Geoff Elliott

http://abrahamlincolnblog.blogspot.com

Welcome. To be honest, I’m not sure where I stand. For years the standard story was that Mudd was just an innocent country doctor (a myth propagated by his family and helped along by Hollywood) but if anything, I think Ed has shattered that. Whether Mudd was as guilty as Ed makes him out to be I’m not sure. I know this is fence-sitting, but the plain fact of the matter is I just don’t know.

Best
Rob

Bill

ps…also read your take on Manhunt….very interesting piece…when people ask me for a place to start I always point them to Kauffman & Steers.

Concerning Roscoe, you’re right about agreeing to disagree. But I would never expect anyone to completely agree with everything I say or believe. Plus, if I only let people who completely agreed with me post, even I wouldn’t want to visit here.

Let me mull over your comments on Hanchett though before I answer.

I have to agree that more people respond to the assassination posts, but my interests are too broad to keep it just to that topic (plus, after a while even I get bored with it LOL).

As for my book, I’m also waiting for it to get done…seems the elves aren’t working as hard as they’re supposed to be!

Mike, while I own Ed’s book on the trial (which currently on Alibris is running between $50 and $85), I’ve personally never liked the Pittman transcripts. I bought Ed’s book for the essays written by him and others. Not having the questions asked and answered makes it (in my mind) not as good as Ben: Perley Poore’s version, which usually can only be found in libraries and usually in the Arno Press reprint. But, if Pittman is the only thing a person has access to, than one can’t be too choosy.

Appreciate the comments!

Best
Rob

Sure, I agree, Otto was given a “free” pass as you say for many years, and I think that Bryants book made a valient effort to “combat” Eisenschiml’s “theory” about what really happened. Finis Bates sold a ton of books on his “theory”, (His perception was wrong also). I liked Bryants book very much. I also like Theodore Roscoe’s book, and I know how you feel about that. We can agree to disagree and what I like about your web log is, you allow me and others to state our opinions.

I believe you get “more” comments when you write about the assassination than any other stories you have written, this is a testament that Lincoln’s death and the players involved is still fasinating to this day.

I, for one, am waiting for your book on Conger to be published. I think a book on Conger belongs besides other books regarding the assassination.

Randal Berry

Great list! I would only add one & it’s more of a reference — “The Trial: The Assasination of Abraham Lincoln & the Trial of the Conspirators,” edited by Steers.

Quite pricey but a worthy inclusion into the library of those researching the assasination.

Mike

As always, your opinions are most welcome here. I am curious about your views on Hanchett’s book. Why do you feel that his attack on Eisenschiml “diminishes” his reputation? My own view is that before his book, Eisenschiml got something of a free pass by many. I view Hanchett as a necessary corrective to that.

Someday I’ll give the worst. Also, thanks for your comments about my health. I hope the allergies will be gone soon.

Best
Rob

I agree 99% with your list.
Actually in the order you gave them.(alphabetically).

However, Hanchett’s book (in my opinion) offers ZERO in the foundation of the basic story of the assassination as we already know.
Hanchett’s book is only his personal diatribe against Eisenschiml and sadly diminishes his reputation as an “assassination scholar”.

I rank his book with Eisenschiml, Bates, Swanson, Tidwell, Hall, Gaddy, Forrester, and many other “horrible” books written about the assassination.(and yes, “Dark Union”!
And I, for one, would like to see “your” list of books to “avoid”

This is only my opinion, and I hope folks don’t get bent out of shape about it.
I would like to see other’s opinions as well.

Sorry for the long post.

Randal Berry

Best,
Randal