Summations Only

Theodoric writes: What a waste because they got it all wrong. They manipulated the info in order to try to support their premise. Sort of like a creationist. I suppose you think there is some sort of conspiracy since no real historian supports them. No. That is why they had to self publish. Though history is one of the soft sciences, there is still a process of peer review for scholarly writings. Publishing companies also try to some extent make sure arguments presented stand up to historical review. None of these do.You obviously have no idea what the word "credentials" means. Your comments are insulting and demeaning to historians that are degreed and have spent years studying the process as well as the subject matter.

Paul Serup writes: My name is Paul Serup and I will address a number of statements that Theodoric has made about myself and the book I wrote. Of the fact that my book is self published, you stated, No. That is why they had to self publish. Though history is one of the soft sciences, there is still a process of peer review for scholarly writings. Publishing companies also try to some extent make sure arguments presented stand up to historical review. None of these do.You do not know me and you do not know why my book was self published. You are ignorant of this, which is a good place to start in regards to what you have said about me and my book, your ignorance.You say my book is self published. So what? A number of very accomplished authors such a Mark Twain, Margaret Atwood, and Stephen King self published. Authors have done so because they wanted to have more control and they wanted a greater opportunity to participate in the profits from their labours. Does the fact that my book was self published affect the validity of what I said? You assert that this is the case. Henry Holt is a well known publishing company and they published Bill O’Reilly’s recent book on the Lincoln assassination. (Henry Holt & Co. - "Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever" by Bill O'Reilly & Martin Dugard). As the Washington Post reported in an 2011 article by Steven Levingston, O'Reilly’s book was reviewed by the personnel at Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site. It was weighed in the balance and found wanting. At the Post article pointed out, O'Reilly’s book suffers from factual errors and a lack of documentation, according to a study conducted by Rae Emerson, the deputy superintendent of Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site, which is a unit of the National Park Service. Emerson’s review recommended that the book not be sold at Ford Theatre’s NPS store. O’Reilly’s book, published by a major publisher, has not been sold there.My self published book however, was reviewed by this same personnel at Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site and was found to be well documented with footnotes, and approved for sale at Ford Theatre’s NPS store, where it is sold today. Based on what you have stated, you sound like you are not especially well informed. Are you foolish enough however, to think you know more about the Lincoln assassination than the people who work at Ford’s Theatre with the educational and interpretive mission they fulfill at this National Historic Site, the very place the 16th President was assassinated? Steven Levingston’s article was entitled, Bill O’Reilly’s ‘Killing Lincoln’ not for sale at Ford’s Theatre museum bookstore and it pointed out that the premier place to sell a book about the Lincoln assassination is at Ford’s Theatre museum bookstore.Of myself you state regarding my qualifications, Not a historian. He is an independent researcher". I have not given a great amount of consideration to labels but will now give it some attention since you bring it up. As I mentioned, you stated, Though history is one of the soft sciences, there is still a process of peer review for scholarly writings. Publishing companies also try to some extent make sure arguments presented stand up to historical review. None of these do.You go on to say in reply to Faith, You obviously have no idea what the word "credentials" means. Your comments are insulting and demeaning to historians that are degreed and have spent years studying the process as well as the subject matter.Who is a historian in your view? Would someone who has a history degree be a historian? Would a university history professor? How about the chair of the history department of a well known university? Or would a real historian be someone who says things you agree with? How about an editor of a historical journal? How about someone like the man who wrote the Abraham Lincoln Encyclopedia?Surely Joseph George Jr. would qualify as a historian in your eyes. He wrote a paper which was very critical of Charles Chiniquy, published in the well known Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, when he was chair of the history department of Villanova University. Are you are aware of it? Never heard of it? Why doesn’t that surprise me? Anyway, I would expect that he would qualify as a historian in your view. A chair of the history department of a well-known university who writes a paper published in a prestigious historical journal critical on someone who was an opponent of the Catholic Church. He took Charles Chiniquy to task for being untrustworthy in regards to what he said about his relationship with Abraham Lincoln and the role the Roman Catholic Church played in his death.What George wrote has been cited by others to dismiss what Chiniquy said. This is all well and good but when you go about to show that someone is wrong, you better know what you are talking about and get it right. Joseph George however, made a number of errors, some glaring, in what he said. Apparently the editors of the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society failed to check what George wrote, as did, for example, the man who wrote Abraham Lincoln Encyclopedia?, Mark E. Neely. As I stated in my book,the only source given for the entry on Charles Chiniquy in the Abraham Lincoln Encyclopedia, by Mark E. Neely was Professor George. Chiniquy was listed as The principal source of allegations that Abraham Lincoln’s assassination was a Jesuit plot.The sources section of the Abraham Lincoln Encyclopedia noted that Joseph George, Jr.’s ’The Lincoln Writings of Charles P. T. Chiniquy,‘ Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, LXIX (February 1976), 17-25, is a definitive and interesting refutation of Chiniquy’s claims.I wrote that It will be shown however, that whatever George accomplished, it definitely wasn’t a refutation of Charles Chiniquy’s allegations. The Yale educated Mark E. Neely won the 1992 Pulitzer Prize for his book, The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties and in 2004, was named the author of one of the three most influential articles in fifty years of civil war history. He was a history professor at several universities. When George’s paper was published, the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society was a division of the Illinois State Historical Library. I received my copy of February 1976 issue, that contains this paper, from one of the personnel of the I.S.H.L. when I was at the library in Springfield in the early 1990s, doing research on Chiniquy.Now when you make the kind of blunders that Joseph George made, when you fail to check and catch these errors, then publish what he wrote, when you cite him, again without checking his work, it becomes more difficult to claim to be a historian. If these people can claim to be historians, then I would assert that I have a better claim to be one, as I have not made such mistakes and appear to be the only person who actually did check George’s work. As I said in my book,Joseph George ended his paper by declaring, Scholars, however, even when tempted to use less sensational passages from Chiniquy’s book, should be wary. There is no evidence to support his claim that he was a close friend of the Sixteenth President’s. This list of Professor George’s errors and research shortcomings, however, should be more than enough to convince all but the truly biased that is it Joseph George‘s work that one should be wary of.My book contains a review of the mistakes Joseph George made in his paper, as well an analysis and a list of the errors of another three academic, who wrote critically about Chiniquy.You also said of others, including myself, ...they got it all wrong. They manipulated the info in order to try to support their premise. I manipulated information to try to support my premise according to you. That is quite a statement since you apparently have never had a copy of my book in your hands. Indeed, an absolutely stunning statement if you have never seen a copy.There is the statement, Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts. Yes indeed facts don’t lie, they are just facts, so I do not understand what you are talking manipulating information. Since I got it all wrong though, you should be able to furnish a number of examples of what you are talking about in regards to this. Ford’s Theatre looked hard to find mistakes in my book and didn’t find any so I look forward to hearing of all the examples you hope to find.

When it comes to matters of religious history, there are plenty of self-publishers on both sides of the fence.

But do you see anyone on "the other side" advocating them as a reputable source?

Jon writes:The content must be judged based on its own qualities irrespective of the source of that content.

So let's look at the content.

...a solid addition to any American history photography collection....highly recommended.A most enjoyable read cover to cover, highly recommended....a top pick and strongly recommended read....an uplifting and highly recommended read that shouldn't be missed.

My self published book however, was reviewed by this same personnel at Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site and was found to be well documented with footnotes, and approved for sale at Ford Theatre’s NPS store, where it is sold today.