Killing Lincoln: The Real Story

[Eva Elisabeth]

Re: "I do have one question for you, were you aware of Charles Dunham before I landed here, or is all this completely new to you?"

If you enter "Dunham" in the search engine, several threads will pop up - here's a start: http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...m#pid19733

Re: "You are the long-time scholar on this issue, while I just a neophyte, so please instead of nit-picking your way into a flame war..." - Steven, I don't think anyone wants this or "engage in useless hostilities". We (as there are many teachers aboard) just don't want suspect theories to make history without solid evidence. We are not talking about a fictional novel, do we? Then I'd agree on a use for entertainment.

I still don't understand why you, calling yourself a neophyte, didn't seek advice about all this in advance?

[Steven Hager]

"Gene didn't ask that."

Will Gene be addressing himself in the third person? Is there a proper salutation for me I wonder? Here's what Gene did say:

"One of the things you will need to overcome on this forum is the precedence of some previous authors that posted here who had somewhat debatable theories they represented as fact. They seemed to lack any prior serious historical credentials, and gave the impression they joined the forum mainly for the purpose of selling their book. Most of them were crack-pots, Rolleyes it appears that when they were writing their book they were either smoking crack or high on pot."

So aside from the hippie bigotry, which I requested you refrain from in the interest of mutual respect among honest researchers, you further impugn my integrity and imply my only purpose in arriving here is to pump my book sales. I transposed this into a why I am here statement in order to address your concerns in this area. In the future, if you make further attacks on my reputation, integrity and motivations, you can expect some sort of reply, so no need to keep dancing on every detail.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Re: "It seems your first point is, you cannot accuse a government official of an evil deed unless you could prove your case in a court of law. This is a high bar considering how easily the court system is weighted toward those with the biggest budgets," - is it? I thought the US court system like ours first of all obeys the principle "in dubio pro reo," and had this in mind. This goes for government officials as well as for any individual, and accusing whomever of an evil deed should be based upon serious evidence, even if you don't like his/her character - and my opinion on arguing upon rumors...you wouldn't like to be hanged based upon rumors or "weird" character features, would you?

[Steven Hager]

Accusations against Stanton began in 1938. Hundreds of scholars now accept the reality that the cabal of Stanton, Wade, Stevens, Sumner and Chase was capable of any evil deed to achieve their objectives. I would equate this issue with the level of respect the Warren Commission currently receives among credible historians and researchers. The Warren Commission is the same as the Military Tribunal that hanged Surratt. They are both sham events completely controlled by the organizers of the crime and represent the mechanism through which the cover-up can be traced and trailed back to the cabal. I guess you don't realize the reason Stanton lost his seat on the Cabinet was because after the Congressional investigation into the Military Tribunal, Stanton lost all credibility once the perjuries were revealed. He became incredibly unpopular, just as Mary Surratt became a martyr to many. Surratt became the blood Stanton couldn't wash out of his hands. He was promised a seat on the Supreme Court, which is how Chase was put to pasture by Lincoln, but Grant resisted on signing the appointment until after his death. You will find many people who knew him well say very unkind things about how incredibly ruthless he was. Why are you pretending this is a man who should be above suspicion would be my question to you.

---

Thanks for that link. Many months ago I began blogging on this subject as a way to seek advice and fine-tune my perspective. Unfortunately, there's nothing of real substance on the Dunham thread, although it was interesting to see who initially posted the book and who initially commented on it. There is some very significant information in this book, and it seems my detractors admire this book greatly, which makes me think my work should receive a wonderful response once they read it, because it draws crucial evidence from Cumming's well-respected book of a few years ago.

[Gene C]

Thank you for responding, you answered most of my questions.
I have read Roscoe and Otto, but it was many years ago. They were interesting, but I found their main premise to be weak and a bit far fetched. I would have to reread them to give you specific reasons.
I am aware of Charles Dunning/Sanford Conover, know very little about him. My overall impresion is he was an unethical opportunist, but I can not recall what or where I read something about him, it may have been in Weichmann's book)
I am aware of the problems of drug and alcohol addiction during and following the civil war, but I have not made a specific study of it.

