Ford's Theatre Stagehands

[Tom Bogar]

(01-23-2014 09:52 AM)Jill Mitchell Wrote:  In the April 2014 issue of Civil War Times, there appears a Q&A with Thomas A. Bogar, author of Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination: The Untold Story of the Actors and Stagehands at Ford's Theatre. One of the questions asked was "Why were stagehands targeted more than actors?" in the investigation. Bogar answers that "I'm convinced that he [Stanton] was aware something was wrong backstage. ... They [the stagehands] had to have known what was going on..." These statements are somewhat troubling to me, because, in reading the book, I find no compelling evidence presented that would fortify these statements. Essentially, he implicates the Ford's Theatre stagehands because he labels Ford's as a hotbed of those with secession sympathies. I wonder to what extent this actually singles out and makes the Ford's Theatre stagehands uniquely suspect. I would suppose most every business establishment in DC had both pro-Union and pro-South employees (especially if they were Marylanders)--which could create a "hostile working environment" should those pro-South employees be vocal in their sentiments--something I would think most would not dare, for it could result in a stay in Old Capitol. Comments?

Jill, I'm sorry I was unable to get back to you sooner; I was out of town and literally out of range of both internet and decent phone signals. To answer you: while there was no one "smoking gun" (pardon the inappropriate pun) to indict the stagehands en masse, I found after eight years of compiling research on them, that the (to me) compelling (if not overwhelming) evidence, collectively listed in my footnotes and my bibliography, led me to make an informed judgment that something was, with near certainty, amiss backstage and the tendency was toward the backstage area being a hotbed of southern sympathy. The primary factors were these: 1) the pattern of overheard remarks (by more than one witness) made by persons in leadership capacities, including Gifford, Carland, Maddox and Lamb, 2) the tacit allowance of such remarks by John and Harry Ford (although John had trimmed his sails noticeably, he had a solid states-rights background ethos), 3) comments made in several newspapers before and after the event alluding to the atmosphere of Ford's experienced by actors appearing there, 4) the strong Baltimore connection of many of the backstage figures, and the concomitant Secessionist sympathies which that conveyed, from the Baltimore Plot and the Pratt Street Riots onward, 5) the near-complete lack of similar sentiments expressed by the itinerant actors, who likely knew enough to be more circumspect than the stagehands, 6) the presence and behavior of Union veteran Jake Rittersbach, being so new to the backstage group yet had asked so many questions and then became the single most damaging witness against Ned Spangler, and thus, 7) the fact that Stanton and his men (both military and non) knew so quickly exactly where and when to swoop down on whom, far more so among the stage crew than among the actors, several of whom (e.g. Mathews and Emerson) might have been in theory equally suspect. I should note that in the process, I did feel the need to discount significantly the exaggerations of that serial enhancer of the truth, Leonard Grover. Bottom line: after doing the research, I reached a point where I felt secure in making an informed judgment. Hope this helps!