Killing Lincoln: The Real Story

[Steven Hager]

This will not be a useful debate in my opinion. Any thesis can be built upon this case. There is 5,000 pages of court testimony alone, and 15,000 books. A debate on the guilt of Mary Surratt is of no interest to me. The debate I would have if you want to is this: Were the people who testified at the military tribunal for the prosecution coached, bribed and bullied into their statements? And did many of them later admit to this perjury in front of a Congressional investigation. If the trial was a sham, and it certainly was. Then all evidence used against Mary Surratt is meaningless. In the march of history, you will seldom find a little person assassinating a king. The little person is the pawn, and the conspirators are the barons and earls of the kingdom. This is common sense, and why I believe it far more likely Lincoln was killed by Radical Republicans. On the other hand, I realize you have a paradigm to uphold, and are probably the best versed scholar in the country on Mary Surratt, and despite the divide in our perspective I hope we can some entertaining and illuminating discussions.

---

When Gene asked me why are you here? The simple answer is the blurb for my just released book was posted here by someone and attracted a few snide comments, so I felt duty bound to introduce myself and invite serious discussion on my research in place of the usual hippie bigotry disguised as humor. And if the barrage is too intense, I won't be around for long.