"The Day Lincoln Was Shot" by Jim Bishop (1955)

Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809. My reading of this book, and the resultant review you see here, are both coincidental to the occasion. But it does lend more of a relevance to the narrative when reading it.

I chose this book from the “stacks” in the library precisely because it is an older book, and as such it was written in closer proximity to the event. The author was writing at a time when these events were less than a century past, and there were a few people still living that had been alive when it occurred. They may have just been children at the time, but they would have remembered the events and the stories told by their parents and relatives.

Over the years the stories have changed. Prior to about 1970 most accounts agreed that Booth uttered his famous “Sic Semper Tyrannus!” as he leapt to the stage from the private box where he had just shot the President and stabbed Major Rathbone. But the contemporary accounts of the time tell a different story. That is, the individual eyewitness accounts. But history on this night would be written by one man; Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War.

Booth said two things after shooting Lincoln. The first was “Sic Semper Tyrannus!”; which was the motto of the State of Virginia, and also “The South has been avenged!” It was after saying these two things that he hung from the ledge of the box and dropped to the stage, breaking his ankle when his foot caught on the bunting draping the President’s box. But, I have to admit, the leap is a great flourish and Booth would no doubt be proud of this added highlight; true or false.

In 1954 and 1955 Mr. Bishop spent 6 months retracing the steps of the assassin and his co-conspirators, traveling from Maine and Canada to Virginia, reading all the old newspaper articles he could find and visiting the locations which were involved.

One of the strangest aspects of his research was in finding that news of the Presidents assassination was on the street the day of the assassination; as far away as Maine and almost 10 hours before he was killed. Even at a time when telegraph was the quickest means of communication, this still does not explain how the reports were so accurate as to name the theater, when at the time the President was himself still unsure of his plans. Remember that Mrs. Surratt’s son John was just then shuttling papers back and forth between Canada and the Confederate government in Virginia.

But this book is not given over to conspiracy theories. Rather, it is more concerned with an hour by hour description of what each of the participants were doing from about 7 AM on Friday April 14, 1865 until the President succumbed to his wound at 22 minutes past 7 AM the following morning. It is of interest to note that had Booth not killed Lincoln on Good Friday the late President might not have gained such stature as a martyr. In a way Booth helped bestow that honor on the man he claimed to loathe.

Each chapter of the book explores not only the events of that hour, but also the prior history of how the events led there. This is as an exciting account of the night Lincoln was shot as you will find. Robert Redford’s film; “The Conspirators”; was a fine film, but it relied on the “smooth” version of events. There is something lacking in the film which Mr. Bishop has captured so well within these pages; the confusion of the night as Booth was getting away.

One example of the contemporary inaccuracies which found it's way into the movie is the scene in Secretary of State Seward's room. The room was in complete darkness. Due to extreme amount of noise made by Lewis Paine as he attempted to shoot, and finally stab the Secretary's son at the top of the stairs, his daughter had extinguished all the lights in the room at the time and even tried to hold the door back when Paine attempted to enter. As a matter of fact he wound up struggling in the dark with two persons, one of whom was the daughter. 

As the streets of Washington filled with throngs of people on foot; and some in carriages; Booth stuck fairly to the script he had planned to make his escape over the bridge at the Navy Yard. That bridge was closed to traffic at 9PM nightly; and so no one really thought that Booth had gone that way. After all, the sentries were there to stop anyone trying to leave or enter the city. But, with the war just about over; General Johnston’s troops had not yet surrendered; the sentries were lax and allowed two of the assassins to pass over the bridge and on toward Surrattsville and the Surratt Tavern where there were guns and binoculars awaiting them.

The book has a sense of immediacy about it which can only come from the careful pacing of the author, as he lets you in on each piece of information as it happens over the course of the night. And even though you know the story; indeed the author references the outcome in several places; the reader is still held captive to the narrative.

Jim Bishop wrote a syndicated column for about 6 years between 1957 and 1963. In 1964 he released ''A Day in the Life of President Kennedy,'' which he had just finished 10 days before the assassination in Dallas. The book had been approved by JFK without revisions. However, Jackie Kennedy asked for 60 minor changes after his death and prior to publication; all of which the author acceded to. 

Mr. Bishop later wrote “The Day Kennedy Was Shot”, which was first released in 1968. TV personality Bill O’Reilly has had a successful run of books about the Lincoln and JFK assassinations, and I’ve even read them. They add nothing to the stories and in some places are very reminiscent of the style which Jim Bishop used in writing his books on the same subjects; only several decades earlier than Mr. O’Reilly. That’s why I like to roam “the stacks” at the library. A lot of “new” things can be found there.

Dallas - The Day the Music Died

I was only 9 in November of 1963, and I saw the world in shades of black and white. Just like this photograph of President and Mrs. Kennedy. This still gives many of my early childhood memories a distant, sepia like feel, almost as if I were watching them, rather than being an actual participant. But that was all about to end on this Friday afternoon in late November.

