The Reason Lincoln Had to Die

[Gene C]

Speaking of Booth's diary, missing pages, the book taken apart and put back together, and laminating, here is something to ponder......

According to the attached web site, The archival community embraced lamination in the early 1930s as a means of strengthening fragile papers.
https://daige.com/history-lamination/

It is reasonably possible that many of the physical alterations to Booth's diary did not take place until the 1930's, with the exception to 18 missing pages
Based upon that article, it is certainly logical that it would be unlikely that pages were taken out and some laminated and put back in before the 1930's.
That would be long after Stanton was Secretary of War. That's my thoughts for now.

Trying to change the subject with an unrelated topic, we can't rule out a yet unknown connection of changes to Booth's diary and the shipwreck of the coastal tanker Pinthis and the passenger liner Fairfax on June 10, 1930 where 47 people died.
Add to that, the first mate's diary, and there is no written record that he did not keep a diary, was never found. Considering the timeline, it's just to coincidental not to not be connected.
Newspapers of the period were strangely silent regarding the governments involvement in this terrible tragedy.

[AussieMick]

(12-12-2018 06:47 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Trying to change the subject with an unrelated topic, we can't rule out a yet unknown connection of changes to Booth's diary and the shipwreck of the coastal tanker Pinthis and the passenger liner Fairfax on June 10, 1930 where 47 people died.
Add to that, the first mate's diary, and there is no written record that he did not keep a diary, was never found. Considering the timeline, it's just to coincidental not to not be connected.
Newspapers of the period were strangely silent regarding the governments involvement in this terrible tragedy.

Yeah but ... the newspapers do mention that there were 4 marines on their way to Nicaragua, to serve with the US Election Commission. One was named Harry Hutchcroft. Makes you think, doesnt it? Booth's dairy (I mean diary) goes missing and then this.

[Rob Wick]

But what about Booth's emails? (Sorry, this old liberal couldn't resist).

Best
Rob

[mikegriffith1]

(12-12-2018 06:47 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Speaking of Booth's diary, missing pages, the book taken apart and put back together, and laminating, here is something to ponder......

According to the attached web site, The archival community embraced lamination in the early 1930s as a means of strengthening fragile papers.
https://daige.com/history-lamination/

It is reasonably possible that many of the physical alterations to Booth's diary did not take place until the 1930's, with the exception to 18 missing pages
Based upon that article, it is certainly logical that it would be unlikely that pages were taken out and some laminated and put back in before the 1930's.

That would be long after Stanton was Secretary of War. That's my thoughts for now.

Right, because we just can't admit that the diary is clear evidence of a cover-up by the War Department.

You know, you guys get frazzled when I refer to Seeing the Emperor's New Clothes, but it's this kind of refusal to acknowledge compelling evidence that reminds me of the story of The Emperor's New Clothes.

Now, I'll tell you what: Let's just bracket the whole issue of lamination, since it really doesn't prove anything anyway. Laminating a page doesn't change its content, doesn't remove content, doesn't hide content, etc.

The real issue is the massive removal of pages (86 pages), the clearly surgical/targeted removal of portions of pages, and the moving of sections.

When the diary was finally released following Baker's confirmation of its existence and investigators found that 18 pages were missing, nobody denied that this was very suspicious. Instead, all the parties who had handled the book denied that they had removed any pages. But you guys can't even seem to bring yourselves to admit what most Americans realized at the time: that there should not have been 18 pages missing from the diary (much less 86).

If they had had modern technology and had realized that 86 pages were missing and that some sections had been moved, that would have been viewed as all the more suspicious. But you folks seem determined to once again "see no evil" when it's staring you in the face. I mean, my goodness, you folks can't even admit that the diary should have been entered into evidence at the conspiracy trial.

And I'm guessing that no one here will ever both to read Don Thomas's 13-page analysis of the FBI report on the diary in his book The Reason Booth Had to Die (chapters 8 and 9). The Kindle edition of the book is only $4 on Amazon, and you can read it on Amazon (they have a free online Kindle reader that opens on the Amazon site).

[Gene C]

Mike, you brought up lamination of the diary pages, and seemed to make it significant.
You also mentioned the taking apart of Booth's diary.
I just brought up that you would have to take the book apart to laminate the pages and then reinsert them.
I also brought up that lamination was not used much if at all, prior to the 1930's.
You say, "Now, I'll tell you what: Let's just bracket the whole issue of lamination, since it really doesn't prove anything anyway"

I say, using logic, one could infer the book was taken apart in the 1930's, or later.
The book taken apart by Stanton and/or pages being removed prior to the 1930's, a theory, and nothing more.

