Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

John Fazio · 04-26-2015, 02:12 AM

(04-25-2015 03:12 PM)Wild Bill Wrote: I realize that I am not much of an historian, but I think that Kees hit the nail on the head when it comes to what history is. I like to see history as three things: What really happened to our best knowledge or what Leopold von Ranke described as history as it really happened, i.e., Geschicte wie es eigenlich gewesen ist (always changing hence the arguments among historians and buffs each generation, generally known as historiography), What fiction writers use as a pattern for their popular works (which I like to call historicals), and What other writers use as a pattern for they really do not know but suspect happened (which I like to call historical fiction). I see my writing on Booth as the latter, much to the disgust and/or disbelief of many.

And, deep in my heart, I still believe that Edwin Stanton and the Radical Republicans were behind Lincoln's assassination, despite my public writings and assertions in favor of Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy.

Bill:

Good to hear from you.

Edwin Stanton? No way. Recent scholarship has thoroughly discredited Eisenschiml, Roscoe, et al. Radical Republicans? Sort of. I do not believe they were the prime movers; the Confederate government was, per your own works (principally The Last Confederate Heroes, whose conclusions I completely agree with). But I do believe there were some in the Federal government who had ties to the Confederate government and most likely played some role in the conspiracy, such as, for example, arranging for the theater engagement, arranging for Parker to be on duty that night rather than one of the other guards, possibly even the corruption of Parker (Mills thinks so), and most certainly arranging for passage of the fugitives across the Navy Yard Bridge by use of a particular password and countersign, per Demond. Nicolay wrote that some of the Radicals thought the assassination was a "Godsend", but that statement suggests a fortuitous happenstance rather than the fruit of their conspiring.

John

RJNorton · 04-26-2015, 04:10 AM

John, I am currently reading both your book and Betty's second edition. Most certainly I am enjoying both. I commend both of you!

John, I am curious about the statement Clara Harris gave which was published in the New York Herald. Here's a part:

"Nearly one hour before the commission of the deed, the assassin came to the door of the box and looked in, to take a survey of the position of its occupants. It was supposed at the time that it was either a mistake or the exercise of impertinent curiosity. The circumstance attracted no particular attention at the time. Upon his entering the box again, Maj. Rathbone rose and asked the intruder his business. He rushed past the major without making a reply, and, placing his pistol close to the back of the president’s head, actually in contact with it, fired, and instantly sprang upon the cushioned baluster of the box, when he made a backward plunge with his knife, aimed at the face or breast of Mr. Lincoln. Maj. Rathbone, springing forward to protect the president, received a stab in his arm."

As far as I know there is no other eyewitness evidence that John Wilkes Booth made a "trial run" about an hour before the assassination. Don't you find it strange that Clara was apparently the only one to see this? Also, she states, "Upon his entering the box again, Maj. Rathbone rose and asked the intruder his business." As far as I can tell this is in direct conflict with what Rathbone said - that he was intently watching the play (with his back to the door) and was not aware of Booth's presence in the box until the shot was fired.

Although Brooks does write about the Harris' account on p. 189 he also says, "Miss Harris, hearing the door open a second time, looked up and saw Booth enter deliberately but rapidly, walk up behind the President, whose face was turned toward the audience, and applying a little pistol exactly under the left ear, fire." I assume this information also comes from the Clara Harris' account?

How much veracity do you place in Harris' account? I ask because the implication seems to be that both Henry and Clara were fully aware that Booth had entered the box. This whole concept is new to me as I was of the opinion that both Clara and Henry were intently watching the play and both were not aware of anything amiss until the actual sound of the gun.

HerbS · 04-26-2015, 06:46 AM

I too,will not enter my opinion about your book John, unless I see the entire big picture.I feel that I have learned a lot about the conspiracy from Laurie.That does not mean that we are still on the same page John.

John Fazio · 04-26-2015, 07:24 AM

(04-26-2015 04:10 AM)RJNorton Wrote: John, I am currently reading both your book and Betty's second edition. Most certainly I am enjoying both. I commend both of you!