Regarding Stanton and Johnson, I recommend the book, Stanton by Benjamin Thomas. He is a bit pro Stanton, but if you take that into account, it is very informative. In addition, Benjamin Thomas is a highly regarded historian. His single volume work on Abraham Lincoln is excellent.
For additonal reading, if you haven't already read it, I would suggest The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies by William Hanchett. The Book section of this site is a great resource. The Surratt House Museum gift store has an excellent seleciton of books regarding Lincoln's Assassination and other Civil War era books
http://media.virbcdn.com/files/ff/d482ae...K_LIST.pdf

Forgive me if I have seemed over critical, you are taking a different method regarding your book than I am used to seeing. Most authors I know don't publish a book, and then make running corrections to it. They do almost all their research before publication. You seem to be taking a different approach. You stated earlier...
" My goal is to find competent people to guide me and help craft my book into something that can help spread enlightenment, because an understanding of deep politics is essential to enlightenment these days. You don't have to buy anything. Almost all my evidence is posted on my blog, and I just put up a new one today called Dirty George's Confession that you might find worth tearing apart." and
" In the meantime feel free to read the text, and attack any and every detail. I will provide my source, and if I like your information better, I will adjust the book accordingly.

With you having a masters in Journalism, I'm sure you can understand mine and possibly other who have misgivings regarding this approach to your work.
We expect you to get it right the first time, and to accept the criticism or praise once your book is published.

[STS Lincolnite]

Mr. Hager,

I think you need to understand something. You are sharing communication with people that have studied President Lincoln, the assassination and trial for many, many years (half a century or more in some cases). In that time, they have consulted primary sources, secondary and tertiary sources (and in many cases written their own secondary and tertiary sources). You might consider that when you report that you wrote your book in 10 months and then right from the start tell those historians that they are most certainly wrong. I hope you can see how that may be perceived as impertinent or disrespectful and not be received all that well.

According to post #30 of this thread, you describe yourself as a neophyte. You also say you looking for direction from those long studying experts. That is exactly what those who have engaged with you are trying to do. They come from a background where constant critical appraisal, re-appraisal (both from themselves and from others) is the norm. This constructive or critical feedback, in your eyes, has been called hostility. Your responses to the feedback given, from the perspective of the historian, is wholly inadequate. When you are requested to cite a reference, you respond in a way that does not measure up to the expected standards. They seek evidence to be considered and interpreted. The works that you cite as your “primary sources” are in fact what an historian would consider secondary sources. A true primary source is considered as evidence, while secondary and tertiary sources are not. See the following website for definitions:

http://www.lib.umd.edu/tl/guides/primary-sources

Though you have requested the feedback and help of the experts here, you seem to constantly reject their ideas out of hand. Do you really expect to gain anything that will help you by doing so? Advancing that point, I would suggest you keep an open mind and listen to what the people here have to say even when they may not share your point of view on each and every point. I can tell you I have done this and have learned a lot – as have others in this group. As a group, we still have many, many differing opinions but through careful sourcing/citation we still respect each other’s rights to differently interpret the sources (especially the primary). If you want to share in that respectful discourse, I suggest that you provide what others have asked: cite some primary sources that corroborate or support your interpretation of how events unfolded instead of seemingly trying to only promote your own point of view while discounting the well thought out and cited/sourced opinion of others.

Getting back to Eisenschimel for a moment, I would highly suggest you read the book The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies, by William Hanchett if you have not already done so. He quite effectively studied the ideas that Mr. Eisenshimel posited and was able to show many weaknesses in his supporting matrices to the degree that his theories are, frankly, collapsed. That certainly is not to say I believe Eisenschimel was wrong about everything.

In closing, while reading your posts, I have tried to an open mind. I will further tell you that I have picked out some of the items and will be looking into them further. I can also say there are some things on which I certainly agree with you. I can also say that there is no way in the world that you will to any substantive degree be able to sway me in my opinion without doing a far, far better job of providing appropriate, true primary source material. Whether that be here or in your book (and you stated that you did not footnote/endnote your book). If you wish do more than just promote your own agenda and actually make a substantive, scholarly contribution and perhaps even sway the opinions of others, you will most certainly have to provide this type of material. I daresay you can expect the same standards from others on this discussion symposium. The provision of an appropriate, cited, sourced support structure for posited theories or ideas is one of the true mandates of anyone who seeks credibility as an historical or scholarly author.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Re: "Why are you pretending this is a man who should be above suspicion would be my question to you."
I agree on all your description of Stanton's character. He's certainly not above suspicion, but I understood you are claiming his involvement in the assassination as a factual reality and truth. Therefore I find the evidence too weak. If I misunderstood I apologize. Also I wish I had worded (or was able to do so) my criticism/opinion the skillful, wonderful way Scott and Gene did.

