Killing Lincoln - Nat Geo (Reactions)

[J. Beckert]

Does anyone know who told Tad that Booth shot his father? I've heard he asked Gideon Welles upon his arrival at the White House on the morning of the 15th., but I don't remember if he was the one who told him.

[RJNorton]

Joe, I have seen that referenced also, and I think James Speed was with Welles. But I have not read that either man gave a direct reply to Tad's question. In all honesty, I cannot recall ever reading what person specifically told Tad that it was John Wilkes Booth who shot his dad.

[barryssentials]

Hi Roger: Thanks for tracking me down and asking me to add my two cents on this subject. I agree with Erik, that it is great to get feedback from the most knowledgable people on this subject. He has become 'one of us' in the process.

I rarely have time to write these days but did post a comment on my blog about the piece. At your request, I'm posting it again here. But before I do that, I just want to say that I think the program was excellent. The style and pace made the subject easy to digest (considering we all know how complex it is to tell). This may be the only Lincoln assassination information that many viewers may ever see. So thank goodness that with the numbers it attracted, the story was told to the people we all so desperately want to reach. Regardless of our nit picky needs (we all know way too much for our own good....lol), it more than promoted the story....and very well too. My own blog's hit count shoots up ten fold when NatGeo plays the production. The power of a good (and well promoted) story!

Despite our individual hopes to put forth what we believe to be the correct versions of the assassination history, no one REALLY knows for sure exactly what happened and it is characters like all of us who put our best foot forward to give the best interpretations that we can. The truth is hidden somewhere in the mix. Excellent job Erik for your skills as a researcher, writer, producer and showing incredible patience as you listened to all of our varying points of view.

PS. Just for fun Erik, here is my nit pik point of view...lol. In the filming of the execution scene, you had both cameras and photographers in one window when they should have been in two separate ones. BUT your way made for a much better shot. I like it! I say as long as major history isn't changed, don't fear changing the little details when it makes for a much better production. Only someone as anal as me would even care about this little fact....so play to the larger audience!

And now, for my own blog entry.
--------

Killing Lincoln: a National Geographic two-hour documentary – Fact or Fiction?
KILLING LINCOLN was aired for the first time on February 17, 2013 on the National Geographic channel. Earlier this summer, several members of the Lincoln Assassination research community were contacted and asked to assist with research for the project. Erik Jendresen (Band of Brothers), the producer/writer for the documentary was very interested in getting the story as accurate as possible.

I spoke with Erik a couple of times during his research and filled him in on my area of expertise which is the incarceration and punishments of the Lincoln Conspirators. My research and writing partner John Elliott also had several conversations with him on the same subjects. During the vetting process we were asked to proof read the script and comment on areas where the facts were not always firm…which we did. All went well and about eight months later, if you watched the documentary, you saw the end result.

Since the documentary aired, we have been asked how authentic the content was. Was it accurately depicted? Generally speaking, it was pretty good. One can always point out where the director might have taken artistic licence to move the story along or where he was forced to cut out an important part due to broadcast time restraints, but all in all, it was a fair represenation of the accepted storyline.

Right now, I’m sure some of you are probably asking yourself why my answer isn’t a direct yes or no response. Was the documentary accurate or was it not? The truth is that the answer is not straightforward. Much of history is not as factual as one would like. Most can be attributed to assumptions, half truths and more often than not, some good guesses. Incorrect versions of historical events printed long ago have been repeated so often that they eventually become accepted history. In our area of research, John and I have uncovered many accepted ‘facts’ that are at best, plausible theories. There are usually not enough facts to justify these accounts as being 100% true. And in a couple of cases, we have discovered evidence of pure fraud that became accepted fact which ending up in all the history books as ‘the real deal’. Sadly, they are bogus.

It is extremely difficult to ‘unteach’ an accepted point of view, especially when it has been repeated and accepted for so long.

Another reason why history isn’t always a solid ‘fact or fiction’ decision is because many historians and researchers can’t agree on what the actual truth is, often resulting in even more confusion as different theories are toted and sold as the ’one and only’ truth.

When a huge two-hour documentary like Killing Lincoln appears on National Geographic, people sit up and listen. National Geographic carries a lot of clout. When I was involved with the King Tut exhibit several years ago, NatGeo was a partner in the project. Their name goes a long way.

As a researcher who was asked to comment on some of the content for Killing Lincoln, I hoped the ‘truth’ (as I saw it) would be presented. In some cases, it was. In other cases, the opinions of others won out. And sometimes, when the gap between historical versions was just too far apart to trust, the production resorted to presenting well-known and safe interpretations.

So in the end, was the story accurate? In two words…..mostly yes. It was based on years of collective research from some of the most knowledgeable people in the business. It may not have been the whole truth, but Killing Lincoln gave the viewer a great starting point to begin doing their own research in hopes of finding the missing pieces.

I’m proud to have been asked to do my small part for the production and I hope that my input helped in some way. As a reward, National Geographic and Erik posted my name under ‘Special Thanks’ in the end credits. I didn’t ask for this so it meant a lot. It is my first National Geographic documentary creditation. Let’s hope that it is not my last. Thanks Erik and National Geographic. Well done!

Best

Barry

[LincolnMan]

Thank you Barry. You've added much to the study of Lincoln and the era.

[barryssentials]

Thanks Bill. I appreciate that. I really do.
Barry

[Loomings]

Okay, Barry. Thanks very much for this. Now...

