Customer Reviews

Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever

5 star:		(1,369)
4 star:		(230)
3 star:		(66)
2 star:		(65)
1 star:		(1,161)

 

 

It seems that most reviews of the book are by one of two types of reviewers: 1. the reviewer either loves or hates O'Reilly, or 2. the reviewer either loved or hated how it was written. Here is my take, leaving the personal feelings about the author aside, Killing Lincoln delivers on its mission. Many rip O'Reilly apart for it not being an in depth treatment of his death and surrounding events. Here's a news flash: it's not supposed to be. It is not written as a doctoral dissertation on the subject nor is it intended to be. It is not intended to give every detail about what happened. It is intended to be an engaging read that follows the events surrounding Lincoln's last days. It is intended to be written from the perspective of putting the reader on the streets of D.C. during those days, putting you into Ford's Theater the night of the killing. In that regard it delivers. Here is my recommendation for this book: give this book to someone that you want to get interested in history. Give it to a student and let them see that history does not have to be boring. Give it to someone that loves novels, but hates non-fiction and let them discover how engaging and important history is and can be. On that level O'Reilly delivers.

As someone who has studied Lincoln and books on the assassination since I was about 8 (that would be, sigh, about 50 years), I figured I'd give O'Reilly's book a try, assuming that since he had written it so shortly after some great Lincoln books (Abraham Lincoln: A Life, by Michael Burlingame; Blood on the Moon by Edward Steers) that there must be something unique about it. Unfortunately, I came away not really seeing what the new approach was. While it is supposedly written like a thriller, I find it to be prone to abbreviation and errors as noted by one of the one-star reviewers here (i.e. talking about the Oval Office, which was not built when Lincoln was president, but in 1909 when Taft was president, and a gross misrepresentation of how Mary Surratt was treated -- she NEVER wore a hood while imprisoned, and she was NEVER on the "Montauk", etc.). Throwing in a long-discredited conspiracy theory supposedly linking Secretary of War Edwin Stanton into the mix was completely unnecessary, unless the idea was to give readers already convinced that JFK was assassinated by space aliens something new to obsess over. A list of errors written by the Assistant Superintendent of the Ford's Theatre Historical Site, by no means complete, but enough for the NPS Eastern National bookstore at Ford's Theatre to avoid selling this book, may easily be found on the internet (I will be glad to give you the link if you can't find it). The Theatre gift shop IS selling it, but not the National Park Service store, due to inaccuracies. You will see many reviews here (five-star ones) stating that "this book was not written for historians." Does that mean that lousy research is just fine for the unwashed masses? Wouldn't the casual reader be served much better by reading information, whether or not it's entertaining -- and yes, it's an entertaining and easy read -- that had been verified by research? I just cannot understand the mindset of "it wasn't written for historians, so errors are just fine, as long as it gets people to read about history." Baloney.

What O'Reilly has going for him is a built-in audience who went out in droves to buy this book because he talked about it every day on The O'Reilly Factor. I watch him casually, and I figured, "Why not? One more book to add to my Lincoln collection (which is fairly large after fifty years)." As you should be able to see, my purchase of this book is verified at Amazon, and, in fact, I preordered it because the mention on the O'Reilly Factor got my interest. Unfortunately, it won't be up in the top tier of my Lincoln assassination material. It's OK for the casual reader who wants to learn something about the Lincoln assassination. It's too hurried and flies through things that need to be dealt with in a less perfunctory manner, I think. As O'Reilly notes in his show that Abraham Lincoln was the "gold standard" for the Presidency, I will say here that, for the "gold standard" of books written on the Lincoln assassination, no better work can be found than the book "Blood on the Moon," by Edward Steers -- you can see it here at Amazon at Blood on the Moon: The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln). If you only have one book on this subject, the Steers book is the book to have. If you just want to be up on the latest O'Reilly books, then get this one. It's not horrible, but it tells the reader nothing new, and oftentimes it tells the reader much LESS than he/she needs to know, and, as noted, sometimes incorrectly.