John, I am curious about the statement Clara Harris gave which was published in the New York Herald. Here's a part:

"Nearly one hour before the commission of the deed, the assassin came to the door of the box and looked in, to take a survey of the position of its occupants. It was supposed at the time that it was either a mistake or the exercise of impertinent curiosity. The circumstance attracted no particular attention at the time. Upon his entering the box again, Maj. Rathbone rose and asked the intruder his business. He rushed past the major without making a reply, and, placing his pistol close to the back of the president’s head, actually in contact with it, fired, and instantly sprang upon the cushioned baluster of the box, when he made a backward plunge with his knife, aimed at the face or breast of Mr. Lincoln. Maj. Rathbone, springing forward to protect the president, received a stab in his arm."

As far as I know there is no other eyewitness evidence that John Wilkes Booth made a "trial run" about an hour before the assassination. Don't you find it strange that Clara was apparently the only one to see this? Also, she states, "Upon his entering the box again, Maj. Rathbone rose and asked the intruder his business." As far as I can tell this is in direct conflict with what Rathbone said - that he was intently watching the play (with his back to the door) and was not aware of Booth's presence in the box until the shot was fired.

Although Brooks does write about the Harris' account on p. 189 he also says, "Miss Harris, hearing the door open a second time, looked up and saw Booth enter deliberately but rapidly, walk up behind the President, whose face was turned toward the audience, and applying a little pistol exactly under the left ear, fire." I assume this information also comes from the Clara Harris' account?

How much veracity do you place in Harris' account? I ask because the implication seems to be that both Henry and Clara were fully aware that Booth had entered the box. This whole concept is new to me as I was of the opinion that both Clara and Henry were intently watching the play and both were not aware of anything amiss until the actual sound of the gun.

In my opinion Booth did intrude briefly, just as Clara described it. She had absolutely no motivation to invent this story and it makes perfect sense from Booth's standpoint. That said, however, I do not accept the statement that Rathbone inquired of the intruder the nature of his business when he entered the box the second time. Clara added that embellishment, obviously, to protect her fiance', because she realized that he would otherwise be subject to criticism for inaction before the shot was fired. Rathbone's affidavits and statements make no mention of such an inquiry. The intruder could not have been Hanscomb, for reasons given in the book (p. 163). We may accept as certain, therefore, that Booth made a dry run, opened the Box 8 door, looked in briefly to survey the position of the occupants, possible security arrangements and the presence of any other possible impediment, and then withdrew. Clara's stating "Upon his entering the box again" proves that the intruder and the assassin were the same man. We may also accept as certain that Lincoln, Mary and Rathbone did not see the intruder because they were facing away from the door toward the stage. Clara, on the other hand, was facing partially toward the door and would therefore notice the intrusion in her peripheral vision. She said nothing to the others because she "supposed it to be a mistake or the exercise of an impertinent curiosity" and it was therefore unimportant to her, not worthy of comment to the others. We may also accept as certain that Rathbone said nothing to Booth when he entered the box the second time.

John

loetar44 · (This post was last modified: 04-26-2015 08:19 AM by loetar44.)

(04-26-2015 12:54 AM)John Fazio Wrote: "...Forbes was never mentioned before...the 1980s..." But I have already shown that he was mentioned, expressly, by name, by Hanscom in his newspaper on June 8, 1865, and impliedly, as the President's "messenger", "usher", "servant", "servant at the door" or "sentinel", by McGowan, Dr. Leale, Dr. Todd, Koontz, Harper's Magazine, Booth himself (through Herold), Gath, Stoddard and Nicolay, all between 1865 and 1902.

Right, Hanscom mentioned Forbes by name (“upon reaching the door we found no other person belonging to the President’s household than Mr. Charles Forbes”), but that was 20 minutes before the assassination and it says nothing where Forbes was at the time of Booth’s entrance into the theater.

