GDG- Killing Lincoln

CWMHTours at CWMHTours at
Sun Jan 15 08:33:15 CST 2012

Should I understand that in agreement with Chet that you think  it is OK to 
mix fiction with fact and then publicly call it history and try to  sell it 
that way?
Your  Most Obedient Servant,

In a message dated 1/15/2012 9:30:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
pvitiello1 at writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
I'm sure no one hear will recognize my name. I've  followed GDG for several 
years now and only posted once. Having following this  current thread I 
feel compelled to leave a quick comment that I agree with  most of Chets 
statements. I feel his grasp and understanding how history is  recorded and how 
historians over the years perceive what should be considered  fact and what is 
not is spot on.

Phil Vitiello
NH Ct.    

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 14, 2012, at 6:14 PM, Matt Diestel  <agatematt at> wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member  Contributes:
>> Esteemed GDG Member  Contributes:
>> So, Chet, if a book  inserts make believe events into the  naration you
>> would  still call that "history"?
>> Your  Most Obedient  Servant,
>> Peter
>> The amount --- and  supposed seriousness --- of the errors in "Killing
>> Lincoln" by all  indication is a matter that is still much in dispute. 
>> is  certainly reinforced by the variety of opinions that have been 
posted  by
>> esteemed members in this discussion thread.
>    In direct answer to your question, would I call a book  which "inserts
> make believe events into the narration .. "history?"  --- No, I would not
> but then in regards to "Killing Lincoln" that is  an accusation which has
> not yet been proved to my  satisfaction.
>    Too often, when one person sees a set of  possible historical actions 
> one way and accepts it and then writes  it in anything from book form to a
> discussion point in this group,  there are some who refuse to take it as
> simply an interpretation with  which they disagree with and instead is is
> something that is at best  historical error and at worse something
> nefarious.
>    People can --- and do --- see historical "facts" in different ways. As
>  an example, I will point to the many discussions this group has had  over
> the years as to what Stuart was suppose to do at Gettysburg on  July 3.
> There are those who take it as a historical certainty that Lee  gave his
> cavalry commander specific orders to place himself on the  Union flank to
> attack when the forces of Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble  broke the AOP line 
> forced that army to retreat. Other esteemed  members believe that to be so
> much non-historical hogwash, but I have  yet to read a member accusing
> another of fabricating the truth because  they see facts in a different
> light.
>    Besides,  what is truly a fact. Given that much of the narrative of any
> event is  based upon the gathering of evidence from eye-witnesses, all of
> whom  may see the same event slightly different or radically differently.
>  That is evident by just going to the Official Records and read the  after
> battle reports of units which opposed each other. More often  than not, 
> text reads in a way to make it seem that neither unit  was not on the same
> piece of the  battlefield but probably not on  the same planet.
>   OK, which author's work is the lie? And  which one should historians
> choose? And if they choose one then do  those who take the other side as
> gospel then have the right to label  the opponent's version as having
> inserted "make believe  events."
>                  With regards,
>                 Chet
----------------  -to unsubscribe
> for  Archives

  -to unsubscribe for  Archives

More information about the Gettysburg mailing list