Ford's Theatre, citing errors, refuses to carry Bill O'Reilly's 'Killing Lincoln'
If you鈥檙e looking for Bill O鈥橰eilly鈥檚 book, "Killing Lincoln," in Ford's Theatre, where Lincoln was actually assassinated, you鈥檙e not going to find it there.
That鈥檚 because the bookstore of the Washington, D.C. theater where the heinous act took place has declined to sell Mr. O鈥橰eilly鈥檚 book about the assassination of our 16th president because, some historians say, it鈥檚 riddled with inaccuracies.
鈥淜illing Lincoln鈥� contains numerous factual errors and no documentation or footnotes, according to a study conducted by Rae Emerson, the deputy superintendent of Ford鈥檚 Theatre National Historic Site who recommended the book not be sold at Ford鈥檚 Theatre.
O鈥橰eilly and his co-author Martin Dugard call 鈥淜illing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever,鈥� published by Henry Holt, 鈥渁n unsanitized and uncompromising 鈥� no spin American story.鈥�
According to several historians, they should have added 鈥渦n-fact checked.鈥�
鈥淚f the authors made mistakes in names, places, and events, what else did they get wrong? How can the reader rely on anything that appears in 鈥楰illing Lincoln鈥�?鈥� asks historian Edward Steers Jr. in a review published in the November issue of 鈥�,鈥� which also points out several of those glaring mistakes.
Among them are several mentions of the Oval Office, including scenes in which Lincoln is placed there. The Oval Office wasn鈥檛 built until 1909, during the Taft administration.
The book also claims that Ford's Theatre burned down in 1863. The actual year was 1862. A slew of minor errors include a misidentified theater owner, a mistake in the number of times 鈥淥ur American Cousin鈥� was performed at the theater before Lincoln saw it that fateful night (seven, not eight, as O鈥橰eilly has it), and an error in the number of acres co-conspirator Dr. Samuel Mudd鈥檚 farm comprised (217, not 500, Mr. O鈥橰eilly).
But that鈥檚 just peanuts, Mr. Steers in a 鈥淧olitical Bookworm鈥� column.
鈥淲hat most irks Steers is the book鈥檚 portrait of conspirator Mary Surratt,鈥� . 鈥淥鈥橰eilly and Dugard write that when she wasn鈥檛 on trial, she had to wear a padded hood that disfigured her and made her claustrophobic; that she was 'sick and trapped' in a cell that was 'barely hospitable' aboard the monitor Montauk; and that she had 'a haunted, bloated appearance' because of the experience.鈥�
Replies Steers, 鈥淣one of this is true. Mary Surratt was never shackled or hooded at any time. She was never imprisoned aboard the Montauk.... This mischaracterization of Mary Surratt is unfortunate, and helps to perpetuate the myth of her innocence and her brutal treatment at the hands of the Federal government.鈥澛�
Although it鈥檚 been a bestseller since its September release, 鈥淜illing Lincoln鈥� took shots from early reviewers, including Bradley University professor Jackie Hogan, who, writing for the Monitor called the book 鈥淟incoln Lite鈥� and said 鈥渋t gives us a Lincoln cleansed of all controversy and complexity.鈥�
Even so, O鈥橰eilly has signed a contract to write two more books, one of which will be a presidential history.
Husna Haq is a Monitor correspondent.
Join the Monitor's book discussion on and .
