Meanwhile, I happily stand by Lincoln's words in Peoria, and my explication of them.
Do you have a copy of either Jaffa or Miller, BTW? That might make things more efficient.
Richard F.
Gladly. First take the two quotes:
"My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired to do, and I have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man - this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position - discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal. My friends, I could not, without launching off upon some new topic, which would detain you too long, continue to-night. I thank you for this most extensive audience that you have furnished me to-night. I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal." - Lincoln, Debate at Chicago
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior , and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife." - Lincoln, Debate at Charleston
Let them stand as the record.
Now, look at the core of their content. At Chicago, Lincoln stated "let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man - this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position." At Charleston, Lincoln stated "And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
The two contradict on this issue. At Chicago, he denounces the assigning of positions of superiority and inferiority and rejects it as a concept. At Charleston, he says it is inescapable so long as blacks and whites are to live together, then procedes to claim the superior position for whites.
I will concede that Lincoln did often distinguish between core equality of human beings and political equality in his speeches. He specifically did so elsewhere in the debates as a part of his argument. In this case however, the lines are significantly and inescapably blurred, especially on the issue of superiority versus inferiority. Intentional or not, the inconsistency emerges and Douglas rightly called him on it.
After that Lincoln had his opportunity to explain himself. It was a rhetorical tactic used by a skilled politician to escape a corner his opponent had backed him into during a debate. You seem to accept his explanation, and I will agree that the possibility exists in Lincoln's own mind that he himself did not see it as inconsistent. Externally though, the inconsistency is inescapable and seems to be a politician seeking to target his appeal to his audiences.
Do you have a copy of either Jaffa or Miller, BTW? That might make things more efficient.
Not on hand at present. I have seen Jaffa's previously and a copy exists at a library close to me. On a similar note, do you have a copy of Hofstadter (his own politics aside) nearby? His analysis of Lincoln's contradictions could be similarly valuable to this discussion.
As I say, I don't know how to describe verbal interchange with such people. It's like going into the ring and fighting Joe Frazier -- you argue with him and he uses his gloves. Arguing with DiLorenzo is like being attacked with fallacy-shrapnel. I've had enough.