GDG- Killing Lincoln

[Batrinque at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/15/2012 11:53:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
CWMHTours at aol.com writes:

It is  one thing for a historian to write a book and to  overlook some 
minor  
details.

It is another thing for a book to be filled with errors  or  contain made 
up 
conversations or character thoughts.    That's a bit  difference.

You wouldn't put Valley forge at  Gettysburg would  you?

I'll have to do something about this.   But I don't know  what.

"Just  the facts, ma'am." Sgt. Joe  Friday. Dragnet.
 
 
I'm not saying that "Killing Lincoln" is well-written history.   I'm not 
saying "Killing Lincoln" is good history.  But Henry Holt and  Company has 
published it as history and is marketing it as history.
 
I suppose that under the standards of several decades ago, "Killing  
History" would not be considered as remarkably poor (if you want plain baaaad  
history, look at books by Frederick Van de Water such as "Glory Hunter" and 
"The  Captain Called It Mutiny" where every fact is warped to look as 
unfavorable as  possible.


Bruce  Trinque
Amston, CT