[Steven Hager]

I appreciate the shift in tone.

Time's a-changing, and the book industry is about to undergo what happened to the music industry.

I am 63, a single father, and two years ago, after I was put out to pasture by my company of 25 years, I began converting my life's output into ebooks and writing a blog. I had a very successful career as an author, screenwriter and editor, so there was a lot of material and I cherry-picked the best.

The blogs and the ebooks completely changed my process. Although I'm most famous for my Hip Hop journalism, and that's my bread and butter, I also got well-known for my research on the Kennedy assassination. I was the editor of a national magazine and could easily court all the best writers on the subject since the rest of the media ignores the real research in this area.

I discovered what an immense tool the blog became. When I wrote about Sturgis and Maria, Maria's daughter immediately contacted me to assure me they'd never had an affair. When I wrote about the death of Dorothy Kilgallen, someone very close inside the investigation reached out to praise my efforts, and offered some minor corrections that immediately were incorporated into the blog and the book.

Once I became sure of the landscape, I put the book out. There may be some small insignificant details that will be instantly and easily corrected, both on the blog and in the book, that's the result of a significant shift in technology and I plan to take full advantage.

It takes a major publishing company two years minimum to realize a book and the book needs to be finished six months in advance. Dozens of people are involved, the cost is immense and many trees will be chopped up. That's the old way, and once you turn in the manuscript, it's written in stone forever. It's dead.

My way is so much better....the info lives on the web and the book is constantly updated, and when that happens, I will announce it on the blog so everyone knows a change has been made.

This is all new to me, but I published five paperbacks in one week, and I'm already wondering what I should pull from my archives for the next book. The Lincoln project came like a comet out of nowhere just from watching a film on netflix and realizing the trial was a fake and being run for corrupt reasons.

[STS Lincolnite]

(12-11-2014 09:21 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Most authors I know don't publish a book, and then make running corrections to it. They do almost all their research before publication. You seem to be taking a different approach. You stated earlier...
" My goal is to find competent people to guide me and help craft my book into something that can help spread enlightenment, because an understanding of deep politics is essential to enlightenment these days. You don't have to buy anything. Almost all my evidence is posted on my blog, and I just put up a new one today called Dirty George's Confession that you might find worth tearing apart." and
" In the meantime feel free to read the text, and attack any and every detail. I will provide my source, and if I like your information better, I will adjust the book accordingly.

With you having a masters in Journalism, I'm sure you can understand mine and possibly other who have misgivings regarding this approach to your work.
We expect you to get it right the first time, and to accept the criticism or praise once your book is published.

In addition to my thoughts in the post above I would like to second Gene's thoughts.

Thanks again for your consideration.

[Steven Hager]

By the way, I'm in contact with one of Stanton's heirs and he enjoys my writing and my perspective.

[Eva Elisabeth]

So he seconds all?

[Steven Hager]

You guys are funny. First you insinuate that I only came here to push my book and when I reply, I'm more interested in getting constructive feedback and correcting minor details. So let's concentrate on the big picture and you just tell me what you know about the spooks in the Booth conspiracy that weren't brought before the tribunal. If the idea is to have one person attack my method and motives while others chime in I second that emotion, I confess this looks like unfriendly ground for serious discussion. There must be some people in this forum that support the guilt of Stanton, Wade, Sumner, Stevens, Eckert, Chase....if not Jay Gould as the "New York crowd"

Everybody who doesn't agree with my thesis, and will not read the book and/or provide any substantive feedback more than what's already been posted can feel free to just migrate to other threads....while those who want to investigate the actual op, and the roles of Dunham and the French Lady and stick around and share what info we have so far.

