Why was Booth admitted into the presidential box?

[John Fazio]

(04-23-2015 03:32 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 03:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  I'm back

Recognizing that eyewitness testimony is likely to be all over the board, as it is with respect to what happened in front of the outer door of the presidential box at Ford's Theatre between 10 and 10:30 on April 14, 1865, we have no alternative but to find truth in the preponderance of the evidence. On the one hand we have James Ferguson saying Booth walked right in, with no mention of Forbes or anyone else to contend with, much less that he actually contended with him. On the other hand we have Stoddard, Lincoln' Assistant Secretary, writing that Booth presented a card to "one of the President's messengers" at the end of the inner passage, adding that either Booth or the card stated that Mr. Lincoln had sent for him. Nicolay, the President's Secretary (with Hay) later wrote that Booth showed "a card to the servant in attendance". Both of those accounts, coming as they do from White House personnel, probably came from Forbes himself--who else? It is only reasonable that someone in the White House would have questioned Forbes pretty closely after the dust had settled. Further, we have already seen that Dr. Leale, who was only 40 or so feet away, said that Booth engaged "a man" and that the man put up some resistance before finally allowing Booth to pass. This accords well with Booth's saying, in his diary, that he was stopped, but pushed on. Further, McGowan, who was almost on top of the scene, said that Booth handed a writing to the "President's messenger". Further, another eyewitness, Koontz, said that Booth told "Lincoln's servant at the door" that Lincoln had sent for him. Further, in June, 1865, a Harper's Magazine article stated that Booth was stopped by the "sentinel", but was permitted to pass when Booth told him that the President wished to see him. Gath told essentially the same story in the New York World. Observe that the last four accounts all include the element that Booth told the person at the door that Lincoln wished to see him, which is consistent with Leale's, Stoddard's and Nicolay's accounts as well as with Josiah Gilbert Holland's 1866 biography as well as Abraham Lincoln's remarks to Col. Charles Halpine concerning the ease with which he could be accessed by means of a "pass". So why did Ferguson say what he said? Probably because he wanted to sound authoritative (he later wrote a book titled "I Saw Lincoln Shot"), for monetary gain, and/or because he witnessed only part of what happened in front of the door (after all, a play was being performed), the part that followed the tete a tete between Booth and Forbes. The preponderance of the evidence (Including Hanscom's newspaper article, previously referred to) favors the conclusion that there was someone at the door, that the someone was Forbes and that he engaged Booth, though too briefly and weakly, before he was persuaded by Booth's documentation to permit him to pass, does it not? What documentation? How about a carte de visite and an authorization signed by Lincoln? Can't get much better than that.

John

Once again thank you for your response. What you said is what you said in Chapter 16. And you are very convincing! Eyewitness accounts are most important. Of course I know that every eyewitness to an event is direct evidence, but I also know that eyewitnesses are often unreliable for many reasons (this also goes for Ferguson). People may lie, or, more often, they may not see things as clearly as they believe, especially if an event occurs quickly or at a time of high stress. Moreover, people tend to see things in a way that matches their expectations. Memory can change over time, and people tend to fill in gaps in their memory without realizing it. People are often susceptible to suggestion. That said, it's my true believe that the whole Forbes-story is speculation (which doesn’t make it untrue), because there is no documentary evidence. I'm a mathematician and contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

Leotar44:

What documentary evidence do you refer to? What, in the nature of documentary or material evidence, do you suppose could exist? Would it satisfy you? We have Forbes's Affidavit, which, though it does not place him outside the presidential box (a clearly false statement, contradicted by everyone and everything else), at least establishes that he was charged with guarding the presidential party, which would, at the least, put him in the vicinity of the outer door. I think it is hazardous to rely on only one species of evidence, especially if other species exist. I quite agree with you about the fallibility of eyewitness testimony, which is why I and most prosecutors favor circumstantial evidence. It may be stronger than you realize.

In what way is the "whole Forbes story" speculation? Is not everything we believe about history in some degree speculation? History is not "what happened"; it is a record of what happened, and records are always in some degree deficient, because their creators are in some degree deficient. Anything is possible. Booth may have had a double that night. Maybe it wasn't Booth who was killed in the barn. Maybe Surratt had a double, which might explain why 5 people said he was in Elmira on the 14th and 14 said he was in Washington. Maybe O'Laughlen had a double, which might explain why 3 people said he was at Stanton's home on the 13th and 7 said he was with them carousing.

Let me offer a possibility as to why Ferguson (and Crawford) failed to mention Forbes. Booth had earlier made a dry run into the box (per Clara Harris, affirmed by Brooks). He almost certainly chose a moment when Forbes wasn't around (in the box, in the bathroom, who knows). Perhaps Ferguson and Crawford witnessed that entry and conflated it with the second entry. As I said: anything is possible, which is why we, as historians, cannot content ourselves with possibilities, but must insist on at least probabilities, inasmuch as certainty is virtually unobtainable. The probabilities re Forbes are as I have stated them.

John