Mudd Descendants visit Fort Jefferson NP

[L Verge]

A historian's work is always subject to review and criticism. That includes use and abuse of documented facts as well as personal styles of persuasion and writing; it is part of the test to see who can bring something new and worthwhile (and provable) to the table. Personally, I feel that many of John's responses to my theories, as well as others, have been delivered in a condescending manner to make me feel insecure. And, he has not responded with the critical ingredient - documented proof of his points.

I have been on the same page with John for about 2-3 years now, ever since I read his initial writings in a newsletter from the Cleveland CWRT. I want him to PROVE his central theme because I believe in it also. He asked me to review his manuscript last year before it went to the publisher, and I declined because of work and family responsibilities. I could kick myself for not doing that review, but I would probably have had the same problems then as I have now with his style. It is ingrained in him, I'm sure, and he would have fought me tooth and nail about any revision.

What is disappointing and unfortunate to me is that so much is theory written in a style that will convince the novice reader that Decapitating the Union has solved all the questions. It hasn't; it has only confused some of the issues.

Those of us who were trained in history and have spent the past sixty years immersed in the Lincoln assassination story want to avoid the Balsigers, Selliers, O'Reillys, Bateses, Eisenschimls, Sheltons, etc. of the future. John's research is so far superior to those scam artists that he should not denigrate it with so much continued supposition. I can remember the old days when publishers had historical editors that would point out weaknesses in style, content, and accuracy before a manuscript went to press. I wish we could get them back.