[L Verge]

(12-11-2014 09:09 AM)Steven Hager Wrote:  Accusations against Stanton began in 1938. Hundreds of scholars now accept the reality that the cabal of Stanton, Wade, Stevens, Sumner and Chase was capable of any evil deed to achieve their objectives. I would equate this issue with the level of respect the Warren Commission currently receives among credible historians and researchers. The Warren Commission is the same as the Military Tribunal that hanged Surratt. They are both sham events completely controlled by the organizers of the crime and represent the mechanism through which the cover-up can be traced and trailed back to the cabal. I guess you don't realize the reason Stanton lost his seat on the Cabinet was because after the Congressional investigation into the Military Tribunal, Stanton lost all credibility once the perjuries were revealed. He became incredibly unpopular, just as Mary Surratt became a martyr to many. Surratt became the blood Stanton couldn't wash out of his hands. He was promised a seat on the Supreme Court, which is how Chase was put to pasture by Lincoln, but Grant resisted on signing the appointment until after his death. You will find many people who knew him well say very unkind things about how incredibly ruthless he was. Why are you pretending this is a man who should be above suspicion would be my question to you.

"Accusations against Stanton began in 1938," the magical year that your obvious "mentor" (through reading), Otto Eisenschiml published Why Was Lincoln Murdered and started one of the worst disservices to the study of the Lincoln assassination by using yellow press techniques of innuendoes, open-ended questions without giving documented answers (if answering at all).

"Hundreds of scholars now accept..." Key word here to me is SCHOLARS.

You asked somewhere if we had heard of Charles Dunham before you arrived on the scene. In my case, the answer is "yes," and I was friends with Carman Cummins, who wrote the book on him, and he spoke at a Surratt conference one year. Unfortunately, I will not be reading your work to find out if you trampled on some of his work.

As for Secretary Stanton, he is an interesting personality that deserves even more coverage than what has been done. As far as him being the manipulating fiend that you paint him as, I think more study is needed. And, although this Southern woman is not a fan of Radical Republicans, they were men of their time using politics and revenge at a very troubling time in our history.

P.S. Please heed the valuable advise that Gene, Scott, and Eva have offered. As far as what I consider the reduction of history to a brief posting on a blog without sources, etc., the thought scares me to death. Another fine example of "the dumbing down of America...?"

[Gene C]

(12-11-2014 09:47 AM)Steven Hager Wrote:  You guys are funny. First you insinuate that I only came here to push my book and when I reply, I'm more interested in getting constructive feedback and correcting minor details. So let's concentrate on the big picture and you just tell me what you know about the spooks in the Booth conspiracy that weren't brought before the tribunal.

You are giving me the impression you want us to do your research for you. Most of us don't work that way. We are willing to assist you and try to point you in the right direction, but we're not going to just tell you what you want to know so you can fix your book.

You may find some information you want in Lafayette Bakers book, Thomas Jones book, or some of the material available previously mentioned at the Surratt House Museum gift shop and their research center. I think you might even enjoy the Indiana State University's Neff Guttridge Collection.

[Steven Hager]

The Neff collection is one of the biggest sources of disinfo in my opinion, and Baker didn't even write that book and wasn't sure what was in it when questioned. He just handed the ghost writer a stack of newsclippings on his illustrious career as a spook. There little to go on there, other than Stanton's perculiar reactions to elements of the Booth manhunt. And it's ok if you don't want to help polish my book, many others will appear soon I'm sure.

I watched how Otto was handled and how every minor detail that could be disputed was marshaled as the grand rebuttal, but most of what he uncovered stands today.

So when you wanted to challenge details of my breezy impromptu dialogue, I gave my tar-baby response. Please, please go after every detail in my book.....and if I find you evidence is indisputable, I will instantly incorporate it into my book. Keep in mind, 15,000 books and 5,000 pages of trial transcripts leaves a lot of wiggle room on both ends.

Meanwhile, yes there are some quotations from Cummings book. All entirely accurate.

---

When you remarked on bad research, I agreed and brought up the story of a service magazine with cypher in the margins purporting to be Baker's. That's Neff. He did more damage to this investigation than any other single author. But then, that's just my opinion. Funny you support his stuff, I guess you agree with his story about Booth already being married and not getting killed at Garrett's?