+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: An interesting trip to Surrattsville (/thread-3114.html)
Pages: 1 2
An interesting trip to Surrattsville - RJNorton - 08-27-2016 01:35 PM
http://www.ydr.com/story/news/history/blogs/universal-york/2016/08/26/an-interesting-trip-to-surrattsville/89468444/
RE: An interesting trip to Surrattsville - L Verge - 08-27-2016 06:34 PM
Thanks for posting this; it was a sneak attack that I did not know about. Great photos. Let me correct two things: Mary Surratt visited her country home late in the afternoon (not morning) of the assassination, and our James O. Hall Research Center is in a large building all by itself - not part of the Visitors' Center.
RE: An interesting trip to Surrattsville - RJNorton - 08-28-2016 08:46 AM
The author has also written several articles on Ned Spangler:
http://www.yorkblog.com/universal/2015/02/25/more-on-ned-spanglers-life-as-a-prisoner-after-the-lincoln-conspiracy-trial/
http://www.yorkblog.com/universal/2015/01/12/ned-spangler-at-ft-jefferson-dry-tortugas-part-2/
http://www.yorkblog.com/universal/2015/01/09/ned-spangler-didnt-find-fort-jefferson-a-nice-place-to-visit/
http://www.yorkblog.com/universal/2011/05/07/ned-spanglers-real-first-name/
http://www.yorkblog.com/universal/2015/04/19/yorker-edman-spangler-maintained-lincoln-conspiracy-innocence/
http://www.yorkblog.com/universal/2011/05/16/was-edman-ned-spangler-guilty/
RE: An interesting trip to Surrattsville - John Fazio - 08-29-2016 03:08 AM
June Lloyd, Laurie and Roger:
Please refer to Chapter 29--Spangler Was Innocent--of Decapitating the Union for a comprehensive treatment of Spangler and, in my judgment, a clear and convincing case for his innocence.
John
RE: An interesting trip to Surrattsville - RJNorton - 08-29-2016 04:20 AM
I agree, John.
One was of the few things that has even made me wonder about Spangler's possible knowledge of Booth's plan was in Tom Bogar's Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination.
It's from p. 141 of Tom's book. John Selecman, who was an assistant of James Maddox, approached James Ferguson on Monday, April 17th, and quietly told Ferguson that he was in the alley Friday night when JWB rode up. He overheard Booth call for Spangler, and Booth told Spangler, "Now, Ned, you will give me all the assistance you can." Spangler responded, "Yes, I will, you can depend on that."
If Selecman were telling the truth did this mean Spangler was agreeing to either holding Booth's horse himself or making sure someone else would hold it? Or could this be interpreted as Spangler indicating to Booth that he (Booth) could depend on "backstage help" after the shot was fired?
RE: An interesting trip to Surrattsville - John Fazio - 08-29-2016 06:01 AM
(08-29-2016 04:20 AM)RJNorton Wrote: I agree, John.
One was of the few things that has even made me wonder about Spangler's possible knowledge of Booth's plan was in Tom Bogar's Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination.
It's from p. 141 of Tom's book. John Selecman, who was an assistant of James Maddox, approached James Ferguson on Monday, April 17th, and quietly told Ferguson that he was in the alley Friday night when JWB rode up. He overheard Booth call for Spangler, and Booth told Spangler, "Now, Ned, you will give me all the assistance you can." Spangler responded, "Yes, I will, you can depend on that."
If Selecman were telling the truth did this mean Spangler was agreeing to either holding Booth's horse himself or making sure someone else would hold it? Or could this be interpreted as Spangler indicating to Booth that he (Booth) could depend on "backstage help" after the shot was fired?
Roger:
This issue is discussed in detail on pages 314-316 of Decapitating. The heart of the matter, in my opinion, is this: When Booth finally asked Spangler to hold his horse for 10 or 15 minutes, Spangler said he didn't have time, but would get Peanuts to do it, after which Booth went into the theater. In view of this fact, two things are probative of Spangler's innocence, namely:
1. Spangler's telling Booth that he could not oblige him with respect to holding his horse would have been an unthinkable rebuff if Spangler were really in league with Booth that night; and
2. If Spangler were part of the conspiracy, why would it be necessary for Booth to ask him for his help with anything; his help and his role in the event would have been matters foregone, all pre-arranged and needing no special request for help.
The request for help is the kind of thing one asks of a friend, not of a co-conspirator. There is an arms-length element to it, a presumption that the requested help will be forthcoming because of the closeness of the two, but co-conspirators do not deal in presumptions between friends; they deal in well-laid plans, assigned roles and knowing nods. We may safely regard Spangler's response, therefore, if such there was, as an impulsive reaction of an inferior to a superior, whom he had become accustomed to serving, without his having even an inkling of Booth's ultimate purpose.