So, in summary, it was just OK, which is why I gave it an average rating. A few minor errors wouldn't have dropped it below four stars, but for a Lincoln researcher it would be considered a young person's primer. For someone seriously interested in the subject, get the Steers book and pass this one by. Just because O'Reilly has a multi-million person audience to whom he can hawk his wares, it doesn't mean it's great work. I hope people are not writing off an honest review because they think I'm picking on O'Reilly. The only POSSIBLE reason that this book took off so fast on the bestseller lists is because it was publicized on the O'Reilly Factor, not because it was so much better than any of the other books written about the Lincoln assassination. There has been much back-and-forth about this for some time. Dishonest people who didn't read the book but hate O'Reilly gave it one-star reviews without ever opening it. O'Reilly fans have an attack of the vapors at anything less than a five-star review. The purpose of this review was to inform, not to express ideology. I stand by this review. If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't attack me simply because you're sticking up for Bill O'Reilly (a futile wish, apparently). Again -- I watch The O'Reilly Factor. I am also a Lincoln scholar. Take this review at face value.

I have no comment on the book, as I came here to read some of the reviews prior to purchase. Upon arrival to this page, I found it fascinating that a book could have almost as many 1-star reviews as 5-star reviews. Why, something must be amiss! Having nothing better to do on a dreary Sunday afternoon, I set out to count the number of Amazon Verified Purchases of the 1-star reviewers. Much to my surprise and dismay, there were only FOUR (yes, 4) Verified purchases out of 1,158 reviews. How could this be? Could it be that people just come here (having purchased the book from other sources, of course) to review the book to help out the Amazon faithful?

After having traversed 116 pages of one star reviews to count up those Verified purchases, I really didn't feel like doing the same for the 5-star ratings, but in the interest of science I set out to do the count. Well, after finding SIX Verified purchases on only the first page of 5-star reviews, I got occupied (whoops - I meant lazy) and decided that statistically, it just made more sense to trust those 5-star reviewers whom I knew actually purchased the book.

I would appreciate it if Amazon could add a filter to the review page so that one could see the ratings from Amazon Verified Purchases only. Perhaps then the ratings might actually be meaningful.

Thank you to all the 1-star reviewers who took the time to perform the selfless act of coming to Amazon's web site, creating a login, and posting your review. However, I can't shake this nagging feeling that perhaps you really didn't come here to review the book, but maybe had some other agenda. Eh, it's probably just me. I'm sure nobody else feels that way.

Anyway, I'll post a review of the book after I actually read it (which you'll be able to tell from the Amazon Verified Purchase).

I just finished reading Killing Lincoln and I found the book to be an interesting insight into Lincoln and his final days. I have the book on my ipad and couldn't put it down. I find it interesting that there are, at the time I'm writing this, that all the review are either all 5-star or 1-star. There is 1 4-star and no 2 or 3-star ratings. I would guess that if Bill O'Reilly wrote that the sky was blue and the night was dark, you would get the same division in ratings. Please forget who wrote the book, and read it if you're interested in the topic and don't read it if you're not. Don't pan it because you hate conservatism or O'Reilly himself. While the book is not perfect (there are a few inaccuracies and noted by others), overall it is an excellent look at the man and the times.

Many have noted the historical inaccuracies. The book is interesting to read - up to a point. For me the reading experience was spoiled by the dubious authenticity on several levels. If one claims that there are unanswered questions about the possible involvement of Secretory of War Stanton in the assassination of Lincoln, one better have more than some purported missing pages in Booth's diary. And one better have citations, of which there were none. Even historical fiction often has citations for specific historical information.

Other egregious examples....

Lincoln's office was in what is now known as the Lincoln Bedroom. It is a square room and was never known as the "Oval Office." That term was first used in 1909 for the first of several Oval Offices in the West Wing, which was finished in 1901.

A claim is made that baskets of fruit were sent to the White House with fruit which had been injected with poison and that the fruit was tested before Lincoln could safely eat it. This is an astounding claim to make without citation. How was the fruit injected with poison, what kind of poison and how was it tested? Testing fruit for poisons is a challenge in the 21st century, let alone the 1860s.

Claims are made about the imprisonment of Mary Surratt aboard the Montauk shackled and hooded. This is simply a false claim and one easily checked.

There is just no excuse for calling a book historical and making these kinds of errors. As I noted, even most historical fiction writers try to be historically accurate about well documented historical fact.

