Why was Booth admitted into the presidential box?

[John Fazio]

(04-24-2015 11:25 AM)L Verge Wrote:  IMO history is not “what you think” of the past, but “what happened” in the past. And if it cannot be retrieved, or completely known or understood you have to deal with that. It’s my opinion that the past cannot be fully known and if you fill in the gaps with “possibilities” or "probabilities", or things that “might” be happened, you are presenting history that will defeats itself. History is an academic discipline, not a popular pastime or a form of entertainment.

For me history is the study of the human past as it is described in e.g. written documents. I call that “documentary evidence”, belonging to any evidence in the form of documents.

Thank you, Kees, for those two paragraphs. They should be posted on every history classroom wall!

I still tend to agree with the Kauffman explanation of Parker being assigned to escort the presidential party to the theater, not to protect them once inside. I double-checked Mike's conclusions and was reminded that he had said in American Brutus that the question of protection was not brought up in 1865, and that no one expressed surprise at Lincoln being unguarded. It was not until Garfield's assassination that the idea of security was brought up and people began thinking back to the situation with Lincoln. That's when other so-called "body guards" began to reminisce.

Mike also points out that Mrs. Lincoln held Forbes responsible, and Forbes then filed a formal complaint against Parker, holding him responsible for leaving his post. His citations on this are pretty strong -- including that Parker was "assigned to the White House on detached service to the commissioner of public buildings and was paid out of the Interior Department budget to protect the building and its furnishings - not the president."

This paragraph is for John: I have now finished the chapters related to Booth and young Surratt, and your prosecuting attorney tendencies are seriously showing! You are tough on them, which I expected, but the lawyer language is starting to show as you encourage the jury (the readers) to believe things to be true that have not been clearly proven. Don't take offense, please, because it's kind of an interesting approach; and I'm picturing you in 19th-century garb as JAG Joseph Holt...

Laurie:

As for Kees's first two paragraphs, I have already addressed them directly in a reply to him.

As for Parker's responsibilities, we are not on the same page, Mike Kauffman notwithstanding. Parker and the other special policemen were BODYguards, not property guards, which is why they carried .38's. Other special policemen, including Crook (three quotes), Pendel and McElfresh, were unequivocal in their description of Parker's duties, and theirs, as far as protecting the President was concerned. Crook could not have been clearer: "(The) officers (i.e. Parker, et al.) (were) expected to protect the President on his expeditions to and from the War Department, or while he was at anyplace of amusement, and to patrol the corridor outside his room while he slept." Further, Richards and Forbes preferred charges against Parker for dereliction of duty. Surely they would not have done so if Parker had not been charged with the responsibility of protecting the President. That Parker walked after a Police Board hearing cannot be attributed to a question as to his responsibility, because without a transcript, we simply have no way of knowing, with certainty, why he was not convicted of the specification with which he was charged and which Richards and Forbes signed on to. Better reasons are given on pages 167-169 of the book. One does not need a Colt .38 to protect furniture, chandeliers, pillars, windows and balconies. See pages 152-154 and 167-169 of the book.

Please refer me to Mike's authority for Mrs. Lincoln holding Forbes responsible. I have never seen such authority. If it exists, it pretty much refutes Kees's skepticism about Forbes being at the outer door. If it doesn't exist, then we must conclude that she held Parker, not Forbes, responsible, which squares with Elizabeth Keckley's book wherein she described Mary's outburst and accusation against Parker.

As for my treatment of Booth and Surratt, you will probably be surprised to hear that in my 49-year legal career, I was never a prosecutor. I did not do a lot of criminal defense work, but I did do some. If I am harsh with these two it is, in my judgment, because the evidence leads me there, but I would very much like to have your opinions as to where you feel I have gone astray in Chapters 3 and 4.

John