Decapitation of the Union

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thank you for your reply, Bill. I don't question your capability/authority to empathy - "feel" into the character you've researched so thoroughly. Thus I'd truly appreciate your opinion on my former question whether Booth would have used the "darling" name "Abe". I would think JWB hated the latter too much to do (even as irony) and would have addressed him in a more distant way.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(10-04-2015 02:44 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Thank you for your reply, Bill. I don't question your capability/authority to empathy - "feel" into the character you've researched so thoroughly. Thus I'd truly appreciate your opinion on my former question whether Booth would have used the "darling" name "Abe". I would think JWB hated the latter too much to do (even as irony) and would have addressed him in a more distant way.

I don't think the use of the term "Abe" necessarily connotes any sort of affection. John Surratt called Lincoln "Old Abe" in a letter to his cousin, and he certainly wasn't an admirer! It may be that whoever did the etching simply thought it was easier to etch the word "Abe" than "Abraham."

[MajGenl.Meade]

(10-04-2015 02:41 PM)Jim Page Wrote:  On this weird sideshow to the assassination, I have to side with Wild Bill. It just seems like something Booth would do. That, plus the fact that Herold was working at a place that supplied drugs and likely other things to the Lincoln White House, seem to tie it in to Booth's band.

I recall thinking when I read about the window inscription in Weichmann's book, "Well, that seems plausible, given Booth's bragging after shooting Lincoln." Can it ever be proven that Booth scratched those words? Probably not.

--Jim

I think there is a significant difference between having a feeling that Booth might have done something or other and making a categorical statement that he did so and that it is proof positive that on August 13th 1864 he already planned to kill Lincoln rather than kidnap him. History is not supposed to be written by "feelings" but by evidence.

As to the pharmacy, John is careful to footnote the pharmacist Thompson's testimony. What did that amount to? Herold worked for Thompson from March 1, 1863 to July 4, 1863. During that time, Thompson's records show that on June 22, 1863 it was the clerk Herold who wrote down in the charge book the debit to Lincoln for a bottle of castor oil. Thompson was asked if that meant Herold prepared the prescription? Thompson said that writing the charge did not indicate that.

John's book, page 17 again, states: "Herold is recorded to have prepared at least one vial of medicine for the president during his period of employment with Thompson"

Why is that important anyway? Because J G Holland, an unreliable biographer of Lincoln, wrote that (quoting Decapitation p17)... "it is believed" that on at least one occasion the president was poisoned by a drug prescribed for him by his physician

So on some unknown date "it is believed" (by whom? on what authority?) that Lincoln was poisoned. We have no idea if this was during Herold's employment at Thompson's. And note the use of "at least" (twice).

Herold prepared "at least" one vial - meaning maybe it was two or twenty-two - and Lincoln was poisoned "at least" once - perhaps the same two or twenty-two times. And the support for all of this is first, "it is believed" written by a dubious source and second, trial testimony that in fact indicates it is unknown whether Herold prepared even one such vial.

This is also more than a year before Herold was involved in any plot at all with Booth. The suggestion seems to be that Herold was busy trying to assassinate Lincoln by making up poison (and helpfully signing his name to prove it) without mentioning that it was 1863 - not 1864.

In the spirit of Roscoe's 'have you stopped beating your wife?' method: was Herold acting on instruction from Davis or had Judah Benjamin paid him to do it? Cue spooky music.

[STS Lincolnite]

(10-04-2015 02:29 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  I seriously doubt that anyone's scratches on a windowpane or any upright surface are going to match one's handwriting.

This is very true. However, letter formation is another thing. Letter formation (the start and stop points of writing a letter) comes from motor memory (the repetition of a movement pattern over and over again). Letter formation, even when scratching on a window pane should, I think, remain relatively consistent. Especially in letters that start words. There are definite differences in letter formation demonstrated on this window compared to samples of Booth's writing that I looked at. Notably in the word "this" on the window pane. I looked at examples of the "th" combination from letters that Booth wrote and there is a significant difference. Also, the "t" itself on the window pane is different than how Booth wrote the "t" in every example I looked at. Booth's t's are much more star like. All that being said, I am certainly no expert.

