+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Ford's Theatre Stagehands (/thread-1447.html)
Ford's Theatre Stagehands - Jill Mitchell - 01-23-2014 08:52 AM
In the April 2014 issue of Civil War Times, there appears a Q&A with Thomas A. Bogar, author of Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination: The Untold Story of the Actors and Stagehands at Ford's Theatre. One of the questions asked was "Why were stagehands targeted more than actors?" in the investigation. Bogar answers that "I'm convinced that he [Stanton] was aware something was wrong backstage. ... They [the stagehands] had to have known what was going on..." These statements are somewhat troubling to me, because, in reading the book, I find no compelling evidence presented that would fortify these statements. Essentially, he implicates the Ford's Theatre stagehands because he labels Ford's as a hotbed of those with secession sympathies. I wonder to what extent this actually singles out and makes the Ford's Theatre stagehands uniquely suspect. I would suppose most every business establishment in DC had both pro-Union and pro-South employees (especially if they were Marylanders)--which could create a "hostile working environment" should those pro-South employees be vocal in their sentiments--something I would think most would not dare, for it could result in a stay in Old Capitol. Comments?
RE: Ford's Theatre Stagehands - RJNorton - 01-23-2014 09:04 AM
Hi Jill. Vicki and I had lunch with Tom and his wife yesterday, and this was one of many things we discussed. Tom does not have reliable Internet access where he is currently staying, but I am sure he will comment when he returns from his vacation in a few days.
RE: Ford's Theatre Stagehands - Gene C - 01-23-2014 10:42 AM
IMO (in my opinion), this may have something to do with Baltimore. Two known conspirators (Arnold and O'Laughlen) are from Baltimore. Booth is from Baltimore. The Ford's have a larger theater from Baltimore and employees are shuffled between that location and Washington, as needed. They Ford's also managed one in Richmond. There had been an assassination attempt on Lincolns life in Baltimore. If I were Stanton, I would have jumped to the same conclusion. Arrest everyone, and sort it out later.
If Lincoln had been killed at Grovers Theater, Stanton probably would have done the same thing.
Has the April issue of CW Times been issued already?
RE: Ford's Theatre Stagehands - Joe Di Cola - 01-23-2014 04:17 PM
(01-23-2014 10:42 AM)Gene C Wrote: IMO (in my opinion), this may have something to do with Baltimore. Two known conspirators (Arnold and O'Laughlen) are from Baltimore. Booth is from Baltimore. The Ford's have a larger theater from Baltimore and employees are shuffled between that location and Washington, as needed. They Ford's also managed one in Richmond. There had been an assassination attempt on Lincolns life in Baltimore. If I were Stanton, I would have jumped to the same conclusion. Arrest everyone, and sort it out later.
If Lincoln had been killed at Grovers Theater, Stanton probably would have done the same thing.
Has the April issue of CW Times been issued already?
Hi, Gene,
Received mine yesterday.
Joe
RE: Ford's Theatre Stagehands - L Verge - 01-23-2014 07:40 PM
I think Gene has a very valid point about Baltimore being a logical key here. That city had a terrible reputation among the Union supporters and the federal government for its open support of secession, and anyone connected with it was presumed guilty of something. Also, the theatrical world in general was not regarded very highly in society; so they all became suspect until proven innocent.
RE: Ford's Theatre Stagehands - BettyO - 01-24-2014 05:36 AM
Quote:IMO (in my opinion), this may have something to do with Baltimore. Two known conspirators (Arnold and O'Laughlen) are from Baltimore. Booth is from Baltimore.
Also remember, Powell had connections with Baltimore as well....
RE: Ford's Theatre Stagehands - Barry Doohan - 01-25-2014 09:01 AM
(01-24-2014 05:36 AM)BettyO Wrote:Quote:IMO (in my opinion), this may have something to do with Baltimore. Two known conspirators (Arnold and O'Laughlen) are from Baltimore. Booth is from Baltimore.
Also remember, Powell had connections with Baltimore as well....
Whether in Bogar's book or elsewhere, I recall that Grover's not so subtlely promoted themselves as the 'Union' theatre in Washington with Ford's being looked upon as pro-southern. Add to that if Bogar's contention was correct about Ritterspaugh being an informant would just add weight to Stanton's suspicions.
RE: Ford's Theatre Stagehands - BettyO - 01-25-2014 09:51 AM
I have never heard that Ritterspaugh was a "plant" - but it's a good thought... Wasn't it Ritterspaugh who supposedly struck Spangler in the face and said "Don't say which way he went!" in reference to Booth's escape?
RE: Ford's Theatre Stagehands - Tom Bogar - 01-26-2014 08:24 PM
(01-23-2014 08:52 AM)Jill Mitchell Wrote: In the April 2014 issue of Civil War Times, there appears a Q&A with Thomas A. Bogar, author of Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination: The Untold Story of the Actors and Stagehands at Ford's Theatre. One of the questions asked was "Why were stagehands targeted more than actors?" in the investigation. Bogar answers that "I'm convinced that he [Stanton] was aware something was wrong backstage. ... They [the stagehands] had to have known what was going on..." These statements are somewhat troubling to me, because, in reading the book, I find no compelling evidence presented that would fortify these statements. Essentially, he implicates the Ford's Theatre stagehands because he labels Ford's as a hotbed of those with secession sympathies. I wonder to what extent this actually singles out and makes the Ford's Theatre stagehands uniquely suspect. I would suppose most every business establishment in DC had both pro-Union and pro-South employees (especially if they were Marylanders)--which could create a "hostile working environment" should those pro-South employees be vocal in their sentiments--something I would think most would not dare, for it could result in a stay in Old Capitol. Comments?
Jill, I'm sorry I was unable to get back to you sooner; I was out of town and literally out of range of both internet and decent phone signals. To answer you: while there was no one "smoking gun" (pardon the inappropriate pun) to indict the stagehands en masse, I found after eight years of compiling research on them, that the (to me) compelling (if not overwhelming) evidence, collectively listed in my footnotes and my bibliography, led me to make an informed judgment that something was, with near certainty, amiss backstage and the tendency was toward the backstage area being a hotbed of southern sympathy. The primary factors were these: 1) the pattern of overheard remarks (by more than one witness) made by persons in leadership capacities, including Gifford, Carland, Maddox and Lamb, 2) the tacit allowance of such remarks by John and Harry Ford (although John had trimmed his sails noticeably, he had a solid states-rights background ethos), 3) comments made in several newspapers before and after the event alluding to the atmosphere of Ford's experienced by actors appearing there, 4) the strong Baltimore connection of many of the backstage figures, and the concomitant Secessionist sympathies which that conveyed, from the Baltimore Plot and the Pratt Street Riots onward, 5) the near-complete lack of similar sentiments expressed by the itinerant actors, who likely knew enough to be more circumspect than the stagehands, 6) the presence and behavior of Union veteran Jake Rittersbach, being so new to the backstage group yet had asked so many questions and then became the single most damaging witness against Ned Spangler, and thus, 7) the fact that Stanton and his men (both military and non) knew so quickly exactly where and when to swoop down on whom, far more so among the stage crew than among the actors, several of whom (e.g. Mathews and Emerson) might have been in theory equally suspect. I should note that in the process, I did feel the need to discount significantly the exaggerations of that serial enhancer of the truth, Leonard Grover. Bottom line: after doing the research, I reached a point where I felt secure in making an informed judgment. Hope this helps!