McGowan declared that Booth indicated (in an unspoken request) to him his desire to pass and that, while passing, he was blocking his view of the play, but he said nothing about Forbes.

Dr. Leale spoke about a disturbance at the door of the President’s box and that he saw a man endeavoring to persuade the reluctant usher to admit him; but nothing about Forbes.

Dr. Todd “observed” a man walking along side the Presidential box and declared that this man removed an object, possibly a pack of calling cards, from his coat and offered a card to the man who was seated outside the box; he identified the recipient of the card as an “usher” , not as Forbes.

Koontz wrote that Booth went through the door of the box and told the man who was Lincolns servant at the door, that Lincoln had sent for him. He was about 15 ft (4.5 meters) from the box, how could he have heard that?

In Harper's Magazine article is spoken about a “sentinel” who stopped Booth. Booth (through Herold) spoke of “a soldier or officer [was] trying to prevent him from going into the box” ( a man in uniform?). Gatch simply recall that Booth moved into the presidential box but mention no person outside the box.

Stoddard and Nicolay (were they eyewitnesses?) spoke (years later) about Booth presenting his card to the President’s messenger, but don’t mention Forbes (?).

Don’t forget Ferguson and Troutner. They mention no person outside the box.

I said it before (see post 57), that there is not the slightest doubt in my mind, that there was “someone” sitting near the outer door of the president’s box, but I say it again: there is no hard evidence to support that this “someone” was most definitely Charles Forbes. The real identity of the man outside the box is impossible to establish. Yes, it could have been the presidential messenger by the name of Forbes, but it could also have been someone else. And as long as we have no hard evidence we may NOT conclude that it was Forbes and nobody else.

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 04-26-2015 11:05 AM by L Verge.)

"If one begins with a false premise, one must come to a false conclusion."

But I always thought that a good researcher (whether in scientific fields or history and others), would change conclusions once they found their premise didn't hold water....?

John, This old oak is more like the Willow Oak that bends and sways a bit in the breeze. It has allowed me to survive for forty years at Surratt House. I respect your work, especially the efforts you have gone through in doing research. I have told people for forty years that I am not a researcher. I thrive on the work of others that educates me and causes me to think. It is from their work, and now yours, that I draw conclusions.

We used to tease (and depend on) John C. Brennan about being the Lincoln assassination grapevine. He was a great researcher, but he also loved to spread the word about new finds, new people joining our group, new books, etc. as well as offering encouragement - and criticism - from time to time. I want to be just like him when I grow up.

I am pretty sure that your book is going to create quite a stir and, hopefully, get more people reading and thinking -- even those who think they already know it all. If it comes closer to making people reexamine the Judah Benjamin angle, even better.

HerbS · 04-26-2015, 11:53 AM

Dry runs are common with a planned out attack by criminals.Great job of research John!

John Fazio · 04-26-2015, 03:25 PM

(04-26-2015 08:07 AM)loetar44 Wrote:
(04-26-2015 12:54 AM)John Fazio Wrote: "...Forbes was never mentioned before...the 1980s..." But I have already shown that he was mentioned, expressly, by name, by Hanscom in his newspaper on June 8, 1865, and impliedly, as the President's "messenger", "usher", "servant", "servant at the door" or "sentinel", by McGowan, Dr. Leale, Dr. Todd, Koontz, Harper's Magazine, Booth himself (through Herold), Gath, Stoddard and Nicolay, all between 1865 and 1902.

Right, Hanscom mentioned Forbes by name (“upon reaching the door we found no other person belonging to the President’s household than Mr. Charles Forbes”), but that was 20 minutes before the assassination and it says nothing where Forbes was at the time of Booth’s entrance into the theater.

McGowan declared that Booth indicated (in an unspoken request) to him his desire to pass and that, while passing, he was blocking his view of the play, but he said nothing about Forbes.

Dr. Leale spoke about a disturbance at the door of the President’s box and that he saw a man endeavoring to persuade the reluctant usher to admit him; but nothing about Forbes.