John
RE: An interesting trip to Surrattsville - RJNorton - 08-29-2016 02:39 PM
John, what do you make of William Withers' allegation about Spangler and the gas lights. Tom Bogar writes, "...he (Withers) had caught Spangler trying to turn off the gas lights and plunge the theater into darkness but had valiantly fought the stagehand off and prevented this from happening."
I know Withers was known to be very embellishing and "creating" in some of his later statements - do you think this is another one?
Withers is quoted in the June 3, 1881, Bismarck Tribune:
"I was just giving the stage manager a piece of my mind when Spangler, the scene shifter, came forward to the gas box and took hold of the handle with which they turn the gas out. Knowing he had no business there, I pushed him away, and saying, ‘Get out of here! Go back to where you belong!’ I closed the box and sat on the lid. I sat there a minute talking, then started down the stairs to my place."
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/83114768/
RE: An interesting trip to Surrattsville - Tom Bogar - 08-29-2016 05:53 PM
I was just quoting Withers as another example of his increasingly self-aggrandizing whoppers. I wouldn't trust a word that came out of his mouth (especially the Spangler-and-the-gas incident).
RE: An interesting trip to Surrattsville - John Fazio - 08-29-2016 11:42 PM
(08-29-2016 02:39 PM)RJNorton Wrote: John, what do you make of William Withers' allegation about Spangler and the gas lights. Tom Bogar writes, "...he (Withers) had caught Spangler trying to turn off the gas lights and plunge the theater into darkness but had valiantly fought the stagehand off and prevented this from happening."
I know Withers was known to be very embellishing and "creating" in some of his later statements - do you think this is another one?
Withers is quoted in the June 3, 1881, Bismarck Tribune:
"I was just giving the stage manager a piece of my mind when Spangler, the scene shifter, came forward to the gas box and took hold of the handle with which they turn the gas out. Knowing he had no business there, I pushed him away, and saying, ‘Get out of here! Go back to where you belong!’ I closed the box and sat on the lid. I sat there a minute talking, then started down the stairs to my place."
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/83114768/
Roger:
All I can say is that a bona fide attempt by Spangler to turn off the gas is totally inconsistent with all the other evidence we have relating to his involvement (actually, non-involvement) with Booth's conspiracy. I see that Tom has already weighed in with his opinion of Withers's credibility. A total fabrication is a distinct possibility, for the purpose of establishing Spangler's guilt because Withers believed him to be guilty despite the fact there was no real evidence to support such a belief. But another possibility, perhaps a stronger one, is that Spangler did approach the gas box, or found himself in the vicinity of the gas box, for some reason unrelated to Booth's conspiracy, and was shooed away by Withers, who then turned the incident into something malevolent for his own purposes or the perceived purposes of others. Even if we postulate Spangler's complicity, would he brazenly attempt to shut off the gas in the presence of others, thereby revealing his complicity and establishing his guilt beyond all doubt? I don't think so.
John
RE: An interesting trip to Surrattsville - RJNorton - 08-30-2016 04:40 AM
Tom and John, thank you. I am one who feels Ned Spangler was totally innocent of any complicity in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Thus, I am asking these questions only for the sake of discussion and the few things that have made me wonder.
I do have one more question --> I recall reading somewhere that Jeannie Gourlay also reminisced about a drunken Spangler being part of the conspiracy and his involvement with the gas lights. But, as often is the case, I have forgotten where I saw this. Does anyone know? (or is it just my imagination)
RE: An interesting trip to Surrattsville - Tom Bogar - 08-30-2016 09:04 AM
(08-30-2016 04:40 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Tom and John, thank you. I am one who feels Ned Spangler was totally innocent of any complicity in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Thus, I am asking these questions only for the sake of discussion and the few things that have made me wonder.
I do have one more question --> I recall reading somewhere that Jeannie Gourlay also reminisced about a drunken Spangler being part of the conspiracy and his involvement with the gas lights. But, as often is the case, I have forgotten where I saw this. Does anyone know? (or is it just my imagination)
Nothing like that is ringing a bell. Can't recall finding anything like that in my research. In fact, Jeannie felt kindly toward Spangler, esp. after he showed up with that puppy in his arms. Of course, she may have sided with Withers, or believed him, during their brief marriage.
I wholeheartedly concur with John's cogent analysis of this. Well-stated!
RE: An interesting trip to Surrattsville - L Verge - 08-30-2016 09:13 AM
Richard Sloan is well-versed on Withers and Gourlay. Can we get him to join in?
