Killing Lincoln: The Real Story

[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.