Dr. Todd “observed” a man walking along side the Presidential box and declared that this man removed an object, possibly a pack of calling cards, from his coat and offered a card to the man who was seated outside the box; he identified the recipient of the card as an “usher” , not as Forbes.

Koontz wrote that Booth went through the door of the box and told the man who was Lincolns servant at the door, that Lincoln had sent for him. He was about 15 ft (4.5 meters) from the box, how could he have heard that?

In Harper's Magazine article is spoken about a “sentinel” who stopped Booth. Booth (through Herold) spoke of “a soldier or officer [was] trying to prevent him from going into the box” ( a man in uniform?). Gatch simply recall that Booth moved into the presidential box but mention no person outside the box.

Stoddard and Nicolay (were they eyewitnesses?) spoke (years later) about Booth presenting his card to the President’s messenger, but don’t mention Forbes (?).

Don’t forget Ferguson and Troutner. They mention no person outside the box.

I said it before (see post 57), that there is not the slightest doubt in my mind, that there was “someone” sitting near the outer door of the president’s box, but I say it again: there is no hard evidence to support that this “someone” was most definitely Charles Forbes. The real identity of the man outside the box is impossible to establish. Yes, it could have been the presidential messenger by the name of Forbes, but it could also have been someone else. And as long as we have no hard evidence we may NOT conclude that it was Forbes and nobody else.

Kees:

Your elephant is nothing if not tenacious.

To begin with, one cannot say with certainty, as you do, that Hanscomb arrived 20 minutes before Booth. Reck puts it at 5 minutes. Let us just say that it was somewhere between 5 and 20 minutes when we know with certainty that Forbes was in front of the door. If he was not there when Booth arrived, but someone was, per McGowan, Leale, Booth (through Herold), Todd, Koontz, Harper's, Gath, Stoddard and Nicolay, then who could it have been, inasmuch as we know that the only three people to accompany the presidential party to the theatre were Burke, Parker and Forbes, and Burke was, by his own admission, sitting in the carriage in the street, and Parker admitted to Mary Todd that he wasn't at the door ("Why were you not at the door to keep the assassin out...?"; "I did wrong, I admit...I was attracted by the play , and did not see the assassin enter the box.") Who is left? Forbes! Let me say it again for emphasis: Forbes!!!

You misquoted McGowan. He also said: "He took a small pack of visiting-cards from his pocket, selecting one...and then showed it to the President's messenger, who was sitting just below him." Again, who was the messenger, if Forbes was positively placed there 5 to 20 minutes earlier, Burke was in the carriage and Parker admitted he wasn't there? What is the only reasonable conclusion???

Drs. Leale and Todd did not name Forbes, because they did not know his name. Few did. They therefore used a descriptor.

As for Koontz, the issue is not what was said, but who was at the door. "Lincoln's servant at the door" is a fine descriptor for Forbes.

Harper's Magazine's use of the word "sentinel" and Herold's use of the words "soldier or officer" are completely consistent with Forbes's identity taking into account the passage of time and human inexactitude with respect to the title of an unknown White House officer.

Stoddard's and Nicolay's use of the title "messenger" is likewise perfectly consistent with Forbes's identity.

Ferguson? He wasn't 15 feet away, like Koontz, or 5 feet like McGowan; he was on the other side of the theatre, directly opposite the President's box in the front dress circle. He got the time of the attack wrong and he also got the time in the play wrong. He also said he heard Booth "halloo" out of the box "Revenge for the South", when no one else said they heard that line from the box. Troutner? He was in the family circle, the balcony above the dress circle and the presidential box. Among other errors, he said that Atzerodt was to kill Johnson. He also has the time of the play wrong. Why believe these in preference to the witnesses and commentators named above, all of whom are contrary?

If you still doubt that it was Forbes at the door, in spite of the foregoing, then you may as well doubt everything else about the history of the event. There are those, after all, who believe that Stanton or Lafayette Baker or the Vatican masterminded the conspiracy, that Booth wasn't really killed in the barn, that Surratt was a double agent working for Baker, and so on ad nauseam. If you require 100% certainty for your conclusions, you will have very few conclusions.

