What are you reading now?

[Gene C]

I just started "Stories of Faith and Courage from the Civil War" by Terry Tuley.

It is a daily devotional using letters and diaries of men and women in the Civil War'
From the back cover, "The courage and faith examples of these 'soldiers of Christ' will inspire both the mind and heart of every reader who desires to have a closer walk with God"

All the letters and diaries are footnoted, they are not just from soldiers, but many are from clergy, the mothers, wives, and family left at home. They are all very interesting, so far. My main complaint with the book is the author's comments are often weak regarding the daily application of their experiences and examples to us. He could have developed that better. In spite of that, I still think its a good book and worth owning if you are interested in this subject. It's also good to use as a starting point if you are ever asked to make a short religious talk.

http://www.amazon.com/Stories-Faith-Cour...+blessings

[Craig Hipkins]

Reading The Great American Myth by George S. Bryan. Next up is Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination!

Craig

[Donna McCreary]

For Christmas, I received a copy of Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination. I plan to start reading it on Monday.

[Don1946]

I just finished Blood on the Moon, by Edward Steers which some historians, including James McPherson, claim to be the best single book on the assassination. I learned a lot and found it a good read. He takes up arguments with past interpretations and demolishes misleading defenses of Dr. Mudd. I am interested in John Surratt and the whole Catholic conspiracy theory that gained a lot of attention for years after the assassination but is now almost forgotten by historians. John Surratt was protected by a Catholic priest in Canada, then fled to join the Papal Zouaves at the Vatican. There were other connections between the conspiracy to kidnap and assassinate the president and the Catholic Church, and of course it played to a lot of prejudices and fears at the time. I did not feel Steers paid sufficient attention to this aspect of the story. I recommend the book as a good informative read.

[RJNorton]

Don, welcome to the forum!

(01-12-2014 12:20 AM)Donna McCreary Wrote:  For Christmas, I received a copy of Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination. I plan to start reading it on Monday.

Donna, I am roughly in the middle of this book right now. It's a fascinating read, and it's causing me to consider re-thinking my position on Ned Spangler. For years I have felt he was totally innocent and a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Tom's book includes some incriminating statements allegedly said by Spangler that were new to me and are causing me to take a second look at ol' Ned.

[L Verge]

Don,

I believe that many historians gave up trying to find ties between the Catholic Church and the assassination because there was nothing solid. One gentleman told me that Pope Pius IX had enough to deal with in protecting his church from the strife swirling around him in Italy at the time.

I can't remember if Andy Jampoler included thoughts on this in his The Last Lincoln Conspirator, and there is also a very good book by Kenneth Zanca on the subject of the church and Mary Surratt. Both men have been speakers at Surratt conferences and both like to share information - when they have time. I know that Andy is already working on another book, which is not assassination oriented.

[Linda Anderson]

(01-12-2014 11:28 AM)Don1946 Wrote:  I just finished Blood on the Moon, by Edward Steers which some historians, including James McPherson, claim to be the best single book on the assassination. I learned a lot and found it a good read. He takes up arguments with past interpretations and demolishes misleading defenses of Dr. Mudd. I am interested in John Surratt and the whole Catholic conspiracy theory that gained a lot of attention for years after the assassination but is now almost forgotten by historians. John Surratt was protected by a Catholic priest in Canada, then fled to join the Papal Zouaves at the Vatican. There were other connections between the conspiracy to kidnap and assassinate the president and the Catholic Church, and of course it played to a lot of prejudices and fears at the time. I did not feel Steers paid sufficient attention to this aspect of the story. I recommend the book as a good informative read.

I don't know much about the Catholic conspiracy theory. Why did the Church shelter John Surratt anyway?

[Don1946]

(01-12-2014 12:18 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Don,

I believe that many historians gave up trying to find ties between the Catholic Church and the assassination because there was nothing solid. One gentleman told me that Pope Pius IX had enough to deal with in protecting his church from the strife swirling around him in Italy at the time.

