Badmovies.org Forum

I bought a copy of Bill O'Reilly's Killing Lincoln: fascinating stuff for someone who, like you, loves history. I just need to to know (a) have you read it and (b) if so, how accurate is it?

I enjoyed it a great deal; I think he took a little dramatic license here and there, but there were no glaring historical inaccuracies that I spotted.  I was a bit disappointed that he gave any play at all to the tired old conspiracy theory about Stanton being part of a conspiracy to kill Lincoln - that's been pretty thoroughly debunked.

BTW, I am rereading an excellent book by Gerald Posner about the murder of MLK called KILLING THE DREAM.  He really tells the story in vivid terms AND slams the various conspiracy theories pretty hard, effectively putting a noose of guilt around the lying neck of James Earl Ray.  A great read!

Unrelated to the exact texts, but its interesting that every decade or so the conspiricay theories get dusted off and get some press.  Theres a recent book relating Thomas Jefferson and a brutal slave master, with what looks like thin evidence.  and the old Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare keeps popping up, though there is no doocumented source that says he wasn't.
heck the "History Channel" is about 25% debunked conspiricy theories,.
-Ed

Don't forget the outright crazy! It isn't a good conspiracy unless it zig zags at least once or twice in order to avoid logic and contradictory evidence!

Here's a pair of articles I recommend reading back-to-back on the subject.

Smithsonian "The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson" (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Little-Known-Dark-Side-of-Thomas-Jefferson-169780996.html?c=y&story=fullstory)

Slate "Thomas Jefferson Was Not a Monster" (http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/10/henry_wiencek_s_the_master_of_the_mountain_thomas_jefferson_biography_debunked.single.html)

The second article slams the first severely, pretty much fatally so.

They do serve as a good illustration of the differences between Popular History, History, and "What Actually Happened." I'm not a fan of Jefferson, but I am a fan of good history. I detest bad history, but sorting the good from the bad can be alarmingly difficult. At least don't be glaringly bad.

Thanks for the links... those are the exact articles.  -Ed

One of the things that made me go  :buggedout: :buggedout: was the fact that Mary Suratt was hanged for her supposed part in the conspiracy and she remains the only woman in the USA to be hanged.

I think there is little doubt that she knew what Booth and his cohorts were up to - or at least, she knew they were up to something!  Still, I'm not sure she merited the death penalty.  Robert Redford directed a movie about her case not long ago.  I can't recall the title right now, but it was well done.

I think it was called The Conspirator.  :smile:

According to Mr O'Reilly, she got vertigo standing on the gallows.  :buggedout:

Is that a typo?  

There have been several hundred women hanged in the US, and Mary Suratt was not even the first.  She is recorded/claimed as being the first thus executed by the FEDERAL government, as opposed to being executed under State or even local authority.

This site (http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/amfemhang.html) summarizes those for which details are documented.

Ain't sifting through historical fact fun?   :wink:  The Devil's in the details, of course...

Oops...

Got my info from page 282 of Killing Lincoln which states that "Mary Surratt becomes the first and only woman ever hanged by the United States government".