Identification of Booth's body

[Steve]

(12-29-2018 04:44 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Three, Boyd was 41, which would explain why Dr. May said the body on the Montauk looked "much older" than Booth looked the last time he'd seen him, which was just over a year earlier. When Rollins was shown a picture of Booth less than 48 hours before the barn shooting, he had no problem recognizing the picture as Booth, and the only difference he noted between the picture and how Booth looked when he saw him was that Booth had no mustache when he saw him. Rollins didn't say anything like "and, oh yeah, when I saw him, Booth looked a lot older than he does in the picture."

Mike, do you believe/assert that the "Boyd" killed at Garrett's farm the James W. Boyd of the 6th Tennessee, who was released after taking the oath of allegiance and giving a promise to spy for the Union? If not, where does this "41" age that you assert for "Boyd" come from and who are you claiming he was? Specifically which Confederate soldier(s) named "James Boyd" could've been the person killed at Garrett's Farm, if it wasn't the Boyd of the 6th Tennessee?

If you can't find such a Confederate soldier named James Boyd that could've been killed at Garrett's farm:

(a) Wouldn't that be a strong indication that the person was lying and using an alias, say I dunno… like Booth?

(b) Where does that "41" year age you give "Boyd (which matches the age of James W. Boyd of the 6th Tennessee) come from?



Getting back to Rob's point about proving a point by documented evidence... here is the letter James W. Boyd, of the 6th Tennessee, wrote on February 14, 1865 where he offers to spy for the Union if he can be released as a paroled POW. He says that he wants to spy in order to earn money to help support his 7 children who have been dependent on charity following his wife's death and to get revenge for being court-martialed twice:







The letter comes from the National Archives, Record Group 94, Microfilm M797, Roll 135. From the Baker case files of the Turner-Baker papers, original case file no. 718B.

Most importantly for the purposes of this discussion, he volunteered to spy in western Tennessee and parts of Kentucky west of the Tennessee river. He even uses his knowledge of that area and its people as a selling point on why that would make him a good spy. Boyd was released the next day, so he should've been nowhere near Maryland in April 1865 if he was specifically released to help provide for his now motherless children and spy for the Union in Tennessee.

Here's a newspaper account of James W. Boyd's 01 Jan. 1866 murder from page 2 of the 10 Jan. 1866 edition of the Memphis Daily Avalanche, first published in the West Tennessee Whig of Jackson, Tennessee



Note, this is the year following the death of the man called "Boyd" at Garrett's farm. The article doesn't mention Boyd's 6th Tennessee military service, but fortunately another source does, the diary of a local man named Robert H. Cartmell. In the last paragraph of the first page below continuing onto the top of the second page, Cartmell says the James W. Boyd killed on 01 January 1866 in Tennessee was indeed the James W. Boyd of the 6th Tennessee. That would make it impossible for him to have been the man called "Boyd" who was killed at Garrett's farm the prior year:





Link to the full Robert H. Cartmell diary collection:

http://teva.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landi...5138coll39

I hope this provides enough documented evidence that the man killed at Garrett's barn could not possibly be the James W. Boyd of the 6th Tennessee (ignoring all the evidence that it was Booth and just focusing on the documentary evidence from Boyd's life). Hopefully, it meets the standard of documentary evidence put forward by Rob to prove an argument and will be a useful instruction on how to craft an historical argument using evidence and logic.