Lincoln's assassination: lots of "not sures."

[LincolnMan]

(04-19-2015 10:24 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 06:23 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  For years I used to give a presentation on Lincoln's assassination. As time went by- and my knowledge increased regarding it- my comfort level decreased. I felt that there are so many "not sures" about the Lincoln assassination that it would be best to stop. I'm not exaggerating much when I say that little can be said about the assassination that is truely factual. I'm not discouraged about this- just smarter I think. As the saying goes: "The more you think you know, the more you don't know."

Bill,

I feel the same way about what is truly factually confirmed regarding the Lincoln Assassination, but have chosen to take a slightly different path in presenting because of it. I have worked harder to find venues to present on the topic, not ceased talking about it.

Humorist Will Rogers once said: "It ain't what we don't know about history that's the problem. It's what we know that ain't so."

That to me is right on. Leave it too a funny man to whittle it down and see what many professional historians haven't over the years. It's not that there are things that we don't know that are really the problem. That we don't and can't know certain things about history is a given (but of course we need to keep looking). The real problem is that there are blatant untruths that are out there that have gained a life of their own and are viewed by many in the public as truths. William Hanchett was a pioneer as far as I'm concerned in taking a look at some of those supposed truths of the Lincoln assassination and deconstructing them in a methodical way. Such an important idea to re-examine what we think are truths. Dave Taylor's work on the knife displayed at Ford's is another great example at one level of history.

When preparing and giving my talk, part of what I try do is to use available evidence to dispel those blatant untruths or at least cast them in a more uncertain light. That sets the playing field even. Also, I am honest and up front about the fact that there are things we don't know and that even the facts we do have are open to interpretation and dispute. I tell them I endeavor to give a picture of the event using the best evidence available along with my interpretation of that evidence and that I make no claim that what I present is set in stone. The picture I present may in fact change when and if new and better evidence turns up. By being up front about that, I find that it emboldens people to ask questions about evidentiary discrepancies, different points of view, or different things they have heard or read. When I get them to ask questions, it means I have hooked them - they are interested in looking for more! Then comes discussion and with discussion deeper thinking and a deeper level of understanding.

Bill, I hope you get back out and start talking about the assassination again. You are obviously very knowledgeable about the subject (and know enough to know what you don't know!) and the very fact that you care about the truth makes you exactly the kind of person who needs to be speaking on the topic. I love the idea of different opinions and ideas based on evidence, but I hate the idea of some of the fringe, out there people who only want to only to promote their own agenda being on the forefront and leading the narrative.

Thank you for this well-reasoned response and encouragement. I see that I'm not alone in what I was feeling and thinking. I take it to heart!