I can't remember if Andy Jampoler included thoughts on this in his The Last Lincoln Conspirator, and there is also a very good book by Kenneth Zanca on the subject of the church and Mary Surratt. Both men have been speakers at Surratt conferences and both like to share information - when they have time. I know that Andy is already working on another book, which is not assassination oriented.

I should have explained I'm not persuaded Pope Pius IX or the Jesuits ordered the assassination, but rumors of such and the Catholic affiliation of several conspirators really fueled interest in that at the time and that is interesting and forgotten. Charles Chiniquy, a defrocked Catholic priest of uncertain reliability authored a fast selling book about the Catholic conspiracy behind the Civil War and the assassination. Steers, in Blood on the Moon, seems not to have any interest the religious identity of the conspirators.

[L Verge]

Linda asked why the Catholic Church assisted John Surratt. I believe because granting refuge to those who ask for it has been a principle of the Church over many centuries - especially when the death sentence is likely to be involved.

Chiniquy, McLoughlin, Harris, and others are not considered very reliable because they wrote mainly as a "grudge" against the Church. Also, it was popular at the time to discredit the Catholics. As far as the conspirators are concerned, John and Mary Surratt and Dr. Mudd were the only ones with known ties to the Catholic Church. Some have suggested that JWB converted, but so far as I know, there are no church records to prove that. It would be interesting to see what you find in your research to either support or discredit the Catholic angle. Keep us posted.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(01-12-2014 11:52 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  It's a fascinating read, and it's causing me to consider re-thinking my position on Ned Spangler. For years I have felt he was totally innocent and a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Tom's book includes some incriminating statements allegedly said by Spangler that were new to me and are causing me to take a second look at ol' Ned.

Do you think Rittersbach was absolutely credible?

[Tom Bogar]

I don't think it was a matter of credibility, Eva. He provided what testimony he was encouraged/directed to give. He certainly asked enough questions and kept his eyes and ears open in the short time he was backstage at Ford's. To me, he is/was not credible, but he was able to twist/magnify what few things he picked up to provide testimony that made Ned Spangler look pretty guilty to those who needed someone to be held accountable.

[Ed Steers]

(01-12-2014 11:28 AM)Don1946 Wrote:  I just finished Blood on the Moon, by Edward Steers which some historians, including James McPherson, claim to be the best single book on the assassination. I learned a lot and found it a good read. He takes up arguments with past interpretations and demolishes misleading defenses of Dr. Mudd. I am interested in John Surratt and the whole Catholic conspiracy theory that gained a lot of attention for years after the assassination but is now almost forgotten by historians. John Surratt was protected by a Catholic priest in Canada, then fled to join the Papal Zouaves at the Vatican. There were other connections between the conspiracy to kidnap and assassinate the president and the Catholic Church, and of course it played to a lot of prejudices and fears at the time. I did not feel Steers paid sufficient attention to this aspect of the story. I recommend the book as a good informative read.