I was in third grade, and a big supporter of President Kennedy. I participated in the President's Science Program, and even the Physical Fitness Program, at Public School 255 in Brooklyn, where I lived. I also had a picture of the President that had been sent to me by the White House. The space program alone was enough to capture the minds, and hearts, of every kid in the nation. It seemed that there was nothing beyond our reach. And then came Dallas.

My 3rd grade perception of Dallas was all tied up in the fact that it was in Texas. The Texas that I imagined was made up of dirt Main Streets, with raised wooden sidewalks, where everyone wore a gun on their hips. My perception of the world was about to grow larger.

My class had been visiting the Museum of the City of New York in Manhattan. We left the museum shortly before 2PM that afternoon to head back to Brooklyn. Whatever we had seen in the Museum that day is a complete blank to me now.

Stepping onto the bus I noticed that the bus driver was listening intently to his transistor radio. You could feel the tension in his body as he strained to hear the radio over the sound of 35 yelling 9 year old boys and girls. At some point I recall the teacher conferring with the bus driver and then turning to the class, all of whom were by this time seated and quiet. She spoke with an earnest quality, one that I had never before seen in my dealings with adults, as she said, "Class, the President has been shot in Dallas, Texas. We don't know yet whether he is going to live." The rest of the ride back to Brooklyn was uneventful, as 9 year olds we were not fully cognizant of the more serious implications involved in the assassination, beyond the fact that it was of historical importance.

About 10 minutes into the trip the driver spoke with the teacher, who informed us that President Kennedy was indeed dead. We were also informed that a "lone nut" had done it.

Arriving back at school I remember being released to go home. It was right about 3 o'clock when we got there, so everyone was getting out of the building when we arrived. We would not return to school until after the following Monday, November 25th, when the President was buried.

I remember walking home from school that day and thinking that I was living through history. This was like Lincoln! This was something I would someday be telling my kids about. And I have...

Since this was a Friday, Uncle "I" would be coming over, as was his usual custom. We spent the the night in front of the TV, first watching the arrival of Air Force One at Bethesda Air Force base, outside of Washington, with Jackie Kennedy still in her blood smeared clothes stepping off the rear of the plane with Robert Kennedy, the President's brother.

The funeral would occupy the next four days, as tens of thousands of Americans poured into Washington to pass the President's casket as it lay in State in the Capitol beneath the Rotunda. Millions more watched on TV. I remember getting up several times during the night and turning the TV on, only to be confronted by the same image on each station. The casket laying on the bier, surrounded by one member of each of the Armed Forces posted at the corners of the casket, with rifles. I'm writing this now with no photo in front of me. Even at the distance of 47 years the memory of it is still crystal clear.

My family would not see John Kennedy's grave until about 6 weeks after the assassination. There were still crowds and a line to see the grave, which was nothing like it is today. This photo shows the grave at the time of our visit in January 1964. The President's son, Patrick, who had been stillborn that August, is interred to the right in the photo. The gravesite today is a concrete monument, which leaves you feeling disconnected, both from the man, and the events of his life and death. When I was there, the earth was still freshly turned, and the only thing separating the people from their fallen leader was a white picket fence.

Weird News - Time Magazine (1979)

Here are 2 news stories from the May 21^st, 1979 edition of Time magazine. Obviously they caught my attention enough to have clipped and saved this page for many years. The first involves a skid row plot to kill President Carter. Or, maybe not. 

The second involves a very clever movie like plot to pull off a heist from the inside. Great movies are made of articles like these. That might be why I saved them. You can’t make this stuff up.

I had a tooth pulled the other day so I am taking it easy. Be back soon!

"Down to the Crossroads" by Aram Goudsouzian (2014)

Author Aram Goudsouzian explores the march which changed the direction of the Civil Rights Movement in America. Up until the “March Against Fear” in Mississippi in 1966, African-Americans were patiently protesting, in a non-violent fashion, the injustices of the past 100 years since the end of the Civil War and slavery.

But when a lone white man shot and wounded James Meredith; the first African-American to enter the University of Mississippi in 1962, he set off a chain reaction which brought everyone under the umbrella of the Civil Rights Movement to descend on Mississippi in a show of unity. At the time some whites even accused the “movement” of having orchestrated the shooting to drum up national support. I’m not kidding. They actually said that; even as far away as New York.

James Meredith had begun what was essentially a one man march from Memphis, Tennessee to Jackson, Mississippi when he was shot on the 2^nd day, just after entering Mississippi. The assailant merely stood in the road waiting for him and announced that he was looking for James Meredith and didn't want any trouble with anyone else. When Meredith stepped forward and identified himself, he was shot.

The whole spectacle was bizarre. They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, but the iconic photograph of Mr. Meredith being shot does not do justice to what had just happened. Meredith, being trailed by the media and the State Police, was walking along in broad daylight when he was shot by a man who did not even try to get away after the shooting. His only concern was to ask if Meredith was dead. He was visibly disappointed when he was informed that Meredith was still alive. I have never seen such hatred, either before this incident, or since.

