Like you don't have a hardened agenda yourself.
It should be noted that the author does not present any footnotes for his opinions, and sets up false authority for his assertions. He cannot know what Lincoln read or thought. Instead, he must rely on opinions and vague quotes from second and third hand sources. That is not scholarly work.
You provide no footnotes yourself. Moreover, when was the last time you saw bibliographic footnotes in the National Review or other magazines of that sort, the New Republic, the Nation, the Atlantic? I'm not even going to say what that comment makes you look like.
The same with the assertion that "He cannot know what Lincoln read and thought." Why in heaven's name not? And how can you come any closer with your own selective quotes? Gabor Boritt, relying on Herndon's account, documents Lincoln's reading of the Mills, Carey and Wayland, and Lincoln left behind enough documentation of his own ideas about economics, so why do you say that Guelzo "cannot know" such things?
“Cast into life where slavery was already (existing, I do not know) how it could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself.” (1852 eulogy of Henry Clay)
Equivocation.
Bullsh#t. Look at the actual quote:
Having been led to allude to domestic slavery so frequently already, I am unwilling to close without referring more particularly to Mr. Clay's views and conduct in regard to it. He ever was on principle and in feeling, opposed to slavery. The very earliest, and one of the latest public efforts of his life, separated by a period of more than fifty years, were both made in favor of gradual emancipation of the slaves in Kentucky. He did not perceive, that on a question of human right, the negroes were to be excepted from the human race. And yet Mr. Clay was the owner of slaves. Cast into life where slavery was already widely spread and deeply seated, he did not perceive, as I think no wise man has perceived, how it could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself. His feeling and his judgment, therefore, ever led him to oppose both extremes of opinion on the subject. Those who would shiver into fragments the Union of these States; tear to tatters its now venerated constitution; and even burn the last copy of the Bible, rather than slavery should continue a single hour, together with all their more halting sympathisers, have received, and are receiving their just execration; and the name, and opinions, and influence of Mr. Clay, are fully, and, as I trust, effectually and enduringly, arrayed against them.
He's talking about Clay, a slaveowner who thought slavery wrong but didn't know how it could quickly -- "at once" -- be eliminated without creating even more problems.
He's right about Clay, and right that a prudent, thoughtful statesman would avoid the extremes of justifying and encouraging slavery on the one hand and demanding immediate emancipation on the other.
Now whether one ought to be a prudent and thoughtful statesman, rather than an agitator and activist for immediate change, come what may, is a question that people will argue about, but accept the premise that politicians try to negotiate between evils and its hard to disagree with Lincoln in this matter.
After the Dred Scott decision, he said:
“We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. This is what we have to do.”
No equivocation there.
Mr. Lincoln varied his message.
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favour of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races”.
Those words came from the mouth of Abraham Lincoln in his debate with Stephen A. Douglas in 1858.
Equivocation.
By no means. These were two different questions: 1) the expansion of slavery against the right to freely sell one's labor and 2) social and political equality between the races. And Lincoln was unequivocal on both. That may not be to our taste today, and he may have changed his mind over time, but it would have been quite clear to people of his own time where he stood.
Moreover the idea that he "varied his message" is also a little silly. In a debate you deal with the charges and attacks that are thrown at you. Lincoln was dealing with the attacks Douglas had made on him. You may regard his comment as contemptible (though maybe more because of the fact that he said it, rather than what he said, which reflected the belief of the vast majority of Americans -- North, and especially South), but in other forums, where he didn't have Douglas breathing down his neck he may have expressed himself differently. Is that equivocation? Only to the extent that politicians don't always use the same tone and words with every audience.
Come clean on this: if you were alive in 1850 or 1860 you'd be pro-slavery, a defender of the Southern way of life. Certainly people who wail as much as your friends do about the wrongs done to the South would be. Maybe I would too. Almost everybody accepted the existence of slavery where it already was established. In that context, Lincoln was ahead of the country in seeing the wrong of slavery and looking forward to its eventual demise.
“It should be noted that the author does not present any footnotes for his opinions, and sets up false authority for his assertions. He cannot know what Lincoln read or thought. Instead, he must rely on opinions and vague quotes from second and third hand sources. That is not scholarly work.”
Despite the faith that Lincoln supporters engender, it is true that sometimes you don't know what you think you know. And that seems to be the case with you
Your misinformation continues to be focused on the contention that you and others seem to know what Lincoln was thinking, and that the speculative comments of others can be accepted in whole as absolute truth.
Consider your attempts to refute the irrefutable...that the author cannot know Lincoln's reading habits or true thought patterns. But in truth, that construct is essentially a contrivance, a red herring, that superficially supports the author's agenda of creating another Lincoln myth.
One of your most favorite methods of attack is the “where is the documentation” argument, which you now abandon with great surety, citing publications that you claim do not engage in documentation, and imploring that that is acceptable.
How silly! Most here may have not seen your repeated demands for documentation, but it is your hallmark of authenticity. Conversely, I have even seen you posit obscure, undocumented term papers as full evidence of your position, and defend that with great certainty.
Opinions aside, it is only by his behavior, primarily verbal behavior by which we “know” him. And it is the repeated vacillations by which we know him best.
You do not address important contradictions in the context of each other.... his house divided speech, his comments to Greeley, or his support of the Thirteenth Amendment (1861). Nor do you admit any irregularities between Guelzo’s “war rationale” quote and the long passage you introduced from Clay's eulogy.
No, you seem to be perfectly comfortable with his contradictions and offer amazing acceptance:
“...but in other forums, where he didn't have Douglas breathing down his neck he may have expressed himself differently. Is that equivocation? Only to the extent that politicians don't always use the same tone and words with every audience.”
So you do admit to his equivocations, and offer up the same explanation as I did, all the while using denial that you were doing so.
Nor, and most importantly do you contrast any of those equivocations and his repeated promises to retain the tariff flow, followed by his invasion of Ft. Sumter and Pensacola.
Come clean on this: You're a huge admirer of Theo Bilbo ..... his oratorical style, at any rate, which consisted of fixing on one word and ranting it over and over.
You throw the word "slaver" around as if you thought it had a Velcro backing.
"So's your old man, and you're another!!" <sigh>
I take it back -- Theo Bilbo wouldn't touch a "retort" like that with a seven-foot pole.
He looks like a man who has an honest question about the reliability of the quote, and its provenience. There are plenty of bogus quotes floating around the Internet; and the passage cited would seem to be sufficiently trenchant, that anyone who's read David Donald, Wm. Herndon, Bruce Catton, or Carl Sandburg might reasonably wonder why he hadn't seen the quote before, if it had any power to illuminate Lincoln and his policies. That is why we all recognize the "House Divided" quotes instantly. So why not this one?
It's a fair question.