Cheers,
Richard F.
Having read the article of this thread plus the early responses to it by DiLorenzo's critics, I must conclude that it is primarily more of the same - petty griping about the interpretations of Basler and Neely.
I see that David Quackenbush partially responded to having been called on his bizarre assertion about a purported absence of Lincoln quotes in DiLorenzo's book. He does so by saying the counterexample offered by DiLorenzo was merely a header into a chapter. But that does not address the error of his previous assertion. I have pulled out my recently purchased copy of DiLorenzo's book and invite anyone to follow along.
- there is a 2 sentence quote of Lincoln on page 10.
- there is a lengthy 3 sentence quote of Lincoln on page 11.
- there are 2 near-complete sentence quotations of Lincoln found in the text of DiLorenzo's work on page 12. Shortly after that is the now-corrected siamese twins quote.
- there is another 2 sentence quote of Lincoln below it on page 12.
- there is a 1 sentence Lincoln quote on the crossover from page 12 to 13.
- there is are 2 sentece Lincoln quotes, plus about a dozen partial ones, on page 14.
- there is a 2 sentence Lincoln quote on page 15.
- there is a 1 sentence Lincoln quote plus serveral partial ones on page 17.
See what I'm getting at? And it continues like this in places all over the book. Contrary to Quackenbush's heavily emphasized assertion, there are several multi-sentence quotations of Lincoln himself. The one on pages 21-22 is a full six sentences long for that matter. So I think it is safe to say that Quackenbush's assertion was itself an error no less incorrect than the gravest of his own allegations against DiLorenzo.