If your criticisms are regarding matters of OMISSIONS, I completely understand. We were constrained by only 90 minutes of content.

But, I'm curious about your comment, "when the gap between historical versions was just too far apart to trust, the production resorted to presenting well-known and safe interpretations."

I'm unaware of anyplace that we went for the well-known and safe as opposed to the considered likelihood.

Can you elaborate?

[barryssentials]

Hey Erik. Absolutely. What I meant by safe interpretations is the tried and true accepted versions of some historical events. I did not mean this as a slight in anyway. I think with new research and findings happening all the time, sometimes it is difficult to change the most generally accepted interpretation of history. Unless the new information is rock solid, it is up to the individual who is using it to present what they feel is right for them on their project. I think you were in the right to present everything as you did.
For me, I just have a few 'new' beliefs that differ from the way the story has been told in the past. I don't think your presentation was wrong in anyway, shape or form. My only comment is that some of the interpretations used in the documentary differed from mine. Big deal. Viva la difference!!!!!
I love the fact that we all have different interpretations of history. That is what makes the research game so wonderful and why we keep finding new things to explore and discuss. I will be happy to clarify this point with anyone who is concerned about my comments. No one can claim that their version of history is absolute. I guess my belief system of history comes off very 'preachy' and for that I really do apologize. It is not my proudest writing style. But I believe that the truth will never be found in just one version of history. I honor anyone who steps forward and tries to give their point-of-view as long as it's not a complete fabrication.
Bottom line for me....you did a great job on the documentary. I honestly mean that. I haven't seen the research community so happy in years. . I look forward to speaking to you more about this if you like.
Sincerely
Barry

---

One last note. I think my choice of using the word safe was ill-chosen but I do appreciate that you chose a direction that seemed most likely for your point-of-view. The other thing is that I should not have done was to speak for the production. I just dread when reporters make that statement when in fact, they had nothing to do with it. So for that, I apologize for falling into that trap.
B

[Loomings]

Absolutely, Barry. I am tremendously gratified by the response to our experiment in historical narrative -- most impotently by the response from the community of scholars both amateur and professional.

That said, you won't come off preachy at all if you cite specifics. I think that's what this forum is all about!

Let's get into it! How often has a spirited back and forth actually inspired new discoveries? Quite often, I'd venture.

It's only by writing generalities that your prose acquires a whiff of the preacher [insert smiley face here].

[John E.]

LOL...Barry, Erik has thick skin and is sincerely open to discussing any differences you might have. I think many of us in here appreciate and like him on a personal level and were weary of our comments being taken negatively. He's open to hearing specifics and debating.

I asked why he positioned the Monitors at the pier for the autopsy and mug shot photos and his opinion was that they would have moved the ship instead of rowing everybody (including Gardner) 100 yards out to the stream.

Here's what we know for certain:

1. From first-hand accounts, Marines were rowed out to the ships and placed on board for security.

2. Official deck logs have Booth's body being transported from the Montauk by row boat to the Arsenal Penitentiary.

3. A steamer came along side the monitors to pick up the conspirators and transfer them to the penitentiary a couple of days later.

Just a couple of more observations:

** Although the autopsy photo looked fantastic and appeared authentic enough to fool even the best of researchers, I don't believe Booth's body would have been stripped naked and re-dressed for identification purposes. -- Again, if it happened (and it could have), it wasn't mentioned by anyone present to my knowledge. It is, however, a nice tribute to Gardner's autopsy photo of Henry Wirz.

** Tom Hanks mentions that Lincoln's portrait taken on Feb. 5, 1865 was the last official one. According to Civil War photography experts, Lewis Walker took portraits of Lincoln (spiky hair) for his life mask. Can anyone back me up on this ?





Sincerely,

- Jeff Elliott

[Loomings]

Fantastic post, John, and thank you.

I love Barry.

I just value the candor and boldness of this forum and believe that broad general statements should be avoided (just trying to help Barry out of his self-despair regarding what he referred to as "not his proudest writing style.")

The BEST ting about these last few posts is that I wrote: "most impotently" rather than "most importantly."

It wasn't an attempt at dialect, it was a grand typo.

I'm still laughing about it.

[John E.]

Hey Erik,

Here's an article from a marine who guarded the prisoners on board the ironclads. He mentions being rowed out on a barge with other soldiers. I thought you would appreciate it.



P.S. - Pls don't edit your previous "impotent" post. Too funny.

[RJNorton]

John, regarding the spikey hair image...here's what I have...it was an early 1865 stereograph of Lincoln taken by Lewis Emory Walker, no exact date known (but possibly February). Lincoln may have had his hair cut short for Mills' life mask. The hair looks so different from Gardner's photos I would think it came after February 5, but I do not have an exact date on the Walker stereograph. Lloyd Ostendorf is my source for this.

[Hess1865]

Wasn't there a picture of Lincoln taken by an amatuer photographer at the Executive Mansion in Feb. 1865??
Can't find the exact info on it right now.
I think the man's last name was Warren, and his pic was really the last Lincoln picture taken.

[RJNorton]

Yes, Mr. Hess. Henry F. Warren took his photos on the White House's south portico during the late afternoon of Monday, March 6, 1865.

[Hess1865]

Thank you Mr Norton.
That's the one I was thinking of.
The photographer's name was Henry F Warren
and for some reason Mr Lincoln does not look too pleased in this pic!