(07-20-2015 05:46 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  My opinion - she embellished a bit to provide more "drama" to the reader, also time expands memory, and people tend to believe these expanded versions. Like a proud hobby angler's caught fish gets bigger and bigger over the time.
Why didn't she tell of this incident instantly? Even if not for the purpose of investigation, but in letter or orally to friends. I would think most people wouldn't have kept such a "thrilling" account by themselves for decades. Despite I would think her eyesight might have made it difficult to identify those strangers later.

(07-20-2015 08:26 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I'm fine with the letter and the gallop-by while I personally cast some doubts on Lamon as an entirely reliable source. I am far away from home and my "JWB Day-by-Day" copy - what does JWB expert Art Loux write about the luncheon if anything?

(07-20-2015 09:10 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 08:26 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I'm fine with the letter and the gallop-by while I personally cast some doubts on Lamon as an entirely reliable source. I am far away from home and my "JWB Day-by-Day" copy - what does JWB expert Art Loux write about the luncheon if anything?

Eva:

Nothing. Nor does Terry Alford in his recent biography of Booth.

One does not have to be a lawyer to know that the writings and statements of Julia, Ulysses, Mathews and Lamon establish a prima-facie case for the authenticity of the accounts they give. Anyone wishing to contest the same has the burden of proof, failing which the prima-facie case stands as truth and therefore history.

John



John

(07-20-2015 09:53 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 09:10 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 08:26 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I'm fine with the letter and the gallop-by while I personally cast some doubts on Lamon as an entirely reliable source. I am far away from home and my "JWB Day-by-Day" copy - what does JWB expert Art Loux write about the luncheon if anything?

Eva:

Nothing. Nor does Terry Alford in his recent biography of Booth.

One does not have to be a lawyer to know that the writings and statements of Julia, Ulysses, Mathews and Lamon establish a prima-facie case for the authenticity of the accounts they give. Anyone wishing to contest the same has the burden of proof, failing which the prima-facie case stands as truth and therefore history.

John



John

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm about to get clobbered here! I agree with many of the points that John espouses in his book, but I can't take any more of his style -- and I am not known for staying silent:

I'm sorry, John, but your style of arguing a point would make lots of lawyers (and even us non-legal imbeciles) jump up and scream, "Objection!" every two seconds. You are "leading our witnesses (i.e. readers)" every chance you get by trying to snooker us into thinking that your way is the only way to interpret evidence. The fact that major historians such as Loux, Alford, Hall, Kauffman, Steers, and others do not mention the luncheon incident (if there was one) says something.

For example, wouldn't Grant reporting something to Lamon in 1880 - 15 years after the murder - be irrelevant? Wouldn't him repeating what he had heard from Julia be hearsay? If Julia was so sure of what she saw at the lunch table on April 14, 1865, why didn't she mention it on April 15? If she did say something to her husband, why didn't he report it? Her information could have saved her husband's life, if a real threat to him was still out there before Booth was caught.

Wouldn't a lawyer have a field-day with the fact that Mrs. Grant was cross-eyed? Has anyone ever read how that really affected her eyesight up close or at a distance?

Why would the gang bother to sit down and have lunch in order to observe Julia's actions? They could tell she would be there throughout maybe an hour's lunch or they could monitor her from the lobby. By her being at lunch, it meant that the General was still in town. That's what they wanted to know, so why waste time - go monitor him.

If Mrs. Grant had mentioned the luncheon at the time of seeing Booth riding up to their carriage, wouldn't that have meant more to the authorities? I don't doubt that incident. Why didn't someone ask who that man was who dared to get so close to Grant? And, wasn't there a cavalry escort for the General en route to the train station? Did anyone else notice the rather bold move by Booth at that point?

What is your citation as to Herold being known for frumpy (or whatever term you used) clothing? So far as I know, there are only the photos of Herold on the monitor taken after twelve days on the run and the one of him as a schoolboy, in which he is appropriately dressed.

And finally, this is just a personal observation, but if Mrs. Grant noticed four men staring at her at lunch and later decided that one of them was Booth and two others were ill-dressed, why in the world didn't she include Lewis Powell in her description? To me, he would have stood out among the other three because of his good looks, his height, and his muscular build.

