“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.
They are only contridictions if you take his quotes totally out of context to set up straw man arguments.
Of course we can't know exactly and precisely what anyone thought. Of course we have to look at their actions. But after saying that you proceed to ... list a grab bag of Lincoln quotes claiming that they show "equivocation." You can't have it both ways: you can't attack Guelzo for simply including quotes and other written material, and then try to build a case out of written materials. If we judge wholly on actions we can discount your verbiage. If we do take his speeches into account, we can't confine our data to the few that you like to cite.
Any politician is going to tailor his statements to his audience and to the circumstances of the time. If he doesn't he's out of politics very shortly. I think you've been unduly influenced by the current concept of politicians as ideologues who simply repeat one extreme idea over and over again, but if you look at any elected politician's statements, especially those who've held administrative office they don't add up to such a monolithic picture.
I can't help noticing the slight of hand in your original post. You don't deal with what Guelzo said about Lincoln's economic ideas. Instead you launch into an attack on what you see as his wavering commitment to abolishing slavery and then on his lack of commitment to racial equality, finishing up with tariffs. That's four or five issues there: Lincoln's economic support for free labor and open competition in the free states, his opposition to the expansion of slavery, abolitionist tendencies he didn't share, a commitment to racial equality that wasn't his either, and his views on free trade and tariffs.
There may have been contradictions or "equivocations" in Lincoln's views, as there are in the views of all politicians if they are half-way honest with themselves and their public -- or if they aren't, but in the context of the times it wasn't an equivocation to oppose the expansion of slavery and accept slavery where it existed or to oppose slavery and not favor full racial equality.
Opposition to Kansas-Nebraska and Dred Scott, abolition, and racial equality were separate issues to the Northerners of the day and one's views on one issue didn't determine one's opinion about the others. Southerners tended to lump them together and attack Lincoln as an abolitionist and racial amalgamator. If you really want to represent the Southern point of view, maybe you should look into that aspect. Maybe they were on to something there. Ask lentulus.
What you offer up as contradictory or equivocal wouldn't appear that way to someone alive at the time. What is your normal baseline for unequivocal, uncontradictory politics anyway? Secessionists who screamed about freedom and equality while they got their living by exploiting unfree labor? The idea of Lincoln as uniquely hypocritical and scheming really doesn't fit the realities of his day.
It took 100 years to get from emancipation to a national commitment to racial equality. Lincoln was right in believing that the feelings of Whites would not accept equality for African-Americans. He may have been wrong in not pursuing that goal, but it would have meant an end to his political career and whoever became president in his place would not have been anymore inclined to support full equality.
I'm not nonsequitur. I don't enjoy putting up with all this nonsense and making the same response over and over again against other people's specious arguments. I miss him because he never tired of all this stuff and never let it get to him. He might have seemed testy at times, but given the provocation he handled himself quite well and put up with things that no ordinary mortal should be expected to put up with. If you relished the give and take of argument and finding someone who'd respond critically and seriously to every little claim and complaint you had, rather than people who'd simply agree with you and attack anyone who disagreed or people who'd simply dismiss your maunderings, maybe you miss him too.