I did this above.
In case you missed it, I repeat, with minor edits.
********
Returning to DiLorenzo, other remarkable errors include his snipping a quote to make Lincoln in favor of "any legislation for reclaiming of their fugitives." [pg. 13, see footnote 11] having Lincoln address Illinois Legislators, as a member in 1857, when Lincoln was not in the legislature, [pg. 18] and making the preposterous claim that "[W]hen it [the Declaration] mentions equality, it is equality of the people of the several states." [pg 86]
This vaguely put assertion either means that Jefferson boldly declared that it was self-evident that New York was equal to North Carolina, or that the people [citizens?] of all of the 13 colonies were equal, each to each, not what all sensible men take Jefferson to have meant, "ALL MEN are created equal."
...let me add one last general point bearing on this book and the whole debate over secession. DiLorenzo and many of his crowd never even consider the possibility of a distinction between the sophistry of "legal secession" and a justified revolution, with an appeal to "the laws of nature and of nature's God."
Now, even if that distinction is ill-made, which I admantly deny, it was operative the minds of Lincoln, J.Q. Adams, Madison, and many, many other American Statesmen. Failure even to notice the distinction makes DiLorenzo misrepresent these men, espcially Adams and Madison.
There, that's it for now. This was probably too long, but I've had it with the device of folks on one thread saying, OK, he made a little mistake. What about "x,y,z" which you haven't spoken to? We have spoken to these things, here, at WND, at the Declaration Foundation Forum, and elsewhere. We have proved the book is tendentious, sloppy, and essentially false.
Maybe now good people can read a scholarly but accessible book like William Miller's Lincoln's Virtues, and think about his accurate and not at all one-sided presentation of the questions Lincoln's statesmanship poses.
****
There you have some of what you ask for.
Regards,
Richard F.
I have to give a speech in Ohio on Friday, and I'll be away from my keyboard starting sometime tomorrow.
Best to all,
Richard F.
The person who snipped that quote is you just now. DiLorenzo quotes the segment reading "When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully, and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives"
The entirity of the sentence states "When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully, and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one." It is truncated for brevity and directness, but the quote itself is valid in DiLorenzo. Try again.
having Lincoln address Illinois Legislators, as a member in 1857, when Lincoln was not in the legislature, [pg. 18]
This appears to be nothing more than a typo, likely referring to 1837. Unless you are in the business of obsessive pettyness, this is not the damning error you make it out to be. Try again.
and making the preposterous claim that "[W]hen it [the Declaration] mentions equality, it is equality of the people of the several states." [pg 86]
As I noted previously, that is a matter of opinion that, if anything, would require DiLorenzo's clarification to discuss properly. I guess that makes three strikes. Got anything else?
I've had it with the device of folks on one thread saying, OK, he made a little mistake. What about "x,y,z" which you haven't spoken to? We have spoken to these things, here, at WND, at the Declaration Foundation Forum, and elsewhere.
Perhaps you should step back and cool down for a second before proceding. Could not the fact that obviously many people don't think you are addressing the whole thing evidence that there might be some truth to that? It is easy to think of yourself as having done so when you've participated in many heated debates. But that may not necessarily be the case.
Speaking from personal experience upon my entry into this debate, I have read what I believe to be the bulk of your articles and David Quackenbush's articles on this subject. This includes your World Net Daily articles and interview plus several posted on the declaration foundation website. Most of these have also been pasted here on FR as well. Of what I have seen, it rarely moves beyond these 4 or 5 or 6 petty little complaints beaten down to an absurdly tedious and obsessive pulp of semantic nonsense. When you do leave those passages, it is only in general terms, and then sure enough you return to those passages and continue to squeeze them for something more. The only thing remaining for you to do is convert these 5 passages into latin, flip them upside down, and look for a secret confederate code announcing to all the rebels in hiding that the time has come for the south to rise again.
I would also venture to say that beyond those 5 or so passages, you start to run dry. Your complaints with DiLorenzo become weaker and weaker. Witness the recent list you provided above as evidence. One is a complaint over what appears by all reasonable means to have been an innocent typo, perhaps even made by the publisher and not DiLorenzo himself for all we know, that ammounts to a difference of a single digit in a year's date. Another complaint is over the fact that DiLorenzo dared engage in the common and acceptable practice of truncating a quote while using it within a sentence. Your third is with a vague characterization, possibly of personal opinion, about the DoI that, IMHO, would require further clarification from DiLorenzo himself before either of us could accurately debate what he means by it and what the merits of his argument for it happen to be. In short, you're out of ammo to fire.
We have proved the book is tendentious, sloppy, and essentially false.
No, you've lodged 4 or 5 isolated complaints with the specifics of its text, many of them long since addressed and an equally many number of them ammounting to petty nonsense.