GDG- Killing Lincoln

CWMHTours at CWMHTours at
Wed Jan 18 18:49:47 CST 2012

If you are talkiung about Lafaytette Baker and not Luther the  man comes of 
in Steers and Kaufman, etc., as extremely suspect, deceptive,  duplicitive, 
and not honest.
He just might have told the the truth but it would be wise to  regard 
anything he had to as unreliable unless you can get a verification from  some 
other source.
I don't like him.
"Just  the facts, ma'am." 

Your Most Obediant Servant

In a message dated 1/18/2012 4:45:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jlawrence at writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:

----- Original Message ----- 
From:  <Batrinque at>
To: <gettysburg at>
Sent:  Wednesday, January 18, 2012 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: GDG- Killing  Lincoln

> Esteemed GDG Member  Contributes:
> In a message dated 1/18/2012 10:01:06  A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> jlawrence at  writes:
> Like  redaing a book on book on Atlantis,  Bigfoot,  UFO's, Area 51 etc.
> there is very limited primary  material so the read what others have 
> written,
> Only  in this case, there was a host of primary material   available.
> Indeed there is.  One of the most  fascinating collections of primary
> material is to be found in "The  Lincoln Assassination: The Evidence" by 
> William
> Edwards and  Ed Steer.  It's an expensive volume, but full of documents 
>  from
> Government files collected at the time. Much of it is irrelevant  (such as
> letters from crackpots) or trivial (memos of a wholly  administrative 
> nature)
> but  there are a some gems, and  it yields an excellent impression of how
> the  investigation was  carried out.  I have just spent much of last 
> evening
>  and  this morning plowing through the stuff in search of enlightenment 
> a
> minor  point of the Booth escape story and now feel  reasonably confident 
> have finally  figured out the right answer  through using statements 
> obtained
> within days of  the  events from secondary players.
> Bruce  Trinque
>  Amston, CT

Really good points Bruce.

Baker's 'United States  secret Service", Baker, a primary source if there 
ever was one, the  protagagonist in the Dugard's book, addresses mostly 
liquor smuggling,  Female spies, Canadian Activities, traitors and schemes, 
ad nauseum in his  book.
When he gets around to how he singlehandedly ran down Booth, he  starts off 
with, he starts off with Caesar, King James, Marat and  Alexander, until he 
get's around to Lincoln. He starts this off by going  back to a mass of 
anonymous threats against Lincoln in 1861 and continues  to the 
assassination. There is no mention of the  inauguration.

There is however, a nugget of information about the  protection system 
surrounding Lincoln. In short, there is mostly the  "irrelevant" 
you cite above.

Multiply this dozens of  times and one can see how a pop "history" novel 
would rather rely on a  handful of sources, none primary.

As we all know, first tier history  books are amalgams of primary and 
secondary sources with both  interpretative and narrative themes.

Codington and Pfanz come to  mind.

(Laino uses primary sources and period maps with no  inerpretation, the 
finest pureest of first tier in my mind).

Second  tier books rely on first tier sources and third tier books 
reinterpret  second tier sources.

Third tier history books speak for  themselves.

A member recently mentioned a book on WWI, with "The Backs  To The  Wall
Victory And defeat In 1918.

this book cites many  secondary sources, but ir also incorporates much 
information based on  studies by the belligerents after the war.
It cites, aong other things, an  analysis of the peacefull use of nitrates 
for fertilizer as opposed to  ammonition. As a better way to continue the 

As it  did,

It will take me weeks to digest this book, but to me this is an  example of 
history book that reduces the Dugard/O'Reilly to third tier  ?(pap).



  -to unsubscribe for  Archives

More information about the Gettysburg mailing list