So I guess it kind of comes down, at least to me, to who attacked whom first (and why).
Who attacked whom first may interest you, although I can't see why except as a way to discover who is telling the truth. So why why don't you "guess it kind of comes down, at least to you," whether the book which is the topic of this thread contains manufactured evidence for a key assertion? Why won't you speak to the specific evidence laid before you?
DiLorenzo says specific texts contain Lincoln's economic zealotry in the most crucial decade before his presidency. He offers them in reply to the challenge that he can find NO texts which reveal that zealotry, because he made it up. He has cited these texts twice in WND columns and again in his book as key evidence. I say the texts are nothing of the kind, and that he either knows better and is lying, or is incompetent. I have put the texts before you. You continue to talk about everything else but this.
You are over-educated no doubt. What you call "evidence" is piss poor. Put together a decent "brief" and I will be glad to give it my attention next week. I expect by then that you will have explained your gutter tactics in attacking Mercer and DiLorenzo.