Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

John Fazio · 07-29-2015, 12:34 PM

[i][i][i][i][i][i][i]

(07-28-2015 05:04 PM)L Verge Wrote: Thanks, Dave. Terry Alford was here this morning in conjunction with the second teachers' institute sponsored this month by Ford's Theatre. He had emailed me about some things just after I posted about Demond here, so I put the question to him about this man. Here's his response (after I apologized for missing Demond's name in the index for Fortune's Fool).

"The letters are prob from Barbee Papers at Georgetown or the Bates Papers there. One or the other has Demond letters.
Old-age stuff, very confused if I remember correctly."

The reference in the book is only to Demond's statement about Booth fleeing after the assassination (pg. 273). I asked about Demond's reference to the wee small hours of the night of April 13-14. Terry said he did not put it in his book because he did not believe it. If the only source is Bates, I would be extremely wary also. Even Barbee has some spurious ideas - such as Booth and Herold never stopped at the tavern here.

(07-27-2015 06:23 PM)Lincoln Wonk Wrote: Did anyone see this article on Tom Mudd in the Guardian. I think the statement from Tom about history being pliable is interesting. What do you all think?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/...onspirator

As far as history being pliable, judging by the ways the assassination story has been bent, twisted, broken, etc. over the years, I tend to agree with Tom. In my opinion, however, his family is responsible for a lot of that "flexibility" when it pertains to Dr. Sam.

Revisionist historians will also prefer to manipulate history to suit current trends. Some of the "new" interpretations can be good and some not so good. Sticking to proven facts is always best.

Laurie, Dave, et al.:

I too hope that Linda can post them, for everyone's benefit. If not, I will be happy to send copies to anyone asking for them, at no cost. Just let me know.

There are indeed few references to Demond in the literature, though, as you have learned, Terry does mention him in "Fortune's Fool". His statement that they are from the Barbee or Bates Papers may or may not be accurate. All I know is that I obtained them from the E. H. Swaim Papers at Georgetown University, right around the corner from you. Though you know that I have the highest regard for Terry, who has helped me on more than one occasion, I believe his characterization of the letters as "old-age stuff, very confused" does not do them justice. I do not understand what you mean by Demond's reference to the "wee small hours of the night of April 13-14", nor Terry's saying he didn't include it in his book because he didn't believe it. Believe what? I find no such reference in Demond's letters, unless you are referring to his saying that he saw Booth and Herold on the Maryland side of the bridge in the morning of April 14, not in the wee hours, but in the morning. He doesn't say what time it was, but we may be sure it was after 7:00 because that is the hour the gate was opened after being closed at 9:00 the previous evening, according to Demond. In his Statement, which accompanies his letter of June 12, 1916, he is explicit in his reference to seeing the men in the morning and to their also being seen by Drake, Demond's companion; one of General Auger's aides; an orderly from Lt. Dana; and Demond's superior, Corporal Sullivan. This reference receives support from a reference Demond makes in his letter of Sept. 16, 1911, to the sentries on the Maryland side thinking it strange to see Booth and Herold come back across the bridge after 10:30 pm "for it was our Guard that had kept them Prisoners in Block House until Orders came to let them go". Why should this be doubted.? What reason would Demond have to fabricate this?

In my judgment, Demond's letters and Statement are a treasure trove. It is true that there are a couple of inconsistencies in the same, but we should expect that from someone recalling events of 46 and 51 years ago. Furthermore, there are only one or two inconsistences and they are far outweighed by the consistencies, the latter in many ways telling us more than Cobb and Fletcher told us and in any case being sufficient to give us a fundamentally accurate picture of what happened at the bridge, a picture that leaves no doubt that the crossings of the fugitives were accomplished by treason.

Again I say to anyone doubting the essentials of Demond's accounts, please show me evidence that contradicts the same. In truth, I have only two problems with Demond: His saying in one letter that the Maryland side detail did not have an order re a password and countersign and his saying in another letter that they did have such an order; and his recollection that the fugitives were released between 2:00 and 3:00 in the afternoon, which cannot be accurate, because we know they were in Willard's before that time, per Julia, Ulysses and Mathews. Re the last named, here is what he said in a letter to the "National Intelligencer", published on July 18, 1867: "At that moment I observed General Grant riding by in an open carriage, carrying also his baggage. Seeing this, I called Mr. Booth's attention to him, and said, 'Why Johnny, there goes Grant. I thought he was to be coming to the theatre this evening with the President.' 'Where?' he exclaimed. I pointed to the carriage; he looked toward it, grasped my hand tightly, and galloped down the avenue after the carriage..." This account squares perfectly with Julia's account and with Ulysses's account. So why should it be doubted? Again I say to those who doubt it: Please show me evidence wihich contradicts it.

Thank you.

John