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.
"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."
Note the period.
Lincoln actually said:
"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."
Your comment was:
"It is truncated for brevity and directness, but the quote itself is valid in DiLorenzo."
Dear capitalist,
If you can't see the difference between a promise to support any legislation, and to support legislation strongly qualifed [the standard of proof is, after all, rather high in Murder cases ...]I hardly know what will move your mind. That the details of a Fugitive Slave Law were under dispute, even among those who would pledge to support one, is all over the historical record, including Lincoln's first inaugural. Moreover, Lincoln's willingness to support a reasonable law of this kind comes from his sense of duty to uphold the Constitution, which DiLorenzo claims was non-existent.
This is most likely my last reply until late Sunday.
Happy Flag Day to you and all!
Richard F.
Let me be blunt.
To use the 1839 speech of J.Q. Adams to support secession is lying at a level not seen since May of 1945.
Or, perhaps, since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Have a nice day.