John

loetar44 · (This post was last modified: 04-26-2015 04:26 PM by loetar44.)

(04-26-2015 03:25 PM)John Fazio Wrote: If you still doubt that it was Forbes at the door, in spite of the foregoing, then you may as well doubt everything else about the history of the event. There are those, after all, who believe that Stanton or Lafayette Baker or the Vatican masterminded the conspiracy, that Booth wasn't really killed in the barn, that Surratt was a double agent working for Baker, and so on ad nauseam. If you require 100% certainty for your conclusions, you will have very few conclusions.

John

John,

Thank you so much. I really enjoyed our discussion and I have to confess that I’m leaning to your views more and more. Your book is a goldmine of information and surely belongs on every book shelve of any Lincoln addict. I’ve learned a lot, but, sorry, I’m still not 100% convinced. You have not changed my opinion on history, but yours is very interesting. Our conversation made me aware of additional aspects, which I appreciate very much. Thank you for a great “course”. Your remark "If you require 100% certainty for your conclusions, you will have very few conclusions", is a great one to keep in mind always!

Kees

Eva Elisabeth · (This post was last modified: 04-26-2015 06:43 PM by Eva Elisabeth.)

I just want to thank all contributors for a highly interesting and enjoyable discussion, thrilling like a soccer World Cup final. And I am looking forward to read Mr. Fazio's book to make up my opinion!

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 04-26-2015 06:01 PM by L Verge.)

(04-26-2015 07:24 AM)John Fazio Wrote:
(04-26-2015 04:10 AM)RJNorton Wrote: John, I am currently reading both your book and Betty's second edition. Most certainly I am enjoying both. I commend both of you!

John, I am curious about the statement Clara Harris gave which was published in the New York Herald. Here's a part:

"Nearly one hour before the commission of the deed, the assassin came to the door of the box and looked in, to take a survey of the position of its occupants. It was supposed at the time that it was either a mistake or the exercise of impertinent curiosity. The circumstance attracted no particular attention at the time. Upon his entering the box again, Maj. Rathbone rose and asked the intruder his business. He rushed past the major without making a reply, and, placing his pistol close to the back of the president’s head, actually in contact with it, fired, and instantly sprang upon the cushioned baluster of the box, when he made a backward plunge with his knife, aimed at the face or breast of Mr. Lincoln. Maj. Rathbone, springing forward to protect the president, received a stab in his arm."

As far as I know there is no other eyewitness evidence that John Wilkes Booth made a "trial run" about an hour before the assassination. Don't you find it strange that Clara was apparently the only one to see this? Also, she states, "Upon his entering the box again, Maj. Rathbone rose and asked the intruder his business." As far as I can tell this is in direct conflict with what Rathbone said - that he was intently watching the play (with his back to the door) and was not aware of Booth's presence in the box until the shot was fired.

Although Brooks does write about the Harris' account on p. 189 he also says, "Miss Harris, hearing the door open a second time, looked up and saw Booth enter deliberately but rapidly, walk up behind the President, whose face was turned toward the audience, and applying a little pistol exactly under the left ear, fire." I assume this information also comes from the Clara Harris' account?

How much veracity do you place in Harris' account? I ask because the implication seems to be that both Henry and Clara were fully aware that Booth had entered the box. This whole concept is new to me as I was of the opinion that both Clara and Henry were intently watching the play and both were not aware of anything amiss until the actual sound of the gun.

