+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Something about John Wilkes Booth you may not know... (/thread-296.html)
RE: Something about John Wilkes Booth you may not know... - BettyO - 09-02-2012 06:45 AM
Joe, I agree with you 100% -
Differences - polite difference of opinion is one of the things that make this Forum so interesting -
and Congratulations, m'dear! We're proud of you and ALL law enforcement for the job you all do to help protect us and make this a great nation!
RE: Something about John Wilkes Booth you may not know... - L Verge - 09-02-2012 10:38 AM
Boy, I'm going to have to change my sleeping schedule - the good things on this forum go on after 10 pm.
One point (and Rob, you probably know that I'm on Bill's and Joe's side here), I think Booth made his motives pretty clear in the To Whom It May Concern letter and also his exaggerated (but fairly accurate) writings in the "diary."
Jim, I have the same opinion as you that a majority of the American public knows very little about Lincoln and/or the assassination. With the younger generations, you can thank standardized testing for that because the push to get reading, science, and math scores up, history and the social sciences in general have taken a hit.
You can also thank the textbook publishers who don't even give decent lip service to the history that us old-timers studied (and continue to do so). I am also concerned that we are nearly half-way through the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War, and there has been very little done on a national scale to bring the history to life for the general public.
I was teaching during the Centennial celebration, and there was a great deal of attention played to it. I am very weak in the field of military strategy, etc. However, there were board games produced during that observance that my 8th grade boys devoured. I would be up to all hours of the night boning up on key battles of the Civil War so that I could hold my own in class the next day! Are there any recently released video games on the Civil War?
Finally, one last rambling thought on how Booth is viewed: Not too long after James O. Hall and I became the best of friends, he said to me that he wondered if most of the bad press about Booth actually got started in the South as the defeated Confederates wanted to distance themselves from the assassination. We certainly see that "blame the other guy" used effectively in politics today as well as attempts to slander someone we don't want to be associated with anymore.
RE: Something about John Wilkes Booth you may not know... - jonathan - 09-02-2012 10:48 AM
I've said before that I have the opinion of Booth as non-coward. But it seems to me that a lot of it comes down to semantics, to each person's definition of "coward", and how we choose to view Booth's actions. One person sees a man walk into a theater box and shoot another man in the back of the head, and considers the shooter a coward, period. I understand that opinion completely, and in certain circumstances I would agree with it. In this situation, however, I see a man of passion, with strong emotions and prejudices, living in a time unique in American history. He does what he truly believes is best, what so many people want but nobody else has the guts to do. So he does it himself. To me, a coward runs from danger. Booth walked into the middle of danger, relying on the surprise factor and the grateful masses to aid his escape. I completely respect the other side of this argument, but a coward, as the definition lives in my mind, simply could not have done what Booth did.
RE: Something about John Wilkes Booth you may not know... - Glenn Cheney - 09-04-2012 01:28 PM
That's sure news to me! And now I'm thinking that maybe he took the concept a little too far when he started his last role in a box at Ford's Theatre. And then, to fulfill the theatrical best wishes, he broke a leg when he hit the stage.
(08-30-2012 09:45 PM)LincolnMan Wrote: According to author Gordon Samples-who wrote Lust for Fame: The Stage Career of John Wilkes Booth, JWB "was probably the first to initiate the "intimate theater" or theater-in-the-round as we know it today. His recitations in the private rooms of the National Hotel were popular social functions, where the fashionable eagerly sought an invitation to see "his almost glittering face and trim powerful figure, in classical or melodramatic characters...He was the poetical character of that crowded house." The part about JWB probably being the first to do the "intimate theater" is amazing. How many artists over the years have performed that way? For example, Elvis Presley did that very thing for the taping of his television special in 1968. His stage was set up like a boxing ring right down with the audience-very "intimate." Countless other performers have done similarly. I will now think of JWB whenever I see an artist perform in that format. It probably started with him-and that I didn't know.Did you all?
RE: Something about John Wilkes Booth you may not know... - MaddieM - 09-05-2012 03:28 PM
(08-31-2012 09:01 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:(08-31-2012 07:38 PM)LincolnMan Wrote: Which brings to mind something I believe very much: Booth was not insane or the Devil incarnate. So much of the early literature portrayed him that way. He was, instead, a man who had strong beliefs who acted on them. To JWB-his actions made sense. We may disagree with what he did but we don't need to demonize him. Do you agree?
I'm sorry, but I don't. Booth was a coward who snuck up behind a defenseless man and shot him in the back of the head. While I completely disagree with everything the South fought for, they at least faced their enemies face front. Booth deserves demonization, in my opinion.
Best
Rob
An interesting viewpoint and a very pertinent one. Some people see him as a hero, others as a manipulative, misguided egotist. He seemed a darn sight more determined than the others, and definitely at the helm of the proceedings, at least on the surface. I can't help but think that he was more driven for the glory of it, which seems apparent from several things I've read about him. That he was manipulative of the others also seems undeniable. Perhaps he was just more passionate about it, or less focused on the what if's. The whole plot had more holes in it than a gruyere cheese. And why didn't any of them trouble to disguise themselves prior to the act if not for the glory aspect?