Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

John Fazio · (This post was last modified: 07-29-2015 11:24 PM by John Fazio.)

(07-29-2015 03:41 PM)Wild Bill Wrote: I agree, the material I looked at only referred to Booth leaving and not coming into the city. One soldier on the Uniontown side of the bridge threatened to shoot Booth if he did not slow down and walk his horse. There was some regret that they had not been more vigilant with Booth and Herold, but the two fugitives followed protocol, which was provided to Booth by Mary Surratt after she and Weichmann returned from Surrattsville. I assume that Weichmann got the passwords at the War Dept.?

Wild Bill:

IMO you were doing OK until you got to Mary Surratt and Weichmann. She is most unlikely to have had anything to do with protocol at the bridge; she was merely an enabler, a helper, a courier, perhaps a confidant. Further, Weichmann almost certainly had nothing to do with the password and countersign. If he had, he would have had to be part of the conspiracy. He was not. He may have passed some classified information to Surratt and others of a like mind, but that does not make him part of the conspiracy. Surratt himself said they left him out because he could neither ride nor shoot. Mike Kauffman said that Weichmann would have been the last person Booth would bring into his conspiracy. Demond said the password and countersign were delivered to the Maryland-side detail by either Cobb or Dana himself. Again, suspicion falls on Dana, unless he received the word and sign from a superior.

John

(07-29-2015 08:12 PM)Houmes Wrote:
(07-29-2015 07:13 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote: There are only two sources (that I know of) that espouse the idea that there was any sort of password/sign countersign. They are Finis Bates and Frederick Demond.

Let's be clear, Finis Bates was the first person to claim that there was a sign and countersign at the Navy Yard bridge. He claimed to have received this realization from John St. Helen aka "John Wilkes Booth". According to St. Helen, he was told by Vice President Johnson to use the sign "T.B." and "T.B. Road" in order to get over the Navy Yard bridge without incident. This is the story that Bates includes in his book. As we all know, John St. Helen was not John Wilkes Booth and therefore the entire story was fictional. Either St. Helen or Bates, is lying.

Bates, the crafty man that he is, doubles down on the fictional password scenario however. He attempts to prove its legitimacy by providing two statements. One of them is a newspaper article from 1897 from David Dana. Dana commanded the troops of the 13th NY Cavalry and stationed his men at Bryantown. It was to Dana that George Mudd, reported the arrival of two strangers to his cousin, Dr. Samuel Mudd's, farm. Sadly, Dana sat on this information for some time before sending men out to investigate. Therefore Dana would have had a good, and true, story to tell in 1897. However, in addition to painting himself in a far more heroic light, Dana's 1897 account also added a new, and suspect, story.

According to Dana in 1897:

Quote: "On Friday, April 14, 1865, two men appeared before the guard on the road leading into Washington from the east. Refusing to give their names or state their business, they were arrested and put in the guard tent, whence they were to be sent to headquarters. This was about 1 o'clock in the afternoon. In an hour or two they gave their names as Booth and Herold."

While it is thought that David Herold was in Southern Maryland on the night of April 13th, and therefore would be making his way back into D.C. on the morning of the 14th, it is well established that Booth was in Washington, D.C. all day on April 14th until his escape. David Dana is once again either embellishing his story or the passage of thirty two years has caused understandable errors in his memory.

But here's my favorite part. Not only does Bates spend an entire chapter of his book supporting and attempting to convince us all that David Dana is supporting the claims made by John St. Helen, but, in the very next chapter, Bates is attempting to prove that David Dana had prior knowledge of Lincoln's assassination. Bates writes, "In this connection I challenge to the conduct of Gen. Dana, as we left him at Bryantown resting under the seeming shadows of treacherous conduct..." It is important to note that David Dana died in 1906, and that Bates published his book one year later, in 1907. It's easier to libel a dead man who can't defend himself.

Thus far however, all Bates has "proven" is that John St. Helen's story meshes with part of Dana's dated narrative. Dana, however, makes NO mention of any password or countersign. Bates claims this is because Dana was party to the assassination plot and therefore withheld admitting this piece. In order to "prove" St. Helen's password story, Bates relies on Demond.

A few years back while researching the files of Fred Black at Oakland University, I was allowed to photocopy all of his files dealing with the Enid mummy. It quickly became apparent that Finis Bates played fast and loose with the facts, browbeat Blanche DeBar Booth into signing an affidavit she later repudiated, and wrote his book ascribing facts supplied by various individuals which were not in the letters they returned to answer his query letters sent to them. I have copies of three letters from December 28, 1897, January 17, 1898, and February 17, 1898, from Gen. Dana to Bates diplomatically correcting him on his interpretation of the assassination and pursuit of Booth. None of the letters mention crossing the bridge, and focus instead on the tintype of the alleged John St. Helen and which leg Booth broke. The actor Joseph Jefferson replied to Bates in a letter dated 1903, advising him the tintype looked nothing like John Wilkes Booth, yet Finis Bates did not include Jefferson's letter in his book and on the contrary stated Jefferson had dramatically claimed the image was Booth.