In my opinion Booth did intrude briefly, just as Clara described it. She had absolutely no motivation to invent this story and it makes perfect sense from Booth's standpoint. That said, however, I do not accept the statement that Rathbone inquired of the intruder the nature of his business when he entered the box the second time. Clara added that embellishment, obviously, to protect her fiance', because she realized that he would otherwise be subject to criticism for inaction before the shot was fired. Rathbone's affidavits and statements make no mention of such an inquiry. The intruder could not have been Hanscomb, for reasons given in the book (p. 163). We may accept as certain, therefore, that Booth made a dry run, opened the Box 8 door, looked in briefly to survey the position of the occupants, possible security arrangements and the presence of any other possible impediment, and then withdrew. Clara's stating "Upon his entering the box again" proves that the intruder and the assassin were the same man. We may also accept as certain that Lincoln, Mary and Rathbone did not see the intruder because they were facing away from the door toward the stage. Clara, on the other hand, was facing partially toward the door and would therefore notice the intrusion in her peripheral vision. She said nothing to the others because she "supposed it to be a mistake or the exercise of an impertinent curiosity" and it was therefore unimportant to her, not worthy of comment to the others. We may also accept as certain that Rathbone said nothing to Booth when he entered the box the second time.

John

So now, this means that Forbes was called upon three times to admit someone to the presidential box? Hanscome and Booth twice? So much for security - the whole audience might as well have taken turns! And history records Parker as being negligent of duty... And, I don't believe Clara; I think she was covering her fiance's tail feathers.

RobertLC · 04-26-2015, 05:50 PM

I agree with EE, this has been a great discussion.

However, at this point in time, I also agree with Roger. I have not read any other eyewitness accounts of the assassination that noted Booth making an earlier visit to the State Box. There are, of course, accounts of his entry immediately prior to the shot. But I’m unaware of any other accounts of Booth making an earlier inspection.

How did everyone miss that? Even Clara Harris makes no mention of it in her letter of April 29, 1865, that Tim Good included in his book.

I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I’ve just not seen any corroborating evidence to support it.

My thanks to everyone who has contributed. Really interesting!

Bob

L Verge · 04-26-2015, 06:34 PM

John - I forgot to say that I read the chapter on Mary Surratt today. I could have written it myself! I still disagree with your assessment of Booth and John, Jr., but I concur on your judgment of Mary. I still think the three were in it for love of what they thought their country had been and should continue to be. Lincoln was a Republican; they were republicans.

P.S. Don't let her ghost hear me say that. I have enough problems with real people without getting her ghost mad at me!

Susan Higginbotham · 04-26-2015, 06:47 PM

The first part of Clara's statement--"Nearly one hour before the commission of the deed, the assassin came to the door of the box and looked in, to take a survey of the position of its occupants. It was supposed at the time that it was either a mistake or the exercise of impertinent curiosity. The circumstance attracted no particular attention at the time"--doesn't read like an eyewitness account to me, especially with the passive language of the second and third sentence. Even allowing for the greater formality of 19th-century language, I would expect Clara to say something like, "I supposed at the time that it was either the exercise of impertinent curiosity. The circumstance did not concern me at the time," if she had actually witnessed Booth make a trial run.

The second part of her account does sound to me like the product of her own observations, though I too suspect she was embroidering her account to protect her fiance.

John Fazio · (This post was last modified: 04-26-2015 07:55 PM by John Fazio.)

(04-26-2015 10:52 AM)L Verge Wrote: "If one begins with a false premise, one must come to a false conclusion."

But I always thought that a good researcher (whether in scientific fields or history and others), would change conclusions once they found their premise didn't hold water....?

John, This old oak is more like the Willow Oak that bends and sways a bit in the breeze. It has allowed me to survive for forty years at Surratt House. I respect your work, especially the efforts you have gone through in doing research. I have told people for forty years that I am not a researcher. I thrive on the work of others that educates me and causes me to think. It is from their work, and now yours, that I draw conclusions.

We used to tease (and depend on) John C. Brennan about being the Lincoln assassination grapevine. He was a great researcher, but he also loved to spread the word about new finds, new people joining our group, new books, etc. as well as offering encouragement - and criticism - from time to time. I want to be just like him when I grow up.

I am pretty sure that your book is going to create quite a stir and, hopefully, get more people reading and thinking -- even those who think they already know it all. If it comes closer to making people reexamine the Judah Benjamin angle, even better.