---

While I await the "matter of record" regarding Herold's "frumpiness," a fellow member of this forum emailed me the following and asked me to post it:

1. Men's clothing of this period is very loose fitting and even over sized. Sleeves are D shaped, which gives an even larger, roomier appearance. Look at photos of JWB and you can see good examples of this. He was known as a very fashionably dressed man. Men's clothing was not pressed or creased as modern clothing is. There was no center crease on men's trousers, which also gave a more open, loose appearance.

2. The photos taken on the Montauk of David Herold show the effects that 12 days of hard, outdoor wear and weather would have had on his clothing. But notice, he is still maintaining his neck wear, which shows he had a concern for his personal appearance even under the very trying circumstances.

Assigning a charge of "frumpy" to Herold's clothing is not only inaccurate but demonstrates a misunderstanding of men's clothing of this period.

(07-20-2015 10:39 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 09:53 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 09:10 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 08:26 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I'm fine with the letter and the gallop-by while I personally cast some doubts on Lamon as an entirely reliable source. I am far away from home and my "JWB Day-by-Day" copy - what does JWB expert Art Loux write about the luncheon if anything?

Eva:

Nothing. Nor does Terry Alford in his recent biography of Booth.

One does not have to be a lawyer to know that the writings and statements of Julia, Ulysses, Mathews and Lamon establish a prima-facie case for the authenticity of the accounts they give. Anyone wishing to contest the same has the burden of proof, failing which the prima-facie case stands as truth and therefore history.

John



John

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm about to get clobbered here! I agree with many of the points that John espouses in his book, but I can't take any more of his style -- and I am not known for staying silent:

I'm sorry, John, but your style of arguing a point would make lots of lawyers (and even us non-legal imbeciles) jump up and scream, "Objection!" every two seconds. You are "leading our witnesses (i.e. readers)" every chance you get by trying to snooker us into thinking that your way is the only way to interpret evidence. The fact that major historians such as Loux, Alford, Hall, Kauffman, Steers, and others do not mention the luncheon incident (if there was one) says something.

For example, wouldn't Grant reporting something to Lamon in 1880 - 15 years after the murder - be irrelevant? Wouldn't him repeating what he had heard from Julia be hearsay? If Julia was so sure of what she saw at the lunch table on April 14, 1865, why didn't she mention it on April 15? If she did say something to her husband, why didn't he report it? Her information could have saved her husband's life, if a real threat to him was still out there before Booth was caught.

Wouldn't a lawyer have a field-day with the fact that Mrs. Grant was cross-eyed? Has anyone ever read how that really affected her eyesight up close or at a distance?

Why would the gang bother to sit down and have lunch in order to observe Julia's actions? They could tell she would be there throughout maybe an hour's lunch or they could monitor her from the lobby. By her being at lunch, it meant that the General was still in town. That's what they wanted to know, so why waste time - go monitor him.

If Mrs. Grant had mentioned the luncheon at the time of seeing Booth riding up to their carriage, wouldn't that have meant more to the authorities? I don't doubt that incident. Why didn't someone ask who that man was who dared to get so close to Grant? And, wasn't there a cavalry escort for the General en route to the train station? Did anyone else notice the rather bold move by Booth at that point?

What is your citation as to Herold being known for frumpy (or whatever term you used) clothing? So far as I know, there are only the photos of Herold on the monitor taken after twelve days on the run and the one of him as a schoolboy, in which he is appropriately dressed.

And finally, this is just a personal observation, but if Mrs. Grant noticed four men staring at her at lunch and later decided that one of them was Booth and two others were ill-dressed, why in the world didn't she include Lewis Powell in her description? To me, he would have stood out among the other three because of his good looks, his height, and his muscular build.

---

While I await the "matter of record" regarding Herold's "frumpiness," a fellow member of this forum emailed me the following and asked me to post it:

1. Men's clothing of this period is very loose fitting and even over sized. Sleeves are D shaped, which gives an even larger, roomier appearance. Look at photos of JWB and you can see good examples of this. He was known as a very fashionably dressed man. Men's clothing was not pressed or creased as modern clothing is. There was no center crease on men's trousers, which also gave a more open, loose appearance.

2. The photos taken on the Montauk of David Herold show the effects that 12 days of hard, outdoor wear and weather would have had on his clothing. But notice, he is still maintaining his neck wear, which shows he had a concern for his personal appearance even under the very trying circumstances.