As a slight aside, Company K of the 150th PA infantry served as Lincoln's guard while at the soldier's home. This regimental company was primarily raised in Crawford County, PA. Meadville is the county seat for Crawford County.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(10-04-2015 02:44 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 03:23 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  [quote='Wild Bill' pid='52451' dateline='1443986990']
I seriously doubt that anyone's scratches on a windowpane or any upright surface are going to match one's handwriting.

This is very true. However, letter formation is another thing. Letter formation (the start and stop points of writing a letter) comes from motor memory (the repetition of a movement pattern over and over again). Letter formation, even when scratching on a window pane should, I think, remain relatively consistent. Especially in letters that start words. There are definite differences in letter formation demonstrated on this window compared to samples of Booth's writing that I looked at. Notably in the word "this" on the window pane. I looked at examples of the "th" combination from letters that Booth wrote and there is a significant difference. Also, the "t" itself on the window pane is different than how Booth wrote the "t" in every example I looked at. Booth's t's are much more star like. All that being said, I am certainly no expert.

Just to add - I would think it's even much more difficult to scratch (if not fluent in this writing style) such elaborated curves (which Booth's handwriting is greatly lacking) into a windowpane as done than the rather straight way Booth wrote on the calling card.

[John Fazio]

(10-04-2015 02:16 PM)MajGenl.Meade Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 12:05 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 11:15 AM)L Verge Wrote:  John and Bill - I'm sorry, but how you can ignore critical and primary evidence such as Susan has posted here in favor of (once again) suppositions is beyond me.

I am not ignoring it, and I'm sure Bill isn't either. Susan makes some very good points. I hold, merely, that we do not have a clear answer.

"We do not have a clear answer" and yet, John, on page 17 of your book you state, in regard to Booth's alleged presence in Meadeville and the inscripted window: "We may be certain that Booth made the inscription. We may also be certain that it is a clear indication that as early as August 1864..... Booth had killing, rather than kidnapping, on his mind".

Your footnote (#32) to this entire story is again, Weichmann's book, written long after the event and relating occurrences that Weichmann could not have witnessed or had any personal knowledge of because he did not even meet Booth until 4-5 months later. He did at least have the honesty not to claim that Booth told him about the window later

What actual evidence is there that Booth performed in a play in Meadeville "for one performance only, and when it was over he retired to his room (and) left the city next morning" (page 17)? Perhaps it is Weichmann again.

Surely, the contemporary evidence that does exist is that Booth was most likely in New York on August 13 and there is no evidence of any kind that he was in Meadeville or any other place on earth?

[Apropos nothing, I am beginning to develop a healthy suspicion of Major Eckert. His fingerprints seem to be all over the shop]

Holman:

There are so many nails in the Great Kidnapping Myth's coffin, that one more or less will not affect its entombment.

John

[John Fazio]

(10-04-2015 11:08 AM)MajGenl.Meade Wrote:  Sorry, John. I can't let your new definition of 'hearsay' escape unscathed. (Nice segue to make the glass the central point when it's peripheral)

The point about Weichmann and the pane of glass is not that he wasn't the perpetrator but that he did not witness anything that he wrote about in connection with Meadville, Booth's illness and travels at the time.

All he is doing is regurgitating other people's words - at what remove we do not know. I discount all that he writes that is not his personal knowledge but is ex post facto parroting/creative writing

noun: hearsay
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

•Law
the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

Holman:

You miss my point completely. A strict application of your hearsay rule (feebly defined, incidentally) would wipe out almost everything written about the assassination, because almost everything written about it comes from sources which did not perpetrate the events described, but merely repeated in some form what was written by someone else. In paraphrasing the Century Magazine article (assuming he did not have access to additional information to supplement it, a distinct possibility), Weichmann was doing nothing more than every assassination historian since Holland has done: incorporating, analyzing, redacting and supplementing the findings and the works of others, i.e. nothing more nor less than you and I do.


John

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh Lord, I've been outed!

