Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

John Fazio · 08-01-2015, 11:17 AM

(07-30-2015 07:44 PM)L Verge Wrote: A historian's work is always subject to review and criticism. That includes use and abuse of documented facts as well as personal styles of persuasion and writing; it is part of the test to see who can bring something new and worthwhile (and provable) to the table. Personally, I feel that many of John's responses to my theories, as well as others, have been delivered in a condescending manner to make me feel insecure. And, he has not responded with the critical ingredient - documented proof of his points.

I have been on the same page with John for about 2-3 years now, ever since I read his initial writings in a newsletter from the Cleveland CWRT. I want him to PROVE his central theme because I believe in it also. He asked me to review his manuscript last year before it went to the publisher, and I declined because of work and family responsibilities. I could kick myself for not doing that review, but I would probably have had the same problems then as I have now with his style. It is ingrained in him, I'm sure, and he would have fought me tooth and nail about any revision.

What is disappointing and unfortunate to me is that so much is theory written in a style that will convince the novice reader that Decapitating the Union has solved all the questions. It hasn't; it has only confused some of the issues.

Those of us who were trained in history and have spent the past sixty years immersed in the Lincoln assassination story want to avoid the Balsigers, Selliers, O'Reillys, Bateses, Eisenschimls, Sheltons, etc. of the future. John's research is so far superior to those scam artists that he should not denigrate it with so much continued supposition. I can remember the old days when publishers had historical editors that would point out weaknesses in style, content, and accuracy before a manuscript went to press. I wish we could get them back.

Laurie:

Review and criticism, of course, but not intemperate screeds. And because intemperance always betrays weakness, those who encourage and applaud it are not doing the intemperate any favors.

Condescending? Please re-read all my posts in this current thread, as I have, and tell me where I speak as if descending from a superior position. Show me where I have stooped or deigned to say or do something. Why should I wish to make you feel insecure. What have I to gain by that? I assure you, I have no such wish. One does not wish to make friends feel insecure.

You want me to "prove" my central theme. You want documented proof of my points. Dave said it is impossible to ever prove our points. Shall I believe him, or shall I try to accommodate you? What are you looking for: a writing, in code or otherwise, in which Davis orders Booth to kill Lincoln, or in which Benjamin orders Powell to kill Seward? No one will ever find such a document, because it never existed. Confederate leaders were not so stupid as to commit such orders to paper. We thus have to find our "proof" elsewhere. Such as the fact that Davis and Benjamin knew all about Blackburn's attempt to assassinate Lincoln with "infected" shirts. Such as the fact that they also knew of Harney's attempt to assassinate as many Federal leaders as could be lured into a wing of the White House prior to blowing it up. Such as the fact that they knew all about Booth's conspiracy and did nothing to stop him even though they also knew that kidnapping could do them no good at all, as stated by Davis himself and Conrad. Such as the fact that virtually all the conversation between Confederate Secret Service agents in Canada related to assassination, not only of Lincoln, but of many other Federal officeholders as well. Such as the fact that by 1864, the mood in Richmond was described as "an assassination frenzy". And such as the fact that Surratt acknowledged to Ste. Marie that "we" killed Lincoln and that he had acted under the instructions of person's under Davis's immediate orders, and, further, refused to say whether or not Davis was involved in Lincoln's death, which is as good as an affirmative answer. These are only six documented items of proof of my central thesis; there are another 15 or so on pp. 371 and 372 of the book.

I never said or implied that DU "has solved all the questions", but as to confusing the issues, please tell me where you feel I have done so and I will attempt to clarify them, because I strove hard to do exactly the opposite, i.e. not to confuse, but to clarify. A reading of the book will demonstrate, clearly, that rather than purporting to solve all the questions, the book is replete with references to unknowns that remain (such as Surratt's location on 4-14), possibilities (such as O'Laughlen's presence at Stanton's home during the evening of 4-13), probabilities, such as the belief that it was indeed Booth who tried to crash the cordon and gain access to Lincoln on March 4, Inauguration Day, and conclusions based on the same simply because there isn't sufficient evidence to establish certainty, such as there is, for example, for the planted perjury by Montgomery, Dunham and Merritt and the Confederate government's knowledge of Booth and his action team and their activities. Supposition is always based on whatever evidence exists, on reason and on our understanding of human nature; it is not made in a vacuum, and it is OK as long as the writer does not represent it as fact, but makes it clear that it is only supposition. For example, I believe Booth was at Julia's luncheon, because she, Ulysses, Mathews and Lamon say so, directly or indirectly. In Day by Day, Art Loux also mentions Julia's recognition of Booth as the man who attended her luncheon and stared at her, etc. I invited those who reject that supposition to present evidence contradicting it. So far, I haven't been offered any. Similarly, I invited those who reject Demond's statement that Booth and Herold were at the bridge in the morning on the 14th to present evidence contradicting it. In response, I was told that Booth wrote a letter to his mother at 2:00 am on 4-14. But no one really knows where he wrote it, nor even what time he wrote it, nor where he spent the night. Art Loux wrote that Booth may have written the letter at 4:00 pm in the lobby of the National. Here are a few quotes that make my point:
1. "Nobody knows where Booth was that evening of the 13th, or that night." (Laughlin)
2. "Where (Booth) went (after he left Deery's place) is not clear." He didn't come to the desk of the National for his key. The maid opened the door to his room (228). The bed had not been touched. (Bryan)
3. "No evidence is available to chronicle the sequence of Booth's activities from Thursday evening until Friday morning..." (Pitch)
4. When Walter Burton, the desk clerk, opened the door to Booth's room in the morning of the 14th, he found that the room was empty and the bed was still made. (Loux)

Despite the foregoing, Dave stated with absolute certainty that "He (Booth) was there!" (i.e. in his hotel room that night). Which one of us do you feel is unreasonable?

Enough for now.

John