I believe you mentioned Ben Butler and a speech he gave before the House of Representatives in 1867 (Unwanted Facts - Post #20)
Senator Butler, in that speech only mentions 18 missing pages of Booth's diary, not 86. (We know Two of those 18 pages were ripped out by Booth to write a thank you note to Dr. Richard Stuart for his hospitality)

Since Stanton had this book for two years, why did he supposedly rip or cut out 18 pages and leave the other so called 68 incriminating pages intact, and then after Butler's speech, allegedly remove them?
And no one noticed or said anything?
I don't interpret the events happening that way.

It's this kind of refusal to acknowledge compelling evidence that reminds me of the story of The Emperor's Wardrobe Malfunction.

[mikegriffith1]

(12-15-2018 04:12 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Mike, you brought up lamination of the diary pages, and seemed to make it significant.
You also mentioned the taking apart of Booth's diary.
I just brought up that you would have to take the book apart to laminate the pages and then reinsert them.
I also brought up that lamination was not used much if at all, prior to the 1930's.
You say, "Now, I'll tell you what: Let's just bracket the whole issue of lamination, since it really doesn't prove anything anyway"

I say, using logic, one could infer the book was taken apart in the 1930's, or later.
The book taken apart by Stanton and/or pages being removed prior to the 1930's, a theory, and nothing more.

I believe you mentioned Ben Butler and a speech he gave before the House of Representatives in 1867 (Unwanted Facts - Post #20)
Senator Butler, in that speech only mentions 18 missing pages of Booth's diary, not 86. (We know Two of those 18 pages were ripped out by Booth to write a thank you note to Dr. Richard Stuart for his hospitality)

Since Stanton had this book for two years, why did he supposedly rip or cut out 18 pages and leave the other so called 68 incriminating pages intact, and then after Butler's speech, allegedly remove them?
And no one noticed or said anything?
I don't interpret the events happening that way.

It's this kind of refusal to acknowledge compelling evidence that reminds me of the story of The Emperor's Wardrobe Malfunction.

Yes, I get that this is the Emperor's New Clothes talking point. How anyone can understand the nature of the editing that was done and then claim that it was all innocent is beyond me. How anyone can think that there's nothing suspicious about 86 pages being removed is beyond me--did Booth rip out all 86 pages, some of them only partially at strategic points, to write notes to people?

Like I said, laminating doesn't prove anything either way, because laminating does not alter or hide content.

I'll just note again that, unlike you folks, most Americans viewed the removal of 18 pages as suspicious, and if they had realized that 86 pages were missing, they would have been even more suspicious.

You have yet to explain why anyone would have moved sections in the diary the way they were moved. You have yet explain why a big chunk of the missing pages comes right after Booth was talking about coming back to Washington to clear his name. And the fact that you guys can't even admit that the diary should have been entered into evidence at the conspiracy trial shows a surreal refusal or inability to be objective.

[Gene C]

I can't tell you who, when, or why there are page missing from Booth's diary.
I don't have any facts to substantiate a theory.
I also can't tell you who, when or why it was taken apart and put back together in the manner you indicate.
Thank you for sharing that it was taken apart, that was new information to me.

I believe it's irresponsible to denigrate Edwin Stanton based upon the selective, sometimes misleading information and speculation you have furnished.

[mikegriffith1]

(12-16-2018 11:23 AM)Gene C Wrote:  I can't tell you who, when, or why there are page missing from Booth's diary. I don't have any facts to substantiate a theory. I also can't tell you who, when or why it was taken apart and put back together in the manner you indicate.

I just think this is a matter of being willing to use common sense and objectivity. People don’t “edit” their own diaries like this, nor do they remove a huge portion of its pages. Why can’t you guys just admit what most Americans readily discerned when the diary’s existence and missing pages became known?

Quote:Thank you for sharing that it was taken apart, that was new information to me. I believe it's irresponsible to denigrate Edwin Stanton based upon the selective, sometimes misleading information and speculation you have furnished.

“Selective”? “Selective”? I didn’t “select” the diary as an issue. Stanton made it an issue by suppressing its existence and by not insisting that it be entered into evidence at the conspiracy trial. If Stanton had handled the diary the way an honest, innocent Secretary of War would have handled it, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

As is well known, Stanton ruled the War Department with an iron hand and was an inveterate micromanager. No one would have dared to take it upon themselves to so severely tamper with the diary without Stanton’s consent.

[Rob Wick]

Quote:If Stanton had handled the diary the way an honest, innocent Secretary of War would have handled it, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Ummm, you do realize that in the two years before the diary was once again made public, it wasn't in Stanton's physical custody. Rather Holt had it. You do know that?

Quote:Why can’t you guys just admit what most Americans readily discerned when the diary’s existence and missing pages became known?

Show me the physical evidence used to base this statement on. What poll showed this?

Quote: People don’t “edit” their own diaries like this, nor do they remove a huge portion of its pages.

Tell that to Anne Frank.

Best
Rob

[Gene C]

(12-17-2018 04:24 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  I just think this is a matter of being willing to use common sense and objectivity. People don’t “edit” their own diaries like this, nor do they remove a huge portion of its pages. Why can’t you guys just admit what most Americans readily discerned when the diary’s existence and missing pages became known?

