If oyu can't find something pithy to quote out of 30 pages, it can hardly be very important or compelling.
In fact, it must be completely useless if it comes to us through your filter.
You hate the primary sources.
I like them, because I don't want the words of Washington and Lincoln to be forgotten or misused.
Walt
Would you be referring to the Hofstadter book in specific or is the above one of your vague generalizations? If it is a reference to Hofstadter, to rebut it I need only note that I provided you with a number of quotes from his book.
In addition, I remind you that those quotes came during a debate over argumentation made upon the authority of experts. In that case, what Hofstadter has to say disputes McPherson. 2 Pulitzers beats 1, so Hofstadter wins, and therefore I win.
In fact, it must be completely useless if it comes to us through your filter.
In that case, let me be the first to announce the uselessness of the filtered tripe you post on this message board daily.
You hate the primary sources.
Coming from a person who recently engaged in a lengthy effort to dispute my primary source account of Lincoln's involvement in the Corwin amendment by quoting from secondary sources, I'll have to take that one with a grain of salt and the recognition of the large dose of hypocrisy that comes with it.
I like them, because I don't want the words of Washington and Lincoln to be forgotten or misused.
Considered in light of my immediately prior response, an answer to the above is not necessary.