Abraham Lincoln was assassinated on April 14th, 1865. On that same date, he issued a pardon to a young boy who had been a Union soldier, charged with desertion.
Only, despite the claims of historian Thomas P. Lowry, it was not April 14th of 1865, but on the previous year. Come to find out, Lowry had gone into the National Archives, and changed the date on the paper that recorded the pardon.
Why did he do it? So he could announce a discovery of historical significance. Earlier on the date Lincoln was assassinated, he had engaged in an act of mercy that saved another life. That was it. Everyone would talk about the discovery of Thomas Lowry, for a brief period, and I guess he could work it into a book or something, and people would be eager to read it. Unfortunately for him, somebody caught on. Now his reputation is in the shitter, but that's not the worse part of it, other than for him. The worse part is, the study of history has now taken a body blow from which it might well never recover.
But you know something? That might be a good thing. How many historians are actually objective and totally non-biased? When I say non-biased, I mean on every subject of historical importance, or even of marginal importance? I don't believe there are any, and I think their work is colored by their bias, even if it is mostly a subconscious projection.
This should encourage people to question more, to demand more concrete proof, to require more evidence to support contentions and theories. Historians should from this point on consider themselves on notice.
The study of history is one of the sacred rites that separate mankind from the other animals, who don't know what families their ancestors stayed with, the adventures and battles they had, how they died, what their favorite foods were, what they liked to do in their spare time. They don't know, don't care that they don't, and wouldn't think to learn, or even wonder in passing about it. Maybe they're lucky that way, because history, while a blessing, is also a curse. It's constantly abused for self-serving reasons, for political reasons, even for religious reasons.
If a noted historian would risk destruction of his reputation and his career for something this trivial, how often has the truth concerning important historical events been compromised, and even trampled, to suit an agenda?
It really makes me sick to my fucking stomach, to think that something that should put us on a higher level than the animals is used so cavalierly ti turn us into just another fucking herd of sheep.
