It's especially disturbing because, apparently, he simply made it up.
Moreover, the source he used to make Lincoln a supporter of "deportation" of free blacks lacks evidence for his claim, too. Dr. D. didn't check his sources, when they fit his bias. And it turns out they were wrong.
The most comical of his errors is the citation of the words of the VA clergyman as though they were Lincoln's; the most blantanly pro-CSA of the small ones is his account of the military campaigns, and especially his claiming that the Army of the Potomac didn't get within 50 yards of the CSA lines at Fredericksburg; the deepest is that he never even notices that J.Q. Adams and Madison distinguished, as did Lincoln and nearly the whole founding tradition, legal secession and natural rights based revolution. The next deepest of his errors is a failure to distinguish perfect social and political equality from the issue of slavery. This leads him to use abolitionists against Lincoln, an to pretend that it is a great discovery of his that Lincoln's resistance to slavery was politically distinct from Phillips, Garrison, et. al., a fact known to any literate person for a century or more.
He gives no evidence for the take he wants the reader to have on the Gen. Dix/John Howard affair, he misreads David Donald, he persists in a lunatic reading of the Bank issue in the debates and in the Dred Scott speech, he misleadingly truncates a key quote on the Fugitve Slave law, he takes an historically naive and unsupported view of the possibility of peaceful emancipation, and makes a dozen or more similar slips or omissions or false insinuations.
The book is a mess.
And the more its folly is exposed, the better.
"Wide Awake" for Lincoln,
Thanks for the review.
Every once in a while the neo-rebs on FR will tote out this charge against Lincoln. Then they sulk when one asks for proof.
Actually, they do a lot of sulking, for various reasons.
Maybe, but maybe not. I'll bet DiLorenzo had sources such as this from the white sheet school of history.
To anyone familiar with that battle claim is clearly a reference to the sunken road where confederates took up their position at the base of Marye's Heights. DiLorenzo's claim is a perfectly reasonable presentation of what historically happened there. Most estimates of the battle put the closest distance the federals made it toward the stone wall at about 50 yards away. The most liberal estimate claims that the distance of 25 yards reached by a small portion of a single division out of a failed charge by Gen. Andrew A. Humphreys. This is unlikely as Humphreys' attack, in which he originally ordered a bayonet charge on the wall, was nothing short of disastrous. It was wiped out in two sweeps with Humphreys himself having two horses shot out from under him and barely escaping back to the trench. Conservative estimates put the mark at between around 75 yards. What is definately known is that:
A.The closest position the yankees could even come close to holding was a ravine 150 yards back.
B. Not a single yankee force successfully made it to the wall in front of the road in front of the hill upon which the confederates staked their position during the charge, dead or alive.
C. Most of the casualties fell at around the 100 yard mark, the point where troops along the wall unleashed a full open fire.