Book report, "Killing Lincoln"

[rebAL]

I'm only about 1/2 way through but this is a "Must read" for any history buff.  Authored by Bill O'Riley & Martin Dugard it counts down the last days of civil war, life of Lincoln, and afterward.  I just learned Booth's initial plan as directed by confederate underground was to kidnap Lincoln to force surrender and had war lasted much longer that would have been his marching orders.  After Lee's surrender he single handedly decided kidnap order was friutless so murder and mayhem seemed to be his own idea.

[ironfoot]

"Lincoln was elected president on November 6, 1860, and the following month Booth drafted a long speech, apparently undelivered, that decried Northern abolitionism and made clear his strong support of the South and the institution of slavery."
 "Booth was in the crowd outside the White House when Lincoln gave an impromptu speech from his window. When Lincoln stated that he was in favor of granting suffrage to the former slaves, Booth declared that it would be the last speech Lincoln would ever make."
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilkes_Booth
 

[Dee]

Bill O'Riley's book concerning Lincoln is about as factual as Harry Potter. He is a liberal with a moderate platform. About the only "real fact" that O'Riley is actually aware of, is that Lincoln was shot, and Booth did the shootin. His ego far exceeds his historical knowledge, as does his buddy's Glen Beck. Beck also is a huge fan of Lincoln, and ignores the most obvious of foul deeds committed by Lincoln.

[rebAL]

Thanks for feedback.  I finished the book.  I'm no Lincoln or Riley apologist but I do enjoy reading history.  Riley states at end of book that there is mountains of information about the subject, much of it contradictory.  He mentions the early encounter when he could have shot Lincoln but does not mention that "Quote", or "Declaration".  He does make an obvious point that confederate underground financed by Jefferson Davis & co. was directly linked to Booth.  Just trying to learn the truth.

[Dee]

That Jefferson Davis and company "could have been" linked to Booth is that. "Could have been". While folks "speculate" on this, the most important issue is, that Lincoln ordered a war that involved, the United States military to invade states that "simply withdrew from the union", to be attacked, it's civilians killed, their property seized, and their homes burned, with over a million casualties.
Re-Construction was actually "De-construction" of these states, AND THEIR POPULATION.
Had Robert E. Lee been fighting an "OFFENSIVE WAR" rather than the "DEFENSIVE WAR" he was fighting to "PROTECT SOUTHERN STATES", rather than "CONQUER NORTHERN STATES", and had he gone into D.C. when he had the chance, we would be living in a different United States today. Our "STATES RIGHTS" would not have been done away with as Lincoln most certainly did away with them, and most likely "NEGOTIONS" would have prevailed, and a BUSINESS AGREEMENT would have been agreed upon, rather than Lincolns attitude of "WE'LL JUST TAKE YOUR RESOURCES".
Lincoln's "EGO" saw it as someone "disobeying" the D.C. god. Lincoln should be viewed as America's "first socialist president", and Robert E. Lee should be viewed as a good, and moral man, whom misjudged his opponent, in that said opponent, would not see the insanity of himself, thru his own fog of power, and self rightousness.

[wncchester]

"...O'Riley is actually aware of, is that Lincoln was shot,... His ego far exceeds his historical knowledge,..."[/font][/i][/b]

Reading Bill's book is better than being totally iggerant of that history but it should be recognised the story was filtered through his own templete.   He mentions 'conflicting information' but fails to say what it might be, thereby covering his butt for his gross errors while taking credit for the book sales results.   His greatest errors lie in the early parts where he confidently explains what the South's position was, he just followed what all  lib 'historians' know and what they know is the South was a bunch of mean ol' dunder heads.  Well, those dunder heads, generally out numbered four to one on the field, fought the north to a stand still for three and a half years, most of it done with captured supplies.  And the South was never defeated, those guys were simply starved into submission - which even O'Riley expained to be true.  Fact is, Grant greatly respected the Southern forces and it's sad his presidency was so politically inept.

[SwampThing762]

Booth was a foreign agent, actually a Brit and a fraternalist. Interesting to note who else was arrested as accomplices for Linclon'sw assassination (payback).  Posing as an actor and sent to foment war and assist in re-conquest (division) of North America at behest of Imperial Europe and House of Rothschild...Lincoln saw thru this and realized all this was part of a greater war.  Some say Booth actually escaped and started shooting off his mouth and revealing secrets; then Jesse James silenced him....that's one version. In any case his mumified body made the 'bread and circus' tour until lost in obscurity.
.
....TM7
.

TM7,

Booth was not a Brit.  He was born in Bel Air, MD.  In other words, a natural-born citizen, unlike our dear Leader.   Please get the facts straight.   

ST762

[Dee]

"...O'Riley is actually aware of, is that Lincoln was shot,... His ego far exceeds his historical knowledge,..."

Reading Bill's book is better than being totally iggerant of that history but it should be recognised the story was filtered through his own templete.   He mentions 'conflicting information' but fails to say what it might be, thereby covering his butt for his gross errors while taking credit for the book sales results.   His greatest errors lie in the early parts where he confidently explains what the South's position was, he just followed what all  lib 'historians' know and what they know is the South was a bunch of mean ol' dunder heads.  Well, those dunder heads, generally out numbered four to one on the field, fought the north to a stand still for three and a half years, most of it done with captured supplies.  And the South was never defeated, those guys were simply starved into submission - which even O'Riley expained to be true.  Fact is, Grant greatly respected the Southern forces and it's sad his presidency was so politically inept.

Reading Bill's book would have a tendency to make one "more ignorant", as about the only thing Bill got right was that "Booth indeed killed Lincoln".
What most liberals leave out is: Every State "chose" to enter the United States and just about EVERY STATE has a clause in "it's own Constitutions" that it could "withdraw" if it so chose. The United States "AGREED" to those terms.
Lincoln "CHOSE" to "IGNORE STATES RIGHTS", thereby "VIOLATED STATES RIGHTS", and effectively thru the heavy handed "CONQUERING OF STATES BY FORCE & KILLING OF IT'S CITICIZENS", ended "STATES RIGHTS".
That Lincoln was a great man, is as about as far fetched an idea as one can get. A simple reading of his racist speeches, and attitudes to the citizens of countries such as Mexico, is both obvious, and IGNORED.
Liberals have constantly made historical figures into something that they were most certainly not.

[wncchester]

" (O'Reilly)  mentions 'conflicting information' but fails to say what it might be, thereby covering his butt for his gross errors while taking credit for the book sales results.   His greatest errors lie in the early parts where he confidently explains what the South's position was, he just followed what all  lib 'historians ' know ' and what they know is the South was a bunch of mean ol' dunder heads"
 
Dee, you put some relivant specifics to my own generalizations; there are others but your's are sufficent to prove the point.

[Dee]

I'm glad that you realize, I was not attacking your point, but shoring it up, so to speak. There are folks here, and elsewhere that think that O'Riley is a brilliant Conservative. I on the other hand, think he is a self-idolizing jackass, with a fence riding method of making himself out to be wise beyond others, but that actually, has not a clue what the real world is really all about.
Much like a marriage counselor whom has never been married, or a child psychologist, whom has never had children, or one of my favorites. A "female preacher" , whom will try to tell me how to be the "man of the house" in a Biblical sense.

[Casull]

In any case Booth was most definitely of British decent and proud of it.

 
 
Now that is funny.  I'd guess that at least two-thirds of Americans at that time were of British decent.