In the town of Greenwood the police station boasted a plague dedicated to “Tiger” the police dog who had taken a bite out of several demonstrators in 1963. The animal was a local celebrity.

The main point of this book is to chronicle the change that the attempted assassin’s bullet had upon the Civil Rights Movement as a whole. Within hours of the shooting, members from every sect of the Movement came forward to lend a hand in completing the March which Mr. Meredith had begun. This was also the march which brought the Vietnam War to the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement. With African-Americans dying in disproportionate numbers in that conflict, they had a big stake. As remarked by Vincent Young, a bus driver from Brooklyn, “No Viet Cong ever called me a nigger.”

Joined by Martin Luther King and his troupe, the march also attracted Stokely Carmichael and his group, SNCC. This was the birth of the Black Power movement; within just a few days that slogan would become a household word. And, who you were and where you lived would come to inform the meaning of those words.

To the marchers in Mississippi it meant getting the vote and respect; to the people living in the ghettos it meant exactly what it said; Black Power. They would begin to exert economic power in their neighborhoods, buying from African-American merchants only. This kind of puzzled white people because to them it represented nothing short of the discrimination which African-Americans were fighting against themselves.

Martin Luther King and Stokely Carmichael were not the bitter rivals that history would have us believe. The older man saw in Carmichael something of himself 10 years earlier during the Montgomery Bus Boycott. His only real concern was that the rhetoric of Black Power would do harm to everything which had been accomplished up until that point. For Carmichael’s part, he didn’t want to distance himself too far from King, since doing so would mean losing the support of the press, which was solidly behind the older man.

Local Mississippians lamented the march as the work of outsiders coming to foment trouble. This ignores the fact that people had to come from all over the country precisely because the locals were afraid to march. They stood to lose their jobs, their homes, and even their lives. The African-American was so cowed by fear that in the town of Grenada the local blacks turned in anyone who even spoke of civil rights, ensuring their own continued inequality. Can you even imagine being that “beat down” in spirit? I can’t. Can you imagine doing that to someone else? (Fill in your own response here.)

During the march a local man named Ben Chester White was shot and killed by 3 local men whom he knew well. They called themselves the Cottonmouth Gang, and simply went by his house and asked him to help them look for their dog. He came willingly, as he had always obeyed white men without question. They drove him to a nearby bridge and shot him with 2 shotguns multiple times, disposing of his tattered corpse in the river.

Mr. Goudsouzian has left no stone unturned in this riveting portrait of the march itself, as well as the movement as a whole. He carefully chronicles the changes which were taking place in the movement at the time, as African-Americans began to act on their unwillingness to wait patiently any longer for something that was theirs to begin with.

The March against Fear was a pivotal moment in a time filled with moments which would all add up to a big change in America as regards Civil Rights. Although almost 50 years have gone by since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, the job is not done. Even as I write this; in a country with an African-American President; there are still people who want to roll back that historic law, along with all of the gains made by the Civil Rights Movement in all of its diverse forms.

From the NAACP to SNCC and even the Black Panthers Party, all of these groups have contributed to change. Without any one of them in the mix it is doubtful that the Movement would have remained cohesive after 1968, when Martin Luther King was murdered. It’s important to remember that. Diversity within the Movement is precisely what saved it in the long run.

One of the most ironic moments in the book occurs when Mississippi Highway Patrolman Fred Ogg remarks; at the end of a long day; “I’m just about overcome.” 

"Gandhi" with Ben Kingsley (1982)

I can hardly believe that I have never reviewed this remarkable film here before. I have seen it several times, always with the same shock at the cruelty of the British against a people who merely wanted to govern themselves. Coming about 150 years after the Empire had lost the American colonies, you would have thought that the British had learned something about people and their determination to be free. Just as the United States would later learn in Vietnam, when you fight in someone else’s backyard, you better have the hearts and minds of the people on your side. When you don’t; you’re just “whistling in the wind.”

In this biography of Mohandas K. Gandhi, a simple but idealistic attorney who rallied an oppressed people into standing up for their birthright, director Richard Attenborough has taken writer John Briley’s script to a cinematic height rarely achieved in today’s movies.

Of course, with a cast which includes such luminaries as Ben Kingsley; playing Gandhi; John Gielgud; as Lord Irwin; and an array of the best actors of their time; including Trevor Howard and John Mills; it would be hard to miss in this historically accurate story about the diminutive little man who became the symbol of his people using the philosophy of non-violence to accomplish the impossible.

From the 1920’s through to the granting of Independence in 1947, Mr. Gandhi faced struggles from without, as well as struggles form within. In many ways his trajectory would become the very image of Martin Luther King’s struggle for Civil Rights in the United States several decades later. In both cases the result was the tragic loss of a great leader, even as the changes they wrought through their efforts were beginning to bear fruit.

Stunningly photographed, and excellently directed, this film belongs in every serious collection of cinema. If not for its beauty as a movie itself, then as a statement about mankind and the dilemma of all peoples who struggle to be free.