Laurie:

Thanks. I expect it to kick up some dust too. But that's OK; as it says in the Intro, when has anything worthwhile ever been accomplished without dust, feathers flying, etc. I like to quote Maurice Maeterlinck: "At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past." Something like that. So true. I know that "Come Retribution" caused a lot of controversy. And poor James McPherson: All he said was that the authenticity of the Dahlgren Papers was "contestable" and the heavens opened up on him. I happen to believe, with Wittenberg, that they are authentic, but that the offensive orders didn't come from Lincoln, but from Stanton, which explains why Stanton ordered them to be returned to him after Richmond fell and why they then disappeared.

John

(04-26-2015 04:25 PM)loetar44 Wrote:
(04-26-2015 03:25 PM)John Fazio Wrote: If you still doubt that it was Forbes at the door, in spite of the foregoing, then you may as well doubt everything else about the history of the event. There are those, after all, who believe that Stanton or Lafayette Baker or the Vatican masterminded the conspiracy, that Booth wasn't really killed in the barn, that Surratt was a double agent working for Baker, and so on ad nauseam. If you require 100% certainty for your conclusions, you will have very few conclusions.

John

John,

Thank you so much. I really enjoyed our discussion and I have to confess that I’m leaning to your views more and more. Your book is a goldmine of information and surely belongs on every book shelve of any Lincoln addict. I’ve learned a lot, but, sorry, I’m still not 100% convinced. You have not changed my opinion on history, but yours is very interesting. Our conversation made me aware of additional aspects, which I appreciate very much. Thank you for a great “course”. Your remark "If you require 100% certainty for your conclusions, you will have very few conclusions", is a great one to keep in mind always!

Kees

Thank you Kees. Your "leaning" puts me in mind of the following poem:

It is clear you needed weaning
In my direction now you're leaning
Few things in life are keener
Than to be a damned good weaner

What would be wrong with your using your second sentence above, plus the next four words, followed by an ellipsis, as a review for Amazon. The Amazon entry for the book has space for five reviews. That would be a fine review. You can say anything else you care to, in place of or in addition to the suggested material, as long as you don't tell the world what you REALY think of the book and its author.

I'm a kidder. Love to laugh and make others laugh.

John

By the way. My wife and I were in the Netherlands a couple of years ago, principally Amsterdam, the Hague, Delft, etc. We loved the country. "Nightwatch" at the Art Museum in Amsterdam was probably the high point. I am amazed that a country that is 25% under water became one of the most dominant economic powers in the world, fought the mighty British navy to a draw and spread its influence everywhere. It surely says something about the tenacity of her people, of which I have recently been treated to an example.

(04-26-2015 04:50 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: I just want to thank all contributors for a highly interesting and enjoyable discussion, thrilling like a soccer World Cup final. And I am looking forward to read Mr. Fazio's book to make up my opinion!

Eva:

Thank you.

John

(04-26-2015 05:50 PM)RobertLC Wrote: I agree with EE, this has been a great discussion.

However, at this point in time, I also agree with Roger. I have not read any other eyewitness accounts of the assassination that noted Booth making an earlier visit to the State Box. There are, of course, accounts of his entry immediately prior to the shot. But I’m unaware of any other accounts of Booth making an earlier inspection.

How did everyone miss that? Even Clara Harris makes no mention of it in her letter of April 29, 1865, that Tim Good included in his book.

I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I’ve just not seen any corroborating evidence to support it.

My thanks to everyone who has contributed. Really interesting!

Bob

Bob:

It is not unusual for evidence to be without corroboration. We then accept it or reject it according to other criteria: its believability, its relevance, the credibility of the witness, the witness's demeanor, etc. In this case, I accept Clara's statement re the dry run because she had no motivation whatsoever to fabricate it. Being a senator's daughter and the choice of a man like Rathbone to be his wife, I assume she was a woman of character and integrity. There is nothing self-serving about her description of the intrusion.

John