Quote:Thank you for sharing that it was taken apart, that was new information to me. I believe it's irresponsible to denigrate Edwin Stanton based upon the selective, sometimes misleading information and speculation you have furnished.

“Selective”? “Selective”? I didn’t “select” the diary as an issue. Stanton made it an issue by suppressing its existence and by not insisting that it be entered into evidence at the conspiracy trial. If Stanton had handled the diary the way an honest, innocent Secretary of War would have handled it, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

As is well known, Stanton ruled the War Department with an iron hand and was an inveterate micromanager. No one would have dared to take it upon themselves to so severely tamper with the diary without Stanton’s consent.

Interesting you focus in on the word "Selective, as opposed to "misleading" and "speculation."

As Secretary of War who's predecessor was crooked, dealing with crooked government contractors, a few incompetent generals, during a Civil War when winning the war was not a given fact, Stanton would have to rule with an iron hand. As someone with a military background I am surprised you would even bring that up in the manner you have. And I agree, I don't think anyone would have tampered with the diary in Stanton's possession.

So why does Stanton supposedly remove a few pages in 1865 and then wait two more years to allegedly remove another 60+ pages?
It's a theory you support, why does he remove the pages, what evidence is there to show Stanton was involved in Lincoln's death?
And "missing evidence", such as the alleged missing diary pages, that no one has seen, is not evidence.

I'd also be interested to know, please inform us when it was noticed that more than 18 pages were missing from Booth's diary?

** Thanks Rob, I didn't know Holt had the diary.

[Dave Taylor]

(12-16-2018 11:23 AM)Gene C Wrote:  I can't tell you who, when, or why there are page missing from Booth's diary.
I don't have any facts to substantiate a theory.
I also can't tell you who, when or why it was taken apart and put back together in the manner you indicate.
Thank you for sharing that it was taken apart, that was new information to me.

I believe it's irresponsible to denigrate Edwin Stanton based upon the selective, sometimes misleading information and speculation you have furnished.

Gene et al.,

The Booth's diary was never taken apart and put back together. The FBI report says nothing of the kind. What does appear in the FBI report on "Page 4" of the official findings is a typo where the report's author accidentally put the wrong date when talking about how impressions of earlier and later writings can be seen on the blank pages. However, in the paragraph before this one the author put the correct date showing that it was a mistake later on. Looking for a conspiracy, Mr. Thomas created an elaborate and convoluted theory about the diary being taken apart, rewritten in Booth's handwriting, and then put back together. It's nonsense. Anyone with access to photographs of the diary can see the impressions laid out in the FBI report. Taking the later typo into account, everything matches as it should and no complicated tampering occurred. The laminating that exists on the pages near the spine of the book (and on the edges of the pages) was done by the well meaning park service workers in the 1940s or so. This action was taken to help preserve the diary and keep it intact. We would not use such a method today for preservation, but it was very commonplace then.

When and how the missing pages were removed will always be a subject of discussion, but the most likely scenario in my mind is that Booth removed them himself. As I tell people on the Booth tour, the large section of pages removed from the diary are from Jan - June of 1864. During that period of time, Booth was still acting and likely used the book for memorandum, keeping track of the cities he visited and his nightly earnings. When, during the escape, Booth discovered his letter to the National Intelligencer had not been published and that this small book was one of the few things left to him to write his thoughts in, it seems very probable he removed these unrelated sheets himself in order to start his manifesto on the first page.

Lastly, I've seen one individual on here try to prove it wasn't Booth at the Garretts' because the Garrett family talked about seeing "Mr. Boyd" writing in a black book and John Wilkes Booth's diary was red. I laughed when I read that because Booth's diary is a black book. The outside cover is black. It is only the inside that has the red leather.

[Rob Wick]

Thanks Dave. I hadn't been paying much attention to this thread until I reread Bill Hanchett's piece in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society earlier today. I noticed that Hanchett never mentioned the disassembly of the diary, which would have been a major thing that no one would have not noticed. Your point on the lamination is also well-taken. I've gone through various archives where an item was laminated, and I was left wondering if the heat needed to melt the pages wasn't more harmful than just leaving the item alone?

Best
Rob

[RJNorton]

(12-17-2018 05:58 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  I hadn't been paying much attention to this thread until I reread Bill Hanchett's piece in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society earlier today.

I am not sure if this is the same article as what Rob mentioned, but for those folks interested, there is an article on the dairy by the late Dr. Hanchett here:

http://www.heritech.com/pridger/lincoln/..._diary.pdf

[Rob Wick]

Roger,

That is the one.

Best
Rob

[Gene C]

Thanks David,
I appreciate it when my information is mistaken and some one cares enough to correct it in a kind manner.
I should have known better.