Mudd, Surratt and Harbin

[loetar44]

(02-09-2016 07:59 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 06:23 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  Roger,

If Harbin's story is to believed, and in my opinion there is no reason not to believe Harbin, and if GATH is correct in describing Harbin’s recollections, than Harbin already met Booth in October,1864 and November, 1864. Would this imply that the story (generally accepted as true) that Dr. Mudd introduced Harbin (alias “Wilson”) “for the first time” to Booth at the famous Bryantown Tavern meeting on December 18, 1864 is false?

Kees, I honestly do not know. Harbin died in 1885, so the interview took place very late in Harbin's life. How was Harbin's memory at this time? I do not know. He was reciting to Gath what happened 20 years previous. There are some things in the interview that make me wonder. Here are a couple:

"On the 6th of April, eight days before the assassination, at a small hotel called the Kemble House, in the rear of the National Hotel, Booth assembled his little band, composed probably of Payne (Powell), Atzerodt, Harold, Surratt, O’Laughlin and Arnold, and said to them: “As we have been disappointed in our attempt to run this man off to the South, I am going to kill him.” He called upon them to show their hands. John Surratt, according to Booth's narrative, arose and said: “I am opposed to it. I will not stay in it.” Booth called him a coward, and told him he had better get out. The others felt the master will, and stood by Booth. That very night, according to Booth’s statement, John Surratt left Washington City for Canada, and as he was about to return he heard the tidings of the assassination somewhere in the State of New York. Surratt went to Richmond also not far from the date here given."

This April 6th meeting, etc. does not agree with what I've read in any other source.

Also:

"I asked Mr. Harbin, if he could tell me, from Booth's talk, where Harold met Booth. He said: “Harold, I think, was at the mouth of the alley on F street, seated on his horse, when Booth, after killing the president, dashed out of the alley, and they rode together through F street to Judiciary Square, and then went down to Pennsylvania Avenue and over Capitol Hill. Booth changed horses with Harold somewhere, in order to get upon the single-footed rucker which Harold had hired, and he eased from his rough-trotting horse. Booth told me that his foot did not begin to pain him much after he got on the horse until he reached Surrattsville, where they halted a very brief instant. At that halt he began to feel the pain and throbbing in his foot."

I have not previously read that Booth and Herold rode together through Washington (or that Harold was waiting in the alley). I believe there was possibly one sighting of Booth riding near the Capitol, and he was apparently alone (Oldroyd, p.240).

Maybe Harbin’s recollections are affected by old age, but I think all the facts and bits of information re. the assassination of Lincoln were still in his head and recallable / retrievable. Of course there is some breakdown with memory in old age, but only for more recent memories. Older people have difficulty with new memories and new information. But, distant past memories (certainly if it were memories with a “deep impact”) typically do not decline until the individual is very, very old. I’ve always trouble reading GATH. In my opinion, in all his writings he was mixing fact with fiction. He had met Booth years earlier, when he was drama critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer and had spoken to him briefly in D.C., just weeks before Lincoln was killed. But the detail in his writing on Booth’s life, his personality, the anecdotes, the murder, the conspirators, are astonishing to me. He always knew more (other facts) than others. How did he acquire this “in depth knowledge”? Through his OWN research! But, how reliable is his research? What is true, what is fiction? If he choose mixing fact and fiction (deliberately or -most likely- without knowing) he was gambling (and hoping?) that between the day he was sitting down to write his publications and every moment in future, the knowledge about the murder was not changing too much. But if new facts are proven true and his fictionalized (?) story is not confirmed by others, his story’s longevity is hurt. Exactly what happened in my opinion. I hope I'm not too harsh in my judgment …