Jim Garrison's Closing Summation -

Jim Garrison is still the only person to have ever brought to trial the conspirators in the murder of John F. Kennedy in 1963. His reputation has been tarnished for the ages by ridicule and disbelief. If you have ever seen Oliver Stone’s film “JFK” then you have heard the following closing argument made by Mr. Garrison in court on February 28, 1969. Although copies were handed out to the press at the end of the proceedings, the summation has never really garnered much attention in the mind of the public. Much of this is due to the reaction against the film by Mr. Stone. Yet, when you actually read the text of Mr. Garrison’s closing remarks, one cannot help being affected by the veracity of his words. It is an important and eloquent speech which contains much truth. Here is that argument, just as it was delivered in court in 1969.

May it please the court. Gentlemen of the jury. I know you're very tired. You've been very patient. This final day has been a long one, so I'll speak only a few minutes. In his argument, Mr. Dymond posed one final issue which raises the question of what we do when the need for justice is confronted by power. So, let me talk to you about the question of whether or not there was government fraud in this case--a question Mr. Dymond seems to want us to answer. A government is a great deal like a human being. It's not necessarily all good, and it's not necessarily all bad. We live in a good country. I love it and you do too. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we have a government which is not perfect.

There have been indications since November the 22nd of 1963--and that was not the last indication--that there is excessive power in some parts of our government. It is plain that the people have not received all of the truth about some of the things which have happened, about some of the assassinations which have occurred--and more particularly about the assassination of John Kennedy.

Going back to when we were children, I think most of us--probably all of us here in the courtroom--once thought that justice came into being of its own accord, that virtue was its own reward, that good would triumph over evil--in short, that justice occurred automatically. Later, when we found that this wasn't quite so, most of us still felt hopefully that at least justice occurred frequently of its own accord.

Today, I think that almost all of us would have to agree that there is really no machinery--not on this Earth at least--which causes justice to occur automatically. Men have to make it occur. Individual human beings have to make it occur. Otherwise, it doesn't come into existence. This is not always easy. As a matter of fact, it's always hard, because justice presents a threat to power. In order to make justice come into being, you often have to fight power.

Mr. Dymond raised the question: Why don't we say it's all a fraud and charge the government with fraud, if this is the case? Let me be explicit, then, and make myself very clear on this point.

The government's handling of the investigation of John Kennedy's murder was a fraud. It was the greatest fraud in the history of our country. It probably was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of humankind. That doesn't mean that we have to accept the continued existence of the kind of government which allows this to happen. We can do something about it. We're forced either to leave this country or to accept the authoritarianism that has developed--the authoritarianism which tells us that in the year 2029 we can see the evidence about what happened to John Kennedy.

Government does not consist only of secret police and domestic espionage operations and generals and admirals--government consists of people. It also consists of juries. And cases of murder--whether of the poorest individual or the most distinguished citizen in the land--should be looked at openly in a court of law, where juries can pass on them and not be hidden, not be buried like the body of the victim beneath concrete for countless years.

You men in these recent weeks have heard witnesses that no one else in the world has heard. You've seen the Zapruder film. You've seen what happened to your President. I suggest to you that you know right now that, in that area at least, a fraud has been perpetrated.

That does not mean that our government is entirely bad; and I want to emphasize that. It does mean, however, that in recent years, through the development of excessive power because of the Cold War, forces have developed in our government over which there is no control and these forces have an authoritarian approach to justice--meaning, they will let you know what justice is.

Well, my reply to them is that we already know what justice is. It is the decision of the people passing on the evidence. It is the jury system. In this issue which is posed by the government's conduct in concealing the evidence in this case--in the issue of humanity as opposed to power--I have chosen humanity, and I will do it again without any hesitation. I hope every one of you will do the same. I do this because I love my country and because I want to communicate to the government that we will not accept unexplained assassinations with the casual information that if we live seventy-five years longer, we might be given more evidence.

In this particular case, massive power was brought to bear to prevent justice from ever coming into this courtroom. The power to make authoritive pronouncements, the power to manipulate the news media by the release of false information, the power to interfere with an honest inquiry and the power to provide an endless variety of experts to testify in behalf of power, repeatedly was demonstrated in this case.

The American people have yet to see the Zapruder film. Why? The American people have yet to see and hear from the real witnesses to the assassination. Why? Because, today in America too much emphasis is given to secrecy, with regard to the assassination of our President, and not enough emphasis is given to the question of justice and to the question of humanity.

These dignified deceptions will not suffice. We have had enough of power without truth. We don't have to accept power without truth or else leave the country. I don't accept either of these two alternatives. I don't intend to leave the country and I don't intend to accept power without truth.

I intend to fight for the truth. I suggest that not only is this not un-American, but it is the most American thing we can do--because if the truth does not endure, then our country will not endure.

In our country the worst of all crimes occurs when the government murders truth. If it can murder truth, it can murder freedom. If it can murder freedom, it can murder your own sons--if they should dare to fight for freedom-- and then it can announce that they were killed in an industrial accident, or shot by the "enemy" or God knows what.

In this case, finally, it has been possible to bring the truth about the assassination into a court of law--not before a commission composed of important and powerful and politically astute men, but before a jury of citizens.

