“Killing Lincoln” by Bill O’Reilly

I found it a surprise to learn a book I just finished reading, Bill O’Reilly’s “Killing Lincoln”, a book in which a compelling narrative, details a well-known historical, infusing it with a new and vibrant life, adding color from new characters and little known events, this same book received scathing reviews from a number of ordinary, everyday readers like myself.  What did these people see in the text I somehow missed?

As I studied this surprising issue a bit closer, two central causes for this vitriol began standing out: Bill O’Reilly himself coupled alongside historical inaccuracies within the text.  Since I am not a historian myself, though I do love history, I see myself in a bit of a quandary.  I loved the book.  It read like a novel, carrying the reader through the story in a compelling chronological current.  The story stretched into new dimensions with the new characters and the inclusion of events never before heard.

The young Army doctor who attended to President Lincoln at Ford’s Theater, Dr. Charles Leale, - his contribution to this story I found fascinating.  Though a mere twenty-three years of age, and though facing the certain death of the president of the United States, he exhibited a professionalism not commonly associated with one of his youth, assuming a certain charge of the situation. The man never waited for a physician of more senior stature to command the dire situation.  Dr. Leale acted without hesitation; and as other doctors who presented themselves on the scene confirmed, his decisions on how to tend the president were spot on.  O’Reilly placed me at his side through every wrenching moment.

High Bridge in Farmville Virginia presents General Lee with his final chance of escape from the advancing Union forces.  General Grant’s siege upon Richmond drove them from their capitol.  Now Lee eyes North Carolina as the one piece of promised land to offer he and his men the opportunity to free themselves to regroup and fight another day.  If he can move his forces across High Bridge, an engineering marvel, and then burn the bridge behind them, their escape will be assured. Yet, Grant also knows this, sending his cavalry to impede their progress and prevent the bridge’s destruction.  Hence, a battle ensues.  

Then there is, naturally, John Wilkes Booth?  Everyone knows he shot Lincoln at Ford’s Theater.  How many people know the history of the man leading up to that moment?  Was anyone aware his fiancé, Lucy Hale, daughter of a prominent U.S. Senator, also dated Lincoln’s son, Robert? A true interior snapshot is revealed of the man, as his vanity is on parade, his womanizing is apparent, his abhorrence of the Negro as utterly inferior, coupled with his loathing of the North - centering upon Abraham Lincoln - is clear.  If the man had sported any other vocation but acting, perhaps someone in the North would have detected his rough hatred for the North and his intents upon President Lincoln.

We, today, operate out of hindsight.  The people of 1865, clearly, never saw Booth as an assassin.  This book manifests that era’s reality our 21^st century hindsight removes.

Lincoln’s personal bodyguard, Booth’s fiancée, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton’s spy who led the hunt for Booth and began the Secret Service, so much detail to the story suffuses through all pages, any soul who appreciates a tale well-told, which this is, and especially any students of history who earnestly seek more knowledge, “Killing Lincoln” satisfies on all fronts.

However, historical mistakes should never one ignore.  The record must retain veracity to it for succeeding generations to trust the words they read.  Absent this essential element of truth, how can we ever be certain of anything?

Yet what I read of the criticisms, in my opinion, they fail to rise to the level of the vitriol spelled out in the reviews.  What the reviews seem to declare is an utter rewriting of the history by O’Reilly; which, if accurate, would deem such attacks as warranted.  However, from my perspective, the mistakes stated were mistakes of inconsequence.  They held no bearing upon the direction of the story, nor its integrity. 

A few mentioned usage of the term ‘Oval Office’ in describing Lincoln’s work area in the White House, when the actual Oval Office was not to be built until the early 20^th century.  Another chided the reference to Lee and Grant never meeting again following Lee’s surrender, when in actuality the two apparently met a second time the very next day.  One corrects the reference to Ford’s Theater burning down.  O’Reilly states it burned down in 1863, when it actually burned to the ground on December 30^th of 1862.  He missed it by two days.

All legitimate criticisms, involving legitimate mistakes, should be addressed immediately and corrected where need be.  As one average reader out of thousands, none of these criticisms take away from the validity of the story told.   O’Reilly was never rewriting history, as those reviewers would leap people to believe; the man was expounding upon it.  He took the one essential tale and added the color other people and other events filled into it.  Such draws the reader into the era, creating a world more real and more relevant than the dry colorless pages of history books formerly held.

Now, such being said, I retain for myself a few questions confronting me through my own reading of the story.

One consistent characteristic I marveled at through the text was the level of introspection given to the characters.  In a fictionalized novel form, such a thing never stands out as anything out of the ordinary.  It is how authors create their characters and drive a story forward, with the characters themselves directing the action.  Here, with “Killing Lincoln”, a slice of history is cut from April of 1865.  Real people with real thoughts occupied this very real time.  How did O’Reilly capture their thoughts?  

Granted, if they recorded their thoughts within some journal, or answered questions for some newspaper reporter, answers can be found within those possibilities.  My suspicion while reading was O’Reilly employed a writer’s liberty of supposition based on the character of the person.  This is what such an individual possessing such a character would think when placed in this documented historical event.  I know not what the accuracy of my conjecture is, but I give O’Reilly the benefit of the doubt,  believing the man did nothing to drift the story off course.

A second matter which drew my focus hit in the form of the description to the presidential box at Ford’s Theater.  O’Reilly references a hallway Booth passes through, following his entrance through an initial door, before he reaches the box where the presidential party resides.

I believed in the hallway conception, and all filmed depictions presented it as O’Reilly describes – a closed-in space one passes through prior to reaching the actual entrance to the box – until I actually visited Ford’s Theater and saw the entrance to the presidential box.  No hallway precedes the entrance.

My absence of historical credentials again exposes itself, as I know nothing of any renovations done to the theater, which may have affected that particular area.  I do know when they decided to add stage lighting certain renovations took place.  Whether these affected the entrances to the presidential box, I do not know.  Perhaps this accounts for the discrepancy.

Also, one should consider the difference in definitions to ‘hallway’.   Current access to the box offers a single door to gain entrance, and a secondary door with a window for sight of the seating within the box.  Could the additional area covering the remaining breadth of the box be the aforementioned ‘hallway’?  Perhaps.  Regardless, I give O’Reilly the benefit of the doubt because while this remains a curiosity for me, its question takes nothing from the story.

What rises serious muddling of the mind is the absence of a bibliography where sources are cited. Perhaps Martin Dugard, O’Reilly’s coauthor and historian on the project, is meant as the source to be cited.   I don’t know.  In an age when anyone can utter whatever they choose about anything or anyone, I, as a reader, would prefer to see the sources.  It proves the integrity of the author.  Why O’Reilly refrained from this remains a puzzle.  I trust in the man’s integrity, and any errors in the text of this book were more innocent oversights, but why the publishing company refrained from double checking the work is a mystery.  Are there not proofreaders to verify the accuracy of the textural account?  Should not the same stand when a book of historical importance like this one comes into play?

Maybe my expectations rise too far above the ability of mortal man to read.  Perfection is an impossible plateau for any of to touch; nevertheless, as the old saying declares, if we cease aiming for the stairs, we will never grasp the moon.