+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Anna Surratt interview (/thread-1046.html)
RE: Anna Surratt interview - J. Beckert - 07-15-2013 09:28 AM
That's interesting he felt that way, but because of what Booth wrote about the Gov't not printing what he left behind, it seems he left a letter with someone. It seems that Matthews has more credibility than Coyle with most folks.
RE: Anna Surratt interview - RJNorton - 07-15-2013 11:24 AM
Joe, Mills gives a series of reasons why he feels the letter never existed. For example he questions why such an important letter would be trusted to Mathews (who already turned down a role in the kidnap plot). Mills feels if the letter really existed Booth would have used the post office. Why give the letter to a cast member at Ford's who (Mills feels) would open the letter and not deliver it once the shot was fired and the assassin known. Regarding the letter Mills concludes, "It never happened."
RE: Anna Surratt interview - J. Beckert - 07-15-2013 01:15 PM
His point about the Post Office doesn't make any sense as Booth supposedly said to deliver the letter if he didn't hear from him and not to if he did. I take that as meaning if he couldn't pull this off, he'd get the letter from Matthews first thing Saturday. He makes a point about trusting Matthews after he refused to join the plot, but it seems he trusted him enough as a friend to do him this favor. They seemed to remain on good terms after Matthews refusal. Matthews knew Booth's sympathies. It makes me wonder who else in Washington he would have trusted enough with this secret. How does Mills explain the diary entry?
RE: Anna Surratt interview - RJNorton - 07-15-2013 02:16 PM
(07-15-2013 01:15 PM)J. Beckert Wrote: How does Mills explain the diary entry?
He writes quite a bit about this. Here is some of it:
"The diary reference, of course, could have been to any letter Booth might have written and left to be discovered among his belongings; the exact diary language suggests this. Such a manuscript would certainly have been censored and probably destroyed. Or Booth could have mailed the letter (a much safer course as we will discuss presently), and the newspaper could have turned it over to Stanton without printing it. Newspapers cooperated with Stanton to a fault, and from Booth's diary entry he obviously feared censorship.
Under analysis, only Mathews' own word stands behind his story. Historians have accepted it, perhaps overlooking the fact that the actor could have framed the entire tale to fit the text of Booth's diary (by then a public document)..."
I think part of Mills' suspicion of Mathews' story is that Mathews said nothing about the letter in 1865 and kept quiet on the matter until 1867. Mills does a lot of thinking outside the box in his book, and this is just one of the many topics in which he differs with the great majority of historians.
RE: Anna Surratt interview - Gene C - 07-15-2013 02:47 PM
Who can blame Matthews for keeping his mouth shut about the letter, when Booth had approached him about the kidnapping plot? Look what happened to Arnold, O'Laughlin, Spangler and Mudd. The letter does have some of the melodramatic style that Booth seemed to use, but at best, it's as good as Mathews memory of what he read and then destroyed. It wasn't like he was memorizing dialogue from a play he would have to recite later.
I'm sure he was better at memorizing things than I am, and certain phrases may have stuck in his mind due to the enormity of what Booth had done, but it's the memory of a frightened man (and who can blame him)
I haven't read the book by Lockwood Mills. I would appreciate some comments about it.
RE: Anna Surratt interview - L Verge - 07-15-2013 04:47 PM
Not my favorite book.
RE: Anna Surratt interview - J. Beckert - 07-15-2013 09:25 PM
Thank you, Laurie. Your seal of disapproval means a lot.
RE: Anna Surratt interview - J. Beckert - 07-16-2013 10:29 AM
I found several articles in the 1994 Surratt Courier relating to the Matthews letter. The first is from Mr. Mills and the last, which basically shreds what Mills had to say, is from Terry Alford. Several interesting points were made by Mr. Alford. One is that Merrick reported actually seeing Booth write a letter on the 14th. Another is that Booth was seen talking to Matthews shortly thereafter by a man named Brady in the vicinity of Grover's. In 1878, regarding the Booth letter, Matthews told a reporter from the New York Herald that "There was only one sentence that gave the slightest inkling of his intentions and that in the vaguest way". Herald also stated that "there was a letter he wrote (giving the reasons) for doing such and such things." And "I don't know to whom it was sent. He said it would be in The Intelligencer".
I think Mr. Mills clearly ignored some significant facts.
RE: Anna Surratt interview - RJNorton - 07-16-2013 01:12 PM
Does anyone know about a second letter Booth wrote that afternoon? In American Brutus Mike Kauffman talks about the letter Booth gave Mathews on p. 220-221. Then on p. 223 it says:
George W. Bunker and Henry Merrick were at the desk of the National Hotel when Booth came in. They both noticed how pale he looked, and Bunker asked if he was ill. Booth said he was fine. He asked for a piece of paper, and took it behind the desk to write. Merrick saw him still sitting there a few minutes later, with a confused look on his face.
"Is it 1864 or 1865?" he asked.
"Don't know what year you live in?" Merrick replied.
Booth didn't answer. He just folded up the paper and dropped it into the mailbox."
I am confused. Is this the letter Coyle (at the trial) denied receiving?
RE: Anna Surratt interview - L Verge - 07-16-2013 02:03 PM
Kauffman cites The Baltimore Sun for April 18, 1865, as his source for the Merrick story. Betty or someone with access to old newspaper files - can you find that story to see if it gives any more information or a clue as to what was in that second letter?
RE: Anna Surratt interview - Gene C - 07-16-2013 02:33 PM
Wasn't that really the time traveler Andrew Basiago who was trying to stop Booth from killing Lincoln? Bunker and Merrick mistook him for Booth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/28/andrew-basiago-seattle-attorney-time-travels_n_1438216.html
RE: Anna Surratt interview - J. Beckert - 07-16-2013 03:16 PM
Coyle said he received a letter from Booth on the street, as did Matthews. After writing the letter, if he indeed "dropped it in the mailbox", it can't be either. Maybe he put a few more lines in the letter he wrote to his mother in the early morning hours of the 14th.?
RE: Anna Surratt interview - HerbS - 07-16-2013 06:44 PM
What Courier? When you move in NYState it takes them months to figure it out!
RE: Anna Surratt interview - RJNorton - 07-17-2013 04:06 AM
Joe, this is what I was referring to regarding Coyle's denial at the trial. This is from Poore:
**************************************
JOHN F. COYLE,
a witness called for the prosecution, being duly sworn, testified as follows:—
By the JUDGE ADVOCATE:
Q. Will you please state to the Court whether you were ac-quainted with J. Wilkes Booth in his lifetime?
A. I knew him.
Q. Did you know him somewhat intimately?
A. Not at all.
Q. J. Wilkes Booth, before he died, made this statement
that, on the night before the assassination of the President, he wrote a long article, and left it for one of the editors of the “Na-tional Intelligencer,” in which he fully set forth the reasons for the crime. Will you state whether such a paper was received?
A. I never heard of any such thing. This is the first I ever heard of it.
Q. Are you quite certain that no such paper was received at the office of the “Intellligencer”?
A. Not that I heard of.
***************************************
Wasn't the letter Booth gave to Mathews addressed to Coyle at the National Intelligencer?
RE: Anna Surratt interview - BettyO - 07-17-2013 05:12 AM
Roger -
As far as I know the "To Whom it May Concern" letter was addressed to Coyle - or at least that is what I've read. "In 1865 the National Intelligencer was taken over by Snow, Coyle & Co.
"John F. Coyle had been an employee at the paper's offices, and continued to publish the paper despite a half million dollars' worth of debts." (Wikipedia)