Killing Lincoln: The Real Story

[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...?"