Killing Lincoln: The Real Story

[Steven Hager]

I am not avoiding anything. My primary sources are Otto E. and Theodore Roscoe, whose books I am sure you are familiar with. For my primary character in the plot: Charles Dunham, I gave you the author and title already. If its a dispute over minute matters and coments off the top of my head you want to pursue, this will be a tiresome conversation for both of us. 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, perhaps you can shed some light on these people:

Kate Brown (Thompson)
James Donaldson
Charles Yates
Thomas Harbin

All were mentioned by George Atzertodt's initial confession that was strangely not entered as evidence in the military tribunal that would be declared illegal in 17 months time.

Perhaps you can direct me to a previous thread on this site. Instead of engaging in useless hostilities perhaps we can be of use or at least entertainment. 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?

---

As for the differences between O'Reilly and me, they could not be more fundamental and stark.

He thinks Booth was insane. I think Booth was a capable, intelligent spook, who was offered an opportunity and a paycheck to commit the crime, and this pitch could have been made by any number of people Booth believed to be Southern patriots like himself.

Because O'Reilly's book does not cover the trial, and ends with Booth's murder, it does not delve into the fabrications that were produced for that sham trial. O'Reilly pretends to know what is in Booth's mind and trace his steps on the fateful day, but excludes his afternoon meeting with Simon Wolf and other key events.

Only by examining the cover-up created during the military tribunal can you penetrate the cabal, a cover-up handled in large part by Charles Dunham posing as Sanford Conover.

---

You really want a source for the comment "Some wondered if Stanton was an opium addict?"

I guess you don't realize how common opium addiction was during the Civil War, or how frequently that charge appeared in political feuds. Note, I didn't say he was an addict, I said some wondered, and enough wondered that a historian addressed this issue and dismissed it. Is this issue the line in the sand you draw to show my incompetence, because it seems to me the most nit-picky of attacks.

But rather than go through my books and look up which author considered this possibility and dismissed it because he lacked the "watery eyes" of most addicts, consider that after attempts to pin the assassination on Johnson failed, and Johnson attempted to remove Stanton: Stevens, Wade and Sumner went to incredible lengths to remove Johnson in order to keep Stanton in place. These three seem joined at the hip in many endeavors, along with Salmon Chase.

"Take a look at what they called President Johnson in editorials and speeches in the House and Senate: Caligula, drunkard, monster, demented, opium addict, assassin of President Lincoln and ''tyrannical imbecile.'' His popular nickname, ''The Great Criminal,'' makes ''Slick Willie'' sound almost affectionate.

The conspiracy of abolitionists and radical Republicans who tried to evict President Johnson was no paranoid fantasy. They threatened his friends, trampled the Constitution, cooked up lies, offered bribes and opined that the bullet that killed Abraham Lincoln was ''a godsend,'' except that it replaced a ''gorilla'' with a ''traitor.''"

source: Peter Bronson, Cincinnati Enquirer, Feb. 15, 1998