Sorry John, don't buy it. Please explain how your citation of Thompson in the trial testimony proves that Herold made up even one vial of castor oil for Lincoln. (When it states exactly the opposite)

This one should be easy

[John Fazio]

(10-04-2015 09:34 PM)MajGenl.Meade Wrote:  Oh Lord, I've been outed!

Sorry John, don't buy it. Please explain how your citation of Thompson in the trial testimony proves that Herold made up even one vial of castor oil for Lincoln. (When it states exactly the opposite)

This one should be easy

Holman:

Kid stuff.

The book doesn't say nor purport to prove that Herold prepared a vial of medicine for the President. Rather, and consistent with the preceding sentence, which states that Herold may "possibly (have) had a hand in this", it states that Herold is recorded to have prepared one vial of medicine for the President. The recording takes the form of Thompson's qualified statement that he found one article prepared for the President that was signed by Herold, but that such signing did not necessarily mean that he "put the medicine up" for the President, which, of course, also means that it did not necessarily mean that he did not "put the medicine up" for the President. (pp. 510, 517 Vol. 1, Surratt Trial) The entire paragraph is couched in qualifiers, including Holland's "it is believed", and is obviously not to be interpreted as being conclusive of anything, but only to be considered together with the other eleven paragraphs which describe assassination attempts or possible assassination attempts. Hair splitting with such incidentals does neither of us justice, nor is it worth our time. There is more and better hay to be made elsewhere.

John

[MajGenl.Meade]

John

You write that Weichmann is a "good" source. Certainly if one copies information from another writer that source, good or not, must be acknowledged. You say that he is relating something from the Century Magazine - it seems to me that whoever wrote the Century Magazine should be cited as the "primary source" rather than Weichmann as "secondary" or who knows at what remove? His testimony is only that he read this somewhere else - not that he knows it to be true. Evidence that the man could read is not evidence that Booth etched anything.

Weichmann wrote: "The handwriting on the windowpane when compared with the signature of Booth on the hotel register is found to be identically the same, and this fact is further verified and strengthened by a comparison with Booth's handwriting in his diary. There is not the slightest doubt that the writing on the pane of glass is that of Booth..."

In this thread, people make valid arguments that the writing is not, in fact, Booth's. STS Lincolnite offers the unlikelihood that scratching anything in glass will produce comparable handwriting - casting doubt on Weichmann's truth-claim as surely as anyone.

And yet you say Weichmann's story, "Sounds pretty good to me, especially when coupled with evidence of attempted poisoning of the President, probably with the complicity of the druggist's clerk whose name was Herold and whose place of employment was known to serve the Executive Mansion"

"...it is believed" is not evidence. It is an unverified statement with no date provided in your book as to when this alleged "poisoning" occurred. Did it or did it not occur during Herold's brief tenure at Thompson's? Does it or does it not matter that Herold did not sign anything purporting to show that he had prepared the vial of castor oil but shows only that he is the clerk who recorded the charge to Lincoln's account? Yet you make the unequivocal statement that Herold DID make up the vial and I'm splitting hairs. No - I'm saying that's wrong.

That there were threats on Lincoln's life (and at least one attempt) is undoubted. Neither the etched glass nor the castor oil story belong in that list because these claims do not stand, either together or apart. I've not started on the other eleven paragraphs yet.

[Gene C]

I'll never look through a scratched window, after taking a dose of castor oil, the same now.

[John Fazio]

(10-05-2015 04:16 AM)MajGenl.Meade Wrote:  John

You write that Weichmann is a "good" source. Certainly if one copies information from another writer that source, good or not, must be acknowledged. You say that he is relating something from the Century Magazine - it seems to me that whoever wrote the Century Magazine should be cited as the "primary source" rather than Weichmann as "secondary" or who knows at what remove? His testimony is only that he read this somewhere else - not that he knows it to be true. Evidence that the man could read is not evidence that Booth etched anything.

Weichmann wrote: "The handwriting on the windowpane when compared with the signature of Booth on the hotel register is found to be identically the same, and this fact is further verified and strengthened by a comparison with Booth's handwriting in his diary. There is not the slightest doubt that the writing on the pane of glass is that of Booth..."