Now, I suggest to you that yours is a hard duty, because in a sense what you're passing on is equivalent to a murder case. The difficult thing about passing on a murder case is that the victim is out of your sight and buried a long distance away, and all you can see is the defendant. It's very difficult to identify with someone you can't see, and sometimes it's hard not to identify to some extent with the defendant and his problems.

In that regard, every prosecutor who is at all humane is conscious of feeling sorry for the defendant in every case he prosecutes. But he is not free to forget the victim who lies buried out of sight. I suggest to you that, if you do your duty, you also are not free to forget the victim who is buried out of sight.

You know, Tennyson once said that, "authority forgets a dying king." This was never more true than in the murder of John Kennedy. The strange and deceptive conduct of the government after his murder began while his body was warm, and has continued for five years. You have seen in this courtroom indications of the interest of part of the government power structure in keeping the truth down, in keeping the grave closed.

We presented a number of eyewitnesses as well as an expert witness as well as the Zapruder film, to show that the fatal wound of the President came from the front. A plane landed from Washington and out stepped Dr. Finck for the defense, to counter the clear and apparent evidence of a shot from the front. I don't have to go into Dr. Finck's testimony in detail for you to show that it simply did not correspond with the facts. He admitted that he did not complete the autopsy because a general told him not to complete the autopsy.

In this conflict between power and justice--to put it that way--just where do you think Dr. Finck stands? A general, who was not a pathologist, told him not to complete the autopsy, so he didn't complete it. This is not the way I want my country to be. When our President is killed he deserves the kind of autopsy that the ordinary citizen gets every day in the State of Louisiana. And the people deserve the facts about it. We can't have government power suddenly interjecting itself and preventing the truth form coming to the people.

Yet in this case, before the sun rose the next morning, power had moved into the situation and the truth was being concealed. And now, five years later in this courtroom the power of the government in concealing the truth is continuing in the same way.

We presented eyewitnesses who told you of the shots coming from the grassy knoll. A plane landed from Washington, and out came ballistics expert Frazier for the defense. Mr. Frazier's explanation of the sound of the shots coming from the front, which was heard by eyewitness after eyewitness, was that Lee Oswald created a sonic boom in his firing. Not only did Oswald break all of the world's records for marksmanship, but he broke the sound barrier as well.

I suggest to you, that if any of you have shot on a firing range--and most of you probably have in the service--you were shooting rifles in which the bullet traveled faster than the speed of sound. I ask you to recall if you ever heard a sonic boom. If you remember when you were on the firing line, and they would say, "Ready on the left; ready on the right; ready on the firing line; commence firing," you heard the shots coming from the firing line--to the left of you and to the right of you. If you had heard, as a result of Frazier's fictional sonic boom, firing coming at you from the pits, you would have had a reaction which you would still remember.

Mr. Frazier's sonic boom simply doesn't exist. It's part of the fraud-- a part of the continuing government fraud.

The best way to make this country the kind of country it's supposed to be is to communicate to the government that no matter how powerful it may be, we do not accept these frauds. We do not accept these false announcements. We do not accept the concealment of evidence with regard to the murder of President Kennedy. Who is the most believable: a Richard Randolph Carr, seated here in a wheelchair and telling you what he saw and what he heard and how he was told to shut his mouth--or Mr. Frazier with his sonic booms? Do we really have to reject Mr. Newman and Mrs. Newman and Mr. Carr and Roger Craig and the testimony of all those honest witnesses--reject all this and accept the fraudulent Warren Commission, or else leave the country?

I suggest to you that there are other alternatives. One of them has been put in practice in the last month in the State of Louisiana--and that is to bring out the truth in a proceeding where attorneys can cross-examine, where the defendant can be confronted by testimony against him, where the rules of evidence are applied and where a jury of citizens can pass on it--and where there is no government secrecy. Above all, where you do not have evidence concealed for seventy-five years in the name of "national security."

All we have in this case are the facts--facts which show that the defendant participated in the conspiracy to kill the President and that the President was subsequently killed in an ambush.

The reply of the defense has been the same as the early reply of the government in the Warren Commission. It has been authority, authority, authority. The President's seal outside of each volume of the Warren Commission Report--made necessary because there is nothing inside these volumes, only men of high position and prestige sitting on a Board, and announcing the results to you, but not telling you what the evidence is, because the evidence has to be hidden for seventy-five years.

You heard in this courtroom in recent weeks, eyewitness after eyewitness after eyewitness and, above all, you saw one eyewitness which was indifferent to power--the Zapruder film. The lens of the camera is totally indifferent to power and it tells what happened as it saw it happen--and that is one of the reasons 200 million Americans have not seen the Zapruder film. They should have seen it many times. They should know exactly what happened. They all should know what you know now. Why hasn't all of this come into being if there hasn't been government fraud? Of course there has been fraud by the government.

