[rdf]

If we can't settle a matter so completely based on two simple texts in the public record, I don't see how we will be able to discuss an entire book in fairness and come to any agreement. What do you think?

I see you have no answer yet, but perhaps folks are out West fighting the Indian wars on another thread.

Here is what I think.

Silence implies consent.

On the threads you mention, no one, not one freeper, defended DiLorenzo's claims about the two points you mentioned. So I assume them settled against him. Lincoln did not insert passionate Whiggish views into the debates or into the Peoria Speech, and Dilorenzo was, in public print, wrong.

Of course, better than silence would have been public admission by some of his friends, but silence will do.

Now we wait, with patience and goodwill, for similar results in the current dispute.

I am content with this.

Cheers,

Richard F.

[one2many]

On the threads you mention, no one, not one freeper, defended DiLorenzo's claims about the two points you mentioned. So I assume them settled against him. Lincoln did not insert passionate Whiggish views into the debates or into the Peoria Speech, and Dilorenzo was, in public print, wrong.

Now just a minute ole hoss; please restate your contention explicitly in regard to what DiLorenzo said that you contend is false.