In this thread, people make valid arguments that the writing is not, in fact, Booth's. STS Lincolnite offers the unlikelihood that scratching anything in glass will produce comparable handwriting - casting doubt on Weichmann's truth-claim as surely as anyone.

And yet you say Weichmann's story, "Sounds pretty good to me, especially when coupled with evidence of attempted poisoning of the President, probably with the complicity of the druggist's clerk whose name was Herold and whose place of employment was known to serve the Executive Mansion"

"...it is believed" is not evidence. It is an unverified statement with no date provided in your book as to when this alleged "poisoning" occurred. Did it or did it not occur during Herold's brief tenure at Thompson's? Does it or does it not matter that Herold did not sign anything purporting to show that he had prepared the vial of castor oil but shows only that he is the clerk who recorded the charge to Lincoln's account? Yet you make the unequivocal statement that Herold DID make up the vial and I'm splitting hairs. No - I'm saying that's wrong.

That there were threats on Lincoln's life (and at least one attempt) is undoubted. Neither the etched glass nor the castor oil story belong in that list because these claims do not stand, either together or apart. I've not started on the other eleven paragraphs yet.

Peter:

You ARE splitting hairs, but that's O.K.; at least you're thinking.

I grant that if I were writing the book now I would not be as categorical in my judgment as to the etched pane in Meadville. The question of origin now seems less certain to me, based on evidence adduced in this thread.

As for Herold, no categorical statement is made. His working in a pharmacy that served the Executive Mansion from March 1 through July ,1863, coupled with the fact that he was still a pharmacist's clerk through September 4, 1864, at a time when Booth was actively plotting assassination, and the fact that he was one of Booth's co-conspirators, is enough to create some suspicion that he may have had a hand in poisoning the president if there was a poisoning, and that is all the passage says.

As for poisoning, there were at least two occasions when it was suspected as a cause of Lincoln's illness, once when his entire family was sick, early in his presidency, attributed to the consumption of contaminated fish from the Potomac, and once immediately after he delivered the Gettysburg Address, said to have been diagnosed as smallpox. However, it has been written that after 1860 "he went continuously downhill" and that "in his last three months he was sick more than he was well--if he was ever well at all." I do not know if Holland had any of this in mind when he said "it is believed that on at least one occasion the president was poisoned...", but it really doesn't matter, because the passage was not offered as proof of an assassination attempt, but only as one historian's reference to a possible attempt. There are qualifiers in the passage itself and there are additional qualifiers on the preceding page ("...numerous incidents...which may well have been attempts on his life...or that they at least stood a good chance of being (assassination attempts)..."). In writing the book, I exercised my prerogative to include Holland's passage, for whatever value the reader may derive from it. When you write your book, it will be your prerogative to leave it out.

John

[RJNorton]

(10-12-2015 04:19 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  However, it has been written that after 1860 "he went continuously downhill"

There is a theory that Lincoln was poisoning himself by taking blue mass pills during the early months of his presidency. The Smithsonian has a short video about this theory here:

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/videos...ills/16052

[John Fazio]

(10-12-2015 04:45 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 04:19 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  However, it has been written that after 1860 "he went continuously downhill"

There is a theory that Lincoln was poisoning himself by taking blue mass pills during the early months of his presidency. The Smithsonian has a short video about this theory here:

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/videos...ills/16052

Roger:

I have heard this theory, which is based on the fact that "Blue Mass" contains mercury, a known toxin. But this would have been a slow poisoning over a long period of time, not likely to cause sudden symptoms of a kind that would catch someone's attention.

John

[L Verge]

Let's see, after 1860, Lincoln presides over a divided nation, receives hundreds (if not thousands) of death threats, watches his military be stymied by ineffective leadership, loses his second son, deals with the bad press surrounding his wife, issues a weak Emancipation Proclamation and then has to press for a 13th Amendment to the Constitution to give that proclamation credence, deals with Peace Democrats, deals with bad press about himself... What have I left out?

IMO, of course "he went steadily downhill!" Who wouldn't under those strains? I will add that we can see the strain and the decline just in his facial features; however, the physicians conducting his autopsy commented on his strong physique.