Quantcast

Historians: Bill O'Reilly's Book Wrong About Lincoln


A few experts on Abraham Lincoln and political historians took a look at Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly's book, so we don't have to. They decided it is “almost more novelized than it is true history.” The book Killing Lincoln makes some glaring mistakes like referencing the then-non-existent Oval Office, so most Lincoln landmarks have shunned the book from the shelves. The Sun-Times writes:
The “lack of documentation and the factual errors” (Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site, Rae) Emerson identified include mistaken references to Lincoln in the Oval Office, when the Oval Office didn’t exist until 1909; Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth carving a “peephole in the back of the state box” when the theater’s acting manager, Harry Clay Ford, did so; and misstating that Union General Ulysses Grant and Confederate General Robert E. Lee would not meet a second time, when in fact they did on April 10, 1865.
Naturally O'Reilly has shrugged off the criticism as the work of "nitpickers". We don't even see how these errors could be blamed on Fox News conservative bias. Clearly this is the work of a sloppy writer, who didn't spring for a fact checker.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@chicagoist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • ChicagoD

    Why is everyone being mean to Papa Bear? What he meant was accurate. Liberals.

  • twocee

    From Amazon's description:  In the midst of the patriotic celebrations in Washington D.C., John
    Wilkes Booth—charismatic ladies' man and impenitent racist—murders
    Abraham Lincoln at Ford's Theatre. A furious manhunt ensues and Booth
    immediately becomes the country's most wanted fugitive. Lafayette C.
    Baker, a smart but shifty New York detective and former Union spy,
    unravels the string of clues leading to Booth, while federal forces
    track his accomplices. The thrilling chase ends in a fiery shootout and a
    series of court-ordered executions—including that of the first woman
    ever executed by the U.S. government, Mary Surratt. Featuring some of
    history's most remarkable figures, vivid detail, and page-turning
    action, Killing Lincoln is history that...

    Is this supposed to be straight non-fiction history, or a "historical fiction?"  Big difference.  Is O'Reilly trying to be David McCullough or Dan Brown?

    Regardless, it would be nice if he got the easy facts correct, especially since the Civil War is easily one of the most documented events in our nation's history.

  • slickpoetry

    Damnit, and I just bought this stupid thing for my library.

    (not my personal library. I purchase books for a public library. I'd like to not buy O'Reilly books, but I have to give the people what they want to read regardless of my personal political views)

blog comments powered by Disqus

send a tip

tips@chicagoist.com