[nolu chan 734] Butler's Book, Benjamin F. Butler, 1892, p. 984
"Since that time [1884] I have taken no part in politics, save that in the campaign of 1888 I made a single speech in Boston in behalf of the tariff, and I repeated that speech at Detroit, at the request of President Harrison."
LOL, the truth is never his friend, is it? If Wlat deemed that Bennet is "not a reputable historian" based on that, then he must surely think that Henry Jaffa is a complete imbecile and ignorant beyond measure, and that "a new birth of freedom" is no more than mis-manufactured toilet paper. After all:
on pages 14 and 15 Jaffa claims that Shakespeare's King John is set in the 13th century, amidst the age "of papal supremacy within the Holy Roman Empire, of which Great Britain was a part". This was no doubt a great surprise to the rest of the historians. They seem to have forgotten all about Britain being in the Holy Roman Empire, lol.
and on page 19 he claims that Henry the VIII sought a divorce from Catherine of Aragon, when in fact he sought an annulment.
and yet also, on page 84 he claims that Napoleon was defeated by the Holy Alliance, which wasn't even formed until after his final ouster.
This certainly shows that Jaffa is NOT a reputable "historian", especially by wlat's high standards. I'm sure that he would agree, and admit he was WRONG about Bennett...
Blood on the Moon, Edward Steers, Jr., 2001, pp. 262-4
Stanton's order calling for an autopsy and identification of the body is contained in a letter that he and Navy Secretary Welles jointly sent to the commandant of the Navy Yard who had asked Stanton what should be done with the body:
You will permit surgeon General Barnes and his assistant, accompanied by Judge Advocate Genl Holt, Hon. John A. Bingham, Special Judge Advocate, Major [Thomas] Eckert, Wm. [Luther] Baker, Lieut. Col. Conger, Chas. Dawson, J. L. Smith, [Alexander] Gardiner [sic] (photographer) + assistant, to go on board the Montauk and see the body of John Wilkes Booth.Immediately after the Surgeon General has made his autopsy, you will have the body placed in a strong box, and deliver it to the charge of Col. Baker -- the box being carefully sealed.
* * *
Alexander Gardner, who had left Mathew Brady to become an independent photographer, was allowed to board the Montauk with an assistant, Timothy O'Sullivan, and photograph the body. Gardner returned to his studios accompanied by a military guard who had instruction to confiscate the photographic plate and subsequent print and bring them directly to Stanton. It is not clear why the government should have allowed pictures to be taken or what the photographs would prove that eyewitness testimony would not prove. Presumably Stanton wanted to personally see the corpse of Booth to satisfy himself that Booth had been killed, But photographing the body is one thing, taking a close-up photograph of the initials was another. It would be virtually impossible to photograph the initials so that they would be legible in a photograph and still see the rest of the body including the face. Rather than rely on photographic evidence that is subject to alteration, there are several witnesses who described the intials on Booth's hand and those seen on the corpse.
Gee, guess what? The witnesses were selected by the War Department. They do not include family or friends of Booth, both readily available. Arrested accomplices were also aboard the ship. They were not invited to the identification party either. A photographer was invited and photographed the body. Stanton confiscated all photographic evidence. And for Steers, "it is not clear why the government should have allowed pictures to be taken or what the photographs would prove that eyewitness testimony would not prove." Indeed, "rather than rely on photographic evidence that is subject to alteration, there are several witnesses...." Eyewitnesses selected by Stanton, no less.
Forgive me, but I will take the pictures, thank you very much. Oh, wait a minute. What pictures? Have you seen any pictures of that body?
Bennett is not a reputable historian because he takes as a valid source a story that cannot possibly be confirmed. All a reputable historian would say on this is that "Butler said Lincoln said." As it is, reputable historians like Stephen Oates, James McPherson and David Donald do not report the story because it is not credible, is at odds with many other statements made by both men, and cannot be corroborated.
Walt