Assigning a charge of "frumpy" to Herold's clothing is not only inaccurate but demonstrates a misunderstanding of men's clothing of this period.

Laurie:

Webster defines "snooker" as: to make a dupe of; hoodwink. He defines "hoodwink" as: to deceive by false appearance.

I do hope you do not really believe that these describe me.

John

(07-19-2015 09:01 AM)Rosieo Wrote:  Maybe there is information on who Mrs. Lincoln traditionally used as messengers?

(07-20-2015 03:46 PM)Rosieo Wrote:  I dont have a clue how they used the word "boy" in the mid 1800s...I am looking around to try and find out. Would it be used based on the person's station in life? Would a young soldier be called a boy or a soldier? Was boy used only for adults who were black?

(07-20-2015 01:45 PM)Rosieo Wrote:  

I read this thread when I joined up a few days back and saw it stopped when discussion got heated. I considered whether to post here, to reopen the thread, for that reason but figured I might give it a try.I would feel bad if the thread stopped again and I would regret reopening it.
I dont like to see people get upset. That is, Ms. L. seems upset.... Something here about these Marylanders is really personal to her, I am starting to think. She cares about them.
John is taking a clobbering, so to speak, due to lack of supporters but pushes on. As a journalist who covered lots of court stuff I understand John's style. He is tenacious. Well, so what? Our society needs lawyers. Lawyers are known to accomplish good stuff. Let him argue his points. He gives food for thought.
The topic is really interesting. I have some of my own research underway on it. With luck, I'll have something.

(07-20-2015 06:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 01:45 PM)Rosieo Wrote:  

I read this thread when I joined up a few days back and saw it stopped when discussion got heated. I considered whether to post here, to reopen the thread, for that reason but figured I might give it a try.I would feel bad if the thread stopped again and I would regret reopening it.
I dont like to see people get upset. That is, Ms. L. seems upset.... Something here about these Marylanders is really personal to her, I am starting to think. She cares about them.
John is taking a clobbering, so to speak, due to lack of supporters but pushes on. As a journalist who covered lots of court stuff I understand John's style. He is tenacious. Well, so what? Our society needs lawyers. Lawyers are known to accomplish good stuff. Let him argue his points. He gives food for thought.
The topic is really interesting. I have some of my own research underway on it. With luck, I'll have something.

Rosemary,

It's time we got acquainted. Please call me Laurie. I had prepared an in-depth reply as a way of introduction, but when I hit post, it flew into outer space never to be retrieved again. And, I can assure you that it was not a nasty response to your concern about me being upset. Here's a much briefer explanation as to why I am so darn persnickety about the Lincoln assassination story.

I have been addicted to it since I was about ten years old and was helping my mother clean out the attic of our home (ca. 1840) that my great-grandparents had moved into in 1862, and the family never moved out. In an old wicker basket, my mother pulled out an old nightshirt and told me the story of David Herold leaving it behind on the morning of April 14, 1865, after spending the night with the Huntts on the 13th. From that point on, the Lincoln assassination story took over my life.

I graduated with honors in the fields of history and education and went on to teach history and government for nearly a decade. I left to marry a vice principal and to raise my own child instead of raising other people's.

In 1975, a good friend, Joan Chaconas (also a Lincoln and assassination scholar) asked me to join her in becoming a volunteer guide at the Surratt House Museum, which had just been restored and would be opening to the public on May 1, 1976. We joined about twenty others and began training. We quickly realized that few of the others - as well as the trainer -- knew very little about the history that had caused the house to be saved and restored.

After weeks of listening to lectures about 19th-century antiques, I raised my hand one day and asked when we were going to get to the history. You could have heard a pin drop. I then gave a synopsis of that history. At the next session, the trainer challenged me to give a tour like I thought it should be developed. There were no furnishings at that time, so I had to wing it. Ten years of teaching, however, had cured me of being afraid when I knew that I was well-acquainted with a subject.

