” dilorenzo is the non-thinker’s easy way out”
I think, and he documents everything! Actual letters, essays, and telegrams.
You have never read his books.
Low hanging fruit? People in their own words?
DiLorenzo's been repeatedly busted for misquoting, using quotes out of context, and just not understanding what he's reading. He's a joke.
See Jim Epperson's critique.
Herman Belz's review is also of value.
Most damning is Richard Gamble's notice in the Independent Review. Gamble would like to agree with some of the "big picture" aspects of an attack on Lincoln, but even he is forced to admit that DiLorenzo's work is "a travesty of historical method and documentation. Exasperating, maddening, and deeply disappointing ..."
DiLorenzo has a few simple prejudices that lead him to see his bugbears in everything. So for example, he tells us, "In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion the nationalization of money and to demonize Jackson and the Democrats for their opposition to it." That's simply not true.
He also claims to be refuting some more or less "official" version of history that's something no actual historian believes. It's a "straw man" -- a caricature of opposing opinions that he manipulates to make his own work look original and truthful to people who don't know better.