary/citation of them to crystalize the points at issue.

Let's stay out of Sangamon County in 1832, and stay on point.

Here is the summary, again:

****

One2many writes, with my clarifications and numbers in brackets:

1] "In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda."

2] Obviously "revealed his single-minded devotion to the corrupt Whig economic agenda" is very much NOT the same thing as: 1] " [in the debates] made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda" don't you agree?

And Quackenbush replies, with a few insertions from me ...

Well, yes, these two completely unsubstantiated and false statements are different. One [#1 above]is a false instance supporting the [other, #2 above, which is a] false general claim.

*******

Now tell me, if you would, what is wrong with this summation, and in particular, how it misrepresents DiLorenzo's writings. He did make claim 1], and his general thesis in the book, which I now have, is that 2], and not anti-slavery, was Lincoln's principal aim in his 28 year public career.

Regards, and Happy Easter,

Richard F.