But I'm telling you now that I think we can do something about it. I think that there are still enough Americans left in this country to make it continue to be America. I think that we can still fight authoritarianism--the government's insistence on secrecy, government force used in counterattacks against an honest inquiry--and when we do that, we're not being un-American, we're being American. It isn't easy. You're sticking your neck out in a rather permanent way, but it has to be done because truth does not come into being automatically. Individual men, like the members of my staff here, have to work and fight to make it happen--and individual men like you have to make justice come into being because otherwise is doesn't happen.

What I'm trying to tell you is that there are forces in America today, unfortunately, which are not in favor of the truth coming out about John Kennedy's assassination. As long as our government continues to be like this, as long as such forces can get away with such actions, then this is no longer the country in which we were born.

The murder of John Kennedy was probably the most terrible moment in the history of our country. Yet, circumstances have placed you in the position where not only have you seen the hidden evidence but you are actually going to have the opportunity to bring justice into the picture for the first time.

Now, you are here sitting in judgment on Clay Shaw. Yet you, as men, represent more than jurors in an ordinary case because of the victim in this case. You represent, in a sense, the hope of humanity against government power. You represent humanity, which yet may triumph over excessive government power-- if you will cause it to be so, in the course of doing your duty in this case.

I suggest that you ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.

What can you do for your country? You can cause justice to happen for the first time in this matter. You can help make our country better by showing that this is still a government of the people. And if you do that, as long as you live, nothing will ever be more important.

"The Siege of Washington" by John and Charles Lockwood (2011)

The most fascinating thing about this book is the mystery of why the Confederacy did not immediately take possession of Washington, D.C., which would have ended the war; or at least put the South in the driver’s seat concerning a negotiated truce. Indeed, the Southern populace expected no less. They marched off to war, thinking that they would return within months, rather than years. What was the reasoning behind this ill-fated decision on the part of the Confederacy? Why was Washington so lightly defended at a time when it was crawling with rebel sympathizers, and surrounded by the slave holding states; Maryland, to the north; and Virginia, to the south?

In this book by authors John and Charles Lockwood, history comes alive as they explore these crucial questions, as well as the relationship his 2 key aides played during the 12 days between April 15^th and April 25^th, 1861; a mere 6 weeks after Lincoln had assumed the Presidency in March. These 2 remarkable men; John Nicolay; aged 29, from Springfield, where he had worked as Lincoln’s assistant; and John Hays, aged 22, who was hired as Nicolay’s assistant in Washington; were instrumental throughout Lincoln’s Presidency. But they were never more effective than they were in the crucial first days of the War Between the States, as the new President struggled to come to grips with the enormity of the task before him.

Calling upon General Winfield Scott, the General in Chief of the nation’s Army, plans were immediately put into effect to secure the roads and railways entering the city. Washington was; at that time, and on into my own youth; a decidedly “southern” town. Segregation existed there openly up until the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The threat of hostilities breaking out within the city itself was a real and constant danger that had to be dealt with. To that end, the President called upon 75,000 Union volunteers, each of whom would serve for 3 months. Just as the South expected to crush the North in a short while, the North fully expected the same of themselves.

Also at stake were the territories out west. California talked openly of leaving the Union, and rather than join forces with the far distant Southern states, form a Republic of her own with Oregon and the Pacific Northwest territory which would later become the state of Washington.

Back in New York the same idea was forming. With New York City alone generating 2/3 of the nation’s import taxes on all goods which passed through its port, it was a “no-brainer” to figure out who would be paying the bulk of the cost of a war with the South. Also at stake for the merchants in New York was the 40 cents per dollar which they received from the export of cotton to England. Should the South be successful in establishing her own nation, the middle man in New York would be left with no percentage at all. Added to that was the threat of the “free negro”; 4 million to be exact; who would eventually move to the Northern cities, competing with white immigrant workers for the same jobs. That feeling alone led to the Draft Riots of July 1863, just as the Battle of Gettysburg was raging; causing valuable troops to be diverted to New York to fight in what was almost a “rear guard” action, rather than a mere riot.

Also threatening Washington was the City of Baltimore, with its own peculiar mixture of feelings concerning slavery. The city was also home to the Union Trust Bank, which held considerable reserves for the North. This made it imperative to hold onto Maryland, and after the events of April 18^th, during which mobs in the city attacked the Union soldiers as they marched along Pratt Street, the city was under occupation for the remainder of the war. The troops had been marching from the old train station; which stood on President Street, at the Eastern end of today’s Harborplace; to the Camden Street Station, the site of today’s Camden Yards, home to the Baltimore Orioles baseball team. At the intersection of Charles and Pratt Streets the mob had grown to over 2,000 strong, and, armed with clubs and paving stones, attacked the troops.

In this wide ranging account, the author gives new thought to the importance of these 12 most perilous days of the war. Until now, the most engaging story of Lincoln’s assumption of the Presidency has always been the attempted assassination which occurred before he even took office. And, although the story of the Baltimore riot; and the later New York Draft Riot; have been told many times, this is the first book which I have read that puts all of these pieces together. The author has successfully re-created the excitement; and fear; of a time when our nation was at war, and the seat of government surrounded by her enemies.