All through the tour, the trainer was taking notes. At the end, we found out that she was taking notes about the history of the house because she did not know much assassination history. Her goal was to have the museum be literally an antiques' showcase for the 19th century. From that point on, the county historian stood behind Joan and me, and a structured, well-researched tour program was developed (with much help from the dean of assassination studies James O. Hall)

I spent eight years as a volunteer docent before accepting the part-time position of site manager in 1983. In 1985, I became the first full-time museum director; and Joan was made my assistant in 1988. From that point on, we have worked our tail feathers off developing our programs, adding a restored kitchen wing to the historic house, acquiring additional acreage and creating a much-needed visitors' center and the highly respected James O. Hall Research Center.

Over the years, I have been privileged to work with students (grade six through PhDs), researchers, authors, media, TV films, magazine articles, and the producers and director of The Conspirator movie, which premiered in 2010. I have rubbed elbows with the greats in the assassination field: Bill Tidwell, James O. Hall, Dave Gaddy, Bill Hanchett, Terry Alford, Mike Kauffman, Ed Steers, Betty Ownsbey, Bill Richter, Rick Smith, Elizabeth Leonard, Kate Clifford Larson, Bettie Trindal, Tom Bogar, Caleb Stephens, Rich Smyth and Jim Garrett, Nora Titone, John Elliott, Barry Cauchon, AND John Fazio. I know I'm name-dropping, and I apologize if I have left anyone out.

As for John, I have known him for 4-5 years and appreciate the years of research and hard work that has gone into Decapitating the Union. Just because I don't agree with his style of presenting his thoughts doesn't negate what I think he has done -- I agree with a good portion of his conclusions. He asked me to write the foreword for his book, but I refuse any such offers and usually refuse to do reviews of other people's work also. We can fight like husband and wife and still respect each other. So many of us on this forum are the same way.

What does upset me are those who profess to be historians and then manage to screw everything up or not consider all sides of the story. Personally, I think there are too many in the field (from authors through media on down) who spout ideas without knowledge to back them up. The attitude and wrong information of many today are doing a great disservice to our nation's heritage. My grandmother had a sixth grade education and could talk circles around some of the so-called historians today.

As for my allegiance to my home state of Maryland: As most people know, Maryland was one of four border states during the Civil War. In my opinion, Maryland and one other - Missouri - bore more of the brunt of war than some of the Confederate and most of the Union states. I won't bore others, but please take the time to read about the State of Maryland during the Civil War. You might begin to understand why I want my native state's history told correctly.

I have now lost about 80% of our posters, I bet, but I hope this gives you a good idea of where I'm coming from. Please don't be afraid to express your opinions on this forum. Good, solid opinions, citations, questions, and comments are what keep us going.

And be assured that John Fazio and I are friends (I think I jut heard John drop to the floor in a faint!), and I invited him to be a speaker at the 2016 Surratt conference in April. When he or anyone gets me mad enough to really retaliate, I will do it in private conversation with that person.

---

I cringe at the modern term for the President that the press in most mediums seem to have adopted -- POTUS. The other day, I saw the Supreme Court reduced to SCOTUS (now that's getting into dangerous territory in my opinion). I even get mad that the title of President is no longer capitalized unless followed by the man's name.

Maybe we need Aretha Franklin to give a lesson in RESPECT. Of course, maybe it's a question of earning it...

(07-20-2015 05:51 PM)Rosieo Wrote:  You've lost me. I do not understand what you mean.
I wrote that I am researching how the word "boy" was used/who it defined in mid 1800s.
If I offended you somehow, I apologize.

(07-20-2015 10:21 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Laure, re.: 'And #3, it did refer to a man of color no matter his age" - perhaps I haven't understood correctly, but Joseph Hazelton, the program boy, was certainly not black, was he? I assume you mean any messenger refered to as "boy" was black?

One question in this context - what were (are) the duties of a valet?

(07-21-2015 09:52 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 10:21 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Laure, re.: 'And #3, it did refer to a man of color no matter his age" - perhaps I haven't understood correctly, but Joseph Hazelton, the program boy, was certainly not black, was he? I assume you mean any messenger refered to as "boy" was black?

One question in this context - what were (are) the duties of a valet?

I apologize if I wasn't clear, Eva. To the best of my knowledge, the use of the term "boy" could denote either black or white (or other races). I think it was used more prevalently to denote a young, white person (and probably one of "lower class") or a black man of any age. I'm basing this on 19th- and early-20th century standards.