It is interesting that several reviewers stated that they learned things in this book which they had not learned in history class or from other history books and that this was praiseworthy. Of course if one just makes up stuff it will not be something found in other history books. Maybe we need a new category for books about history - in addition to the standard categories of History and Historical Fiction we should have one for books like this one: History Made More Interesting

I was given this book as a gift. It was okay but nothing special. I wrote a paper on Lincoln's assassination in high school years ago, so I had reasonable background knowledge. Based on that, I guess not much new has surfaced in the past fifty years.

The pending DNA comparison of Booth's vertebrae and that of relatives is one new development, however. I think it is highly unlikely that Booth was not killed as recorded in history. There are always a lot more conspiracy theories than there are conspiracies.

Some of the details in the book were quite interesting and made events seem more vivid. The book does not contain footnotes, so it was impossible to tell whether these were real or just filler added for the story.

The book contains several typos. I have seen this in other new books recently. With spell-check and all the other electronic tools available today it would seem there would be no such errors. This speaks poorly of modern publishers and the publishing process.

At the time of my review, 88% of the 2758 reviews are either 5 stars or 1 and about equally split between these. I have not read any of the other reviews but it is obvious something else is going on here, probably because of the author's background. I find Amazon reviews very useful for evaluating products before purchase. It is a shame to see people attempt to use them as a political tool rather than their intended purpose.

Killing Lincoln is a book I could not put down. The inexorable march toward what is quite possibly history's most tragic assassination won't let your attention wander. It holds your fascination like a train wreck in slow motion. Several reviews have harped on the book not being a pillar of scholarly research, but it is merely a novel based on the actual events and not meant to reveal or analyze the hidden secrets of the event itself. The book aims to ignite popular interest in the most notorious crime of American history and at this it excels. I enjoyed Martin Dugard's Into Africa: The Epic Adventures of Stanley and Livingstone and was excited to read another by this author. I learned about Lincoln's assassination in my history classes of course, but reading it told in story form from the perspective of both the despicable murderer boothe and the eminent president was very illuminating. In the book boothe is presented very much as the semi-famous actor of the ilk we see today, beliving himself important and able to understand and do what others can't or won't. In reality, he is a fool playing pretend while the grownups begin mending the nation. His plan accomplishes much the opposite of his goals, condemning the defeated confederate states to much less lenient treatment than they would have received at the merciful hands of Lincoln which are eager to embrace them again as brothers who have endured a shared tragedy. Lincoln himself is a fascinating character. He is presented as a perceptive, very friendly, approachable man. Many times too approachable. His brazen tour through Richmond in the sight of so many feels suspenseful even though I know the ending. The first third of the book details the final victory of General Grant over General Robert E. Lee and the later's surrender at Appomattox. These battles opening the book grabbed my attention immediately and I never wanted to look away. After Lee's surrender, we see Lincoln in a jubilant Washington D.C. preparing for a long, drawn-out effort of reconciliation with the southern states. He meets with friends, spends time with his wife, tells his Whitehosue guard "goodbye", and heads to the theater and into the ages. The portrayal of Lincoln struck down on virtually the eve of victory and the cusp of a new peace elicits notes of both a namesake Abrahamic faith necessary to successfully conduct the war at such cost and a Mosaic figure blessed to lead the people to the promised land but lamentably not enter himself. At the terrible moment you want to scream out loud to Lincoln and those around him. The story follows as boothe's cowardly shot from behind brings down the heroic president, his inept attempt to escape, and his end. The scenes following the fatal shot are quite graphic and sad. The reader gets a sense of the deep sadness and incalculable loss endured by those closest to the great man and the nation itself. While Abraham Lincoln is remembered as one of history's greatest men, boothe keeps company with Judas in his betrayal of the nation. All this is contained in Killing Lincoln and makes it a very enjoyable read. Highly recommended.

It is a great read,You felt like you were in the theater when Lincoln was shot, Wonderful book.
I would recomend it to anyone who enjoys history.

I read all the negative reviews of various inconsistencies in the book. The book flowed well though and I felt the writing style worked well. This is obviously not the definitive history of the Lincoln murder, no new information is certainly found in the pages but was an enjoyable read on a cold winter weekend.

Killing Lincoln should be on the reading list of all leaders who believe history is important for self-develolment. Lincoln's leadership is evident throughout. Great easy read that is hard to put down ~