"The Kennedy Detail" by Gerald Blaine

I am a big fan of the Kennedy assassination. It's the greatest parlor game to ever come down the pike and will doubtlessly entertain folks for generations to come. It seems as if there are a score of different theories floating about, all concerning either the identity of the assassins, or the "why" of the deed itself. These theories range from Big Oil, President Johnson, the CIA, the Mafia, or a combination of all of those, plus the military. But all of the books have one thing in common; they each float a hypothesis of what happened in Dallas on November 22nd, 1963. They each offer a theory, or put forth an explanation as to what happened, and why. This book does neither.

By leaving out certain facts, as well as by slanting certain information, the author seems more intent on exonerating the Secret Service for the loss of the "client", than he is about how, and why, they were simply left out of the loop. The explanations concerning the route change are not credible.

Most of the book seems to concern itself with Agent Clint Hill's role as the bodyguard for Mrs. Kennedy. The weeks, and sometimes even months, he was required to stay away from his own family, often seem exaggerated.

Still, there were portions of the book which offered a new and unique insight into some events. The planned Presidential trip to Frank Sinatra's home, arranged through the President's brother in law, Peter Lawford, was very interesting. I never knew who made the decision to move the President, absent Jackie, to Bing Crosby's house, after all the preparations that Mr. Sinatra had made, including pouring a helicopter pad and state of the art phone bank. The story of how this news was broken to Mr. Sinatra by 2 of the agents, accompanying Mr. Lawford, is very interesting. But, it also almost lead to Sam Giancana having Dean Martin and Sammy Davis, Jr. being killed, and that's the kind of "grit" lacking in this book.

Some of the stories of life at the Virginia retreats of both Glen Ora, and later on, Atoka, where Jackie liked to spend weekends horseback riding, are really good. John John learning to salute at Camp David just 2 weeks before his Dad's unexpected murder is a good example of all the things "right" in this book. As the agents in charge of the First Family's security, they had an unprecedented look at their daily lives.

Another chapter worth reading is the one concerning Mrs. Kennedy's miscarriage in August of 1963, just 12 weeks prior to her husbands death. After the baby dies, the author describes the Presidential couple as "growing closer", even as she takes off on a 2 month trip to Europe with Aristotle Onassis, who would later, of course, become her husband.

An entertaining book if you're a Kennedy fan, but a disappointment if you are an assassination buff, the book is worth reading nonetheless. Each perspective is a piece of the larger puzzle that marks the so-called era of "Camelot" in Washington. The lack of candor on the author's part concerning the numerous affairs that the President was having, right under the very nose of the Secret Service, either serves to highlight their incompetence, which I do not believe to be the case, or else it points to the conclusion that this book is less than forthcoming in all of the details relevant to the assassination.

At times this book seems to be a refutation of "The Echo From Dealey Plaza", which I reviewed here a few years ago. That book concerns itself with Abraham Bolden and his removal as the first African-American member of the White House Detail. That removal was the result of his having complained of both complacecy on the part of his fellow agents, as well as his allegations of drinking and drug use by agents on duty. Mr. Blaine seems to deliberately go out of his way to discredit him, leaving the reader to wonder why, while at the same time, lending creedence to Mr. Bolden's account.

For a better read concerning the President's assassination, you can do no better than Russ Baker's "Family of Secrets", which I also reviewed here about 2 years ago. That book is the last word on the Kennedy assassination, tying together all of the conflicting data with documentation of all the purported facts. That book then goes on to tie the Bay of Pigs, along with President's murder, to the Watergate Affair and beyond.

But one fact remains; the Kennedy assassination still remains one of the best unsolved mysteries of my lifetime. And I hope it stays that way.

The Politics of Division and Denial - America As a Third World Nation

The climate of intolerance is rising in America. The people are angry. Though I in no way condone violence, I do understand the tide of intolerance that breeds it. While listening to the news about the tragedy in Arizona yesterday, I couldn't help but be reminded of the the lyrics to "Who Killed Davey Moore", the 1963 Bob Dylan recording which poses the question of just who was responsible for the death of the boxer Davey Moore. The song is a series of denials by all parties involved in the blatant exploitation of Mr. Moore, which resulted in his death. Kind of like politics in America today. It's killing us, yet no one is to blame.

Today, and throughout the week coming, we will hear all manner of finger pointing concerning who/what is responsible for this tragedy. And the answers will be the same as it was for Davey Moore. No one will step up and admit their own intolerance. It's always someone else's fault. Well, I've got a big flash for you;

We are all responsible for the senseless events in Arizona. We are all responsible for the climate of intolerance that currently grips our nation. We were all set up to be divided by the politicians. And our shame is that we let it happen. We have let the Conservatives spread their hateful and divisive views to the point that, "We have," finally, as Pogo once opined, "...met the enemy, and he is us." We are responsible for letting ourselves be divided. Liberals, Conservatives and Tea Party members are turning our nation into a Third World Country. We are already the most indebted nation in the world. Need we sink even lower?