Dear Mr. Doyle, Not sure I am using the proper procedure to comment, but here goes. I did not consider the Catholic Conspiracy to have any validity at all, and felt Bill Hanchett covered it thoroughly ("Lincoln Murder Conspiracies"). I was more interested in the "Booth escaped" theory that Ray Neff prominantly pushed, and countering the "Dr. Mudd is innocent" claims. Both have a much larger following today and seem to have taken hold in some quarters. Indiana State University has accepted Neff's entire library/files and carefully indexed them believing they are true. I think this is a serious problem and tried to address by having a panel of historians (selected by ISU and North & South magazine) review the files and render an opinion. Nothing ever came of it although several prominent historians told me they would participate. ISU is an excellent university and should take the challenge to the Neff collection seriously. One of the problems with the Catholic Conspiracy is motive. I remember reading in the Rufus King papers (King was Lincoln's representative to the Papal States) that part of the negotiation to return John Surratt was that the U.S. reciprocate should the Papal States request extradition, AND that should the Republicans overrun the Papal States the U.S. would would grant asylum to the Pope. If true, it seems strange that the Pope would want to see Lincoln killed. In any event, the Catholic Conspiracy has long been demolished and Bill Hachett did a credible job. In addition to the two books already mentioned I suggest you also read Alfred Isacsson"s "The Travels. Arrest, and Trial of John Surratt." It is quite good.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(01-12-2014 09:20 PM)Tom Bogar Wrote:  I don't think it was a matter of credibility, Eva. He provided what testimony he was encouraged/directed to give. He certainly asked enough questions and kept his eyes and ears open in the short time he was backstage at Ford's. To me, he is/was not credible, but he was able to twist/magnify what few things he picked up to provide testimony that made Ned Spangler look pretty guilty to those who needed someone to be held accountable.

If he willingly testified in favor of offering a(nother) culprit, I wonder what his motives were. Seemingly he didn't benefit a lot therefrom - didn't he later unsuccessfully sue the government to receive compensation for his lost tool kit?

[RJNorton]

It wasn't just Ritterspaugh (Rittersbach) that caught my eye. Allegedly John Selecman told James Ferguson that he overheard Booth say to Spangler, "Now Ned you will give me all the assistance you can." Spangler allegedly replied, "Yes, I will, you can depend on that." And Withers said "he had caught Spangler trying to turn off the gas lights and plunge the theater into darkness."

We can question the validity of these statements, but if you combine what the two men claimed, then I think it adds to the possibility of Spangler not being as totally innocent as I previously thought. I am not yet convinced, just re-thinking what I feel about Spangler.

[Don1946]

(01-13-2014 10:59 AM)Ed Steers Wrote:  Dear Mr. Doyle, Not sure I am using the proper procedure to comment, but here goes. I did not consider the Catholic Conspiracy to have any validity at all, and felt Bill Hanchett covered it thoroughly ("Lincoln Murder Conspiracies"). ... I remember reading in the Rufus King papers (King was Lincoln's representative to the Papal States) that part of the negotiation to return John Surratt was that the U.S. reciprocate should the Papal States request extradition, AND that should the Republicans overrun the Papal States the U.S. would would grant asylum to the Pope. If true, it seems strange that the Pope would want to see Lincoln killed. In any event, the Catholic Conspiracy has long been demolished and Bill Hachett did a credible job. In addition to the two books already mentioned I suggest you also read Alfred Isacsson"s "The Travels. Arrest, and Trial of John Surratt." It is quite good.

Thanks Edward Steers, I got so much out of your book, I hope my obsession with the Catholic conspiracy angle did not distort my very high regard for all you did. Let me clarify again, I don't believe in the Catholic conspiracy theory, but I'm really interested in it because it played into a view of the world at the time that may now seem hare-brained but it resonated with people then. Part of this was because during the war the CSA tried to appeal to Catholics and sent envoys to the Vatican to try to get Pope Pius IX to endorse the southern cause. Pio Nono, as the Italians called him, was the arch enemy of republicanism and a thoroughgoing reactionary.
I had not heard of the pope's request for asylum in the US. That is fascinating. I would think he would have sought asylum in France, which was defending Rome at the time or maybe Vienna. In any case I agree it is preposterous to believe Pius IX started the war or organized the conspiracy. What interested people at the time was that the Surratts, Mudd, and apparently Booth were devout Catholics and that did indicate political ideology and possible motive.

I especially liked you taking on the "Mudd was innocent" crowd. Some of you will remember Roger Mudd the TV newscaster who was a descendant of Mudd. I think you left little doubt about his guilt and you did a nice job of gently rebuking the honorable Senator Hoyer for trying to legislate Mudd's innocence.
I think the title of your book is haunting and you laced the story with references to the moon throughout.
--Don