Just kidding. Since you have shown that you have a strong stomach by just skimming the book, you owe it to us to read it and report on the funny parts. Wait. That would be the whole book, wouldn't it? Just give us selected highlights.
If you protect me from bad people who yell at me I will post amusing paragraphs . . . let's see . . .
Oh yes, here's one:
As he stated over and over (references mysteriously omitted, DQ), his concern with the issue of slavery was motivated by a desire to use the issue to "save the Union," which was a euphemistic way of saying that he wanted to consolidate governmental power in Washington, D.C. In this regard Lincoln's motivations were identical to those of the Central American revolutionaries who invoked violence in the fight against slavery as a tool to gain or expand state power." Page 48
On page 54 of "The Real Lincoln," we read:
Roy Basler, the editor of Lincoln's Collected Works, commented that Lincoln barely mentioned slavery before 1854, and when he did, "his words lacked effectiveness."
The citation for this sentence in the notes reads:
Roy P. Basler, ed., Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings (New York: Da Capo Press, 1946), p. 23.
In his initial column addressing rdf and me, DiLorenzo made a version of this same claim:
These ill-mannered scolds claim that Lincoln was obsessed with the issue of slavery from 1854 on. But that would be news to the editor of "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, who wrote that Lincoln barely ever mentioned the topic prior to 1854 and even then, he did not seem at all sincere. "His words lacked effectiveness," writes Basler.
The text in Basler occurs in an essay entitled: "Lincoln's Development as a Writer." And indeed the burden of the essay is to consider just that, the variations in quality and manner of Lincoln's use of words. It is not an essay evaluating Lincoln's political doctrine at all, its purposes or its truth, etc. When Basler does comment on such matters, it is to trace the correlation of Lincoln's themes and the excellence of his language -- he sees Lincoln's language elevate when he turns FROM the issues of Whiggery, in the early 1850's TO the issue of slavery. And he sees Lincoln's language yet more elevated when Lincoln finally turns to the theme of Union, as he approaches the Presidency.
So DiLorenzo's use of this essay as an essay on Lincoln's political thought is questionable to begin with. But that's not the real whopper.
DiLorenzo claims that Basler claims "Lincoln barely ever mentioned the topic" of slavery "prior to 1854." But Basler makes no such claim, at least not in the vicinity of the quoted passage.
But wait, it gets better. DiLorenzo says Basler says, "even then, he did not seem at all sincere."
What Basler is actually discussing in the paragraph which DiLorenzo cites is the Dred Scott speech of 1857. His words have nothing to do with Lincoln's "post 1854" period as a whole. And further, they do not even say that Lincoln's words on slavery lack effectiveness simply. Here is what Basler actually says, about the rhetorical quality of one speech, without the lying DiLorenzo spin:
Although the speech contains some of the most memorable passages in his writings, it lacks the unity of effect which marks his best. The truth is that Lincoln had no solution to the problem of slavery except the colonization idea which he had inherited from Henry Clay, and when he spoke beyond his points of limiting the extension of slavery, of preserving the essential central idea of human equality, and of respecting the Negro as a human being, his words lacked effectiveness.
A competent or honest reader of that passage would conclude that Basler finds Lincoln's words on slavery, in this speech, to be effective on his points of limiting the extension of slavery, of preserving the essential central idea of human equality, and of respecting the Negro as a human being. But DiLorenzo LIES about this passage, claiming that it contains Basler's judgment that Lincoln's words on slaveryin the post 1854 period in general are both insincere and ineffective.
This thread is about "Fighting Facts With Slander." It seems to me that the author of "The Real Lincoln" is a champ at it.
Last point. In the SAME PARAGRAPH of Basler, Basler mentions the DISCUSSION OF JACKSON'S VETO OF THE BANK DECISION by Lincoln IN THE DRED SCOTT SPEECH. Remember that one? That's the place where, according to DiLorenzo, Lincoln "bitterly denounced" Jackson's veto of the Bank. DiLorenzo here as well proceeds as a dishonest hack, because he was so busy misrepresenting Basler's remark in the last half of the paragraph that he omitted to notice that Basler mentions the same passage, about the bank, and correctly notes that Lincoln was ONLY CONCERNED WITH THE BANK DECISION AS PRECEDENT FOR RESISTING THE DRED SCOTT DECISION:
He cited the action of Andrew Jackson in ignoring a court decision - and incidentally Douglas's approval of Jackson-as precedent for Republican endeavor to have the decision reversed. (Basler, p. 23).
DiLorenzo is so fundamentally dishonest as a scholar that it is hard to believe, even when looking directly at these texts, that he isn't just incompetent. Either way, it is remarkable that anyone takes him seriously enough to cite as an authority on the "real" anything.