As I watched the news unfold yesterday, I had to wonder how we ever arrived at this point. And all I could think of was the divisive, hateful comments that will come of this. The Conservatives will state that the over reaching agenda on the part of the Liberals is to blame. And the Liberals will claim that the Conservative climate of fear currently gripping the nation is at fault. But it is our collective fault for having let ourselves be divided with "window dressing" issues such as flag burning, abortion, gay marriage and so-called "patriotism" that is really to blame.

I hope that you get what I am driving at. Maybe the lyrics will help to drive the point home. I hope so, for time is growing short, as are tempers, in America today.

"Who Killed Davey Moore" by Bob Dylan

Who killed Davey Moore,
Why an' what's the reason for?

"Not I," says the referee,
"Don't point your finger at me.
I could've stopped it in the eighth
An' maybe kept him from his fate,
But the crowd would've booed, I'm sure,
At not gettin' their money's worth.
It's too bad he had to go,
But there was a pressure on me too, you know.
It wasn't me that made him fall.
No, you can't blame me at all."

Who killed Davey Moore,
Why an' what's the reason for?

"Not us," says the angry crowd,
Whose screams filled the arena loud.
"It's too bad he died that night
But we just like to see a fight.
We didn't mean for him t' meet his death,
We just meant to see some sweat,
There ain't nothing wrong in that.
It wasn't us that made him fall.
No, you can't blame us at all."

Who killed Davey Moore,
Why an' what's the reason for?

"Not me," says his manager,
Puffing on a big cigar.
"It's hard to say, it's hard to tell,
I always thought that he was well.
It's too bad for his wife an' kids he's dead,
But if he was sick, he should've said.
It wasn't me that made him fall.
No, you can't blame me at all."

Who killed Davey Moore,
Why an' what's the reason for?


"Not me," says the gambling man,
With his ticket stub still in his hand.
"It wasn't me that knocked him down,
My hands never touched him none.
I didn't commit no ugly sin,
Anyway, I put money on him to win.
It wasn't me that made him fall.
No, you can't blame me at all."

Who killed Davey Moore,
Why an' what's the reason for?

"Not me," says the boxing writer,
Pounding print on his old typewriter,
Sayin', "Boxing ain't to blame,
There's just as much danger in a football game."
Sayin', "Fist fighting is here to stay,
It's just the old American way.
It wasn't me that made him fall.
No, you can't blame me at all."

Who killed Davey Moore,
Why an' what's the reason for?

"Not me," says the man whose fists
Laid him low in a cloud of mist,
Who came here from Cuba's door
Where boxing ain't allowed no more.
"I hit him, I hit him, yes, it's true,
But that's what I am paid to do.
Don't say 'murder,' don't say 'kill.'
It was destiny, it was God's will."

Who killed Davey Moore,
Why an' what's the reason for?

Robert Todd Lincoln - Too Close to History

This is President William McKinley. It was this week in 1901 when Robert Todd Lincoln, son of the slain President, rushed from the train station in Buffalo to greet President McKinley at the Temple of Music. He did so in his capacity as President of the Pullman Cars Association to lend a hand in the political opportunites afforded by the Pan American Exposition which was being held in Buffalo that year. Robert Todd Lincoln was always late.

Just as he arrived Leon Czolgosz approached the President, his hand in a sling which concealed a revolver. He used this weapon to shoot the President within yards of the ever tardy Mr. Lincoln. The President was shot on the 6th and died of his wounds on the 14th of September. After this event, Mr. Lincoln would make no more public political appearances for the rest of his life. Some say this was a self imposed idea. Others say he fell out of favor as a guest for a very understandable, but unusual, reason.

You see, Robert Todd had a history of being late at the very times when Presidents were shot. He was late in 1881 when he was serving under President James Garfield, pictured here, as the Secretary of War. On this occasion he arrived, as he later did with McKinley, at the precise moment the fatal shots were fired by Charles Guiteau. Just as later, with McKinley, Robert Todd was only yards away. It has been written that both Garfield, and later McKinley, were having dreams portending their own deaths at the hands of an assassin. So much had been written about President Lincoln's premonitions, that both subsequent Presidents were eager to discuss this with his son Robert.

This is Robert Todd Lincoln as he appeared in the 1880's. The history of his presence at the assassinations began, of course, with the murder of his father, Abraham Lincoln, which occured on the very night that Captain Lincoln arrived back in Washington after having served as an aide to General Grant. He was too tired to attend the theater that night, electing to stay in the White House instead. But he was summoned about 11 PM that night after news of his fathers assassination had spread throughout the city like wildfire. Rushing to the President's side he was present when President Lincoln passed away at about 7:30 AM the following morning.

I have often thought about the burden that Robert Todd Lincoln carried with him for the rest of his life. He did write briefly about it, posing such questions as "What if I had been there?" and "Might it have gone differently?" No one will ever know. But every year when the anniversary of President McKinley's assassination rolls around, I think about poor Robert Todd Lincoln and the burden that he carried for over 6 decades until he passed away in 1926.