RE: An interesting trip to Surrattsville - RJNorton - 08-30-2016 09:52 AM
I've been searching the Internet, and this may be what I recall reading previously. If I follow that article correctly I guess it's actually in a letter from Thomas Gourlay, not Jeannie.
"I know that Spangler was a kind-hearted, jovial fellow and liked by everyone. Nevertheless, I believe he was drawn into the conspiracy at the last moment and while under the influence of drink. His part, it was supposed, was to turn off the gas after the shot, but he was not able to get near enough to the box at the time on account of you and Mr. Withers standing near it conversing, while you were waiting to go on the stage again.
Now, to back up my suspicion of the above, will relate what was told to me by Brother Robert. After the first act, Robert and Williamson went out to get a drink. They went into the saloon adjoining the theatre and saw Booth and Spangler drinking brandy at the bar. Robert declared that Booth filled his tumbler to the brim and drank it down. I suppose Spangler did the same."
http://civilwar.gratzpa.org/2012/11/jeannie-gourlay-and-norman-harsell-the-film-that-never-was/
RE: An interesting trip to Surrattsville - John Fazio - 08-31-2016 09:30 PM
(08-30-2016 09:52 AM)RJNorton Wrote: I've been searching the Internet, and this may be what I recall reading previously. If I follow that article correctly I guess it's actually in a letter from Thomas Gourlay, not Jeannie.
"I know that Spangler was a kind-hearted, jovial fellow and liked by everyone. Nevertheless, I believe he was drawn into the conspiracy at the last moment and while under the influence of drink. His part, it was supposed, was to turn off the gas after the shot, but he was not able to get near enough to the box at the time on account of you and Mr. Withers standing near it conversing, while you were waiting to go on the stage again.
Now, to back up my suspicion of the above, will relate what was told to me by Brother Robert. After the first act, Robert and Williamson went out to get a drink. They went into the saloon adjoining the theatre and saw Booth and Spangler drinking brandy at the bar. Robert declared that Booth filled his tumbler to the brim and drank it down. I suppose Spangler did the same."
http://civilwar.gratzpa.org/2012/11/jeannie-gourlay-and-norman-harsell-the-film-that-never-was/
Roger:
Observe the substantial difference in the statements of Withers, per the June 3, 1881, article in the Bismarck newspaper, and Gourlay. Withers said (or is quoted as having said) that Spangler actually grabbed hold of the handle that was used to turn the gas off, before he, Withers, shooed him away and then sat on the box. But Gourlay said nothing about Spangler grabbing hold of the handle, saying, rather, that he, Spangler, wasn't able to get near enough to the box for his purpose because Withers and an unidentified person were standing near it conversing. This sharp inconsistency casts serious doubt on the entire episode
As for Booth and Spangler drinking at Taltavul's, this statement is worse than worthless as evidence; it is a distraction. Both men were known to drink together often. As for how much Spangler drank, which is meaningless anyway, all we have is "I suppose Spangler did the same". So what? Nothing is said as to what they were talking about. They could as easily have been talking about the sale of Booth's buggy, or the weather, as a conspiracy to do anything.
Tom, thanks for the compliment. Whoever tells you they don't care about recognition is a liar.
John
RE: An interesting trip to Surrattsville - emma1231 - 09-01-2016 09:33 AM
(08-30-2016 09:13 AM)L Verge Wrote: Richard Sloan is well-versed on Withers and Gourlay. Can we get him to join in?
It was, indeed, Withers who first told the story about Spangler and the gas box. It has never been corroborated and I believe it has no basis in fact. Maybe he hated Ned for some reason. Spangler was completely innocent. After Booth ran out the door, I think it was Jake Ritterspaugh said "That was Booth!" Jake said that Spangler yelled at him,"Shut up! What do you know about it?!" That's really all there ever was to lead the gov't into thinking he was in cahoots with Booth. Withers exaggerated a great deal. First of all, he said he was cut through the skin by Booth's dagger and carried a scar for the rest of his life, but a doctor who examined him when he wanted his pension increased noted no such scar. (I would think he would have pointed it out to the dr. in furtherance of trying to get the bigger pension!) Then there's the Spangler story. Tom correctly points out that he often exaggerated and I think he said he was difficult to believe. I don't mean to open a can of worms here, but Tom accepts at face value his claim of being jilted on the afternoon of the assassination -- a tale he told in his final interview. I have enough background re: Withers and Jeannie Gourlay to offer the educated opinion (no proof, darn it!) that he was NOT jilted. By then (again, no proof!) I have good reason to believe that after Jeannie divorced him he carried a torch for her for the rest of his life. Withers was no doubt suffering from dementia when he granted that last interview.