Finis Bates was a scoundrel.

Dr. Houmes:

I believe that everyone who knows anything about the assassination and its literature had already come to the conclusion that Bates was either a fool or a knave, probably both. You have shown him to be a scoundrel, which I shall take as synonymous with knave. However, I am making use of Demond's and Dana's original letters and statements, not Bates's reprints, interpretations, alterations or fraudulent use or nonuse of the same.

John

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 07-30-2015 09:24 AM by L Verge.)

"On Friday, April 14, 1865, two men appeared before the guard on the road leading into Washington from the east. Refusing to give their names or state their business, they were arrested and put in the guard tent, whence they were to be sent to headquarters. This was about 1 o'clock in the afternoon. In an hour or two they gave their names as Booth and Herold."

John - this is the previous passage that I remembered reading earlier in which I got the impression that Booth and Herold were stopped from entering the city early in the morning and held for several hours. It struck a chord with me because of my family's story that Herold left our home before the family got up on the morning of the 14th. Mr. Huntt had a store to run, and Mrs. Huntt had a four-year-old daughter and a two-month-old infant son - both good reasons for getting up early. Herold's sister also said that he was home in D.C. in time to have breakfast with them. I also knew that Booth's movements in D.C. were well-documented that day and that spending time in a guardhouse was not on the agenda.

This sign/counter-sign/password debate is interesting. Dave Taylor has posted a great excerpt from a CW diary maintained by Julia Wilbur, an abolitionist sent to D.C. to assist the escaping (then freed) slaves. I'll have to re-read it, but I swear she talks about crossing from Alexandria into the city with ease because the security on the bridges has been relaxed. See BoothieBarn.com

Wild Bill · 07-30-2015, 09:52 AM

John Fazio, every time you say IMO or In My Opinion what you say is surmise.

So now we are back to Dana, whose real boss was Stanton, huh ? You see, like most subalterns, he served as a provost marshal besides being an officer in a Heavy Artillery regiment. That puts him under Stanton directly. Back to Balsiger and Sellier.

To all those who say Mary Surratt could not have been in it deep enough to pass the passwords and countersigns, you do not know Southern women, or Mary Surratt. Ever lived in the South, John Fazio? I have. There are more tough, independent Scarlett O'Hara's than you can shake a stick at. Who do you think ran all those plantations when the men were off galavanting before and during and even after the war? Read the Freedmen's Bureau records--I have for my book on the Bureau in Texas. Or Catherine Clinton's The Plantation Mistress.

Watch it whenever a Southern woman says with sincerity, "Why, bless your heart, Dahlin'." That's code for how much they admire your stupidity.

As for Weichmann, I am sure that he was more involved than you (or he) want to admit, IMO. Oops! Bad form!

Dave Taylor · 07-30-2015, 10:08 AM

(07-30-2015 09:22 AM)L Verge Wrote: This sign/counter-sign/password debate is interesting. Dave Taylor has posted a great excerpt from a CW diary maintained by Julia Wilbur, an abolitionist sent to D.C. to assist the escaping (then freed) slaves. I'll have to re-read it, but I swear she talks about crossing from Alexandria into the city with ease because the security on the bridges has been relaxed. See BoothieBarn.com

Here's the passage you are referring to Laurie. It also stuck out to me when I was reading it.

April 15, 1865:

"...Mr. Belding has just come in and & says the secesh are being arrested. The military authorities have been very lenient with secesh lately. No passes have been required for a month or more."

I do not understand some authors' need to believe in a grand conspiracy of passwords or treachery in order for Booth to get across the bridge. The old adage states, when you hear hoof beats, think horses not zebras. The password scenario is a zebra, overly complicated for an inherently basic situation. As Ms. Wilbur helps to show, strict adherence to the rules where becoming more lenient around the D.C. area. Booth would have known and seen this and so he knew he would have no issue talking his way out of D.C. As long as he was ahead of the news of Lincoln's assassination, he would be fine. Should Cobb have passed Booth? If he was enforcing the laws with strict adherence, then no, technically not. But basic human leniency and understanding can't fault Cobb for allowing people to leave D.C. after hours, especially since the Civil War was very obviously winding down. By this point even the only conceivable threat to the city, an attack of some sort from the outside, was close to negligible. Yet we have to credit Cobb for enforcing that rule by telling Booth, Herold, and Fletcher that if they left Washington, they would not be able to return until morning.

I equate it all to this. Not too long ago, the FAA determined that cell phone usage on an airplane wasn't dangerous during take off or landing. I was on a flight shortly after that announcement was made. When I was on the plane, the flight attendant informed us that Southwest had not yet changed their rules regarding cell phone usage, but understandably told us all that if we did keep our phones on she "wouldn't tattle". All of us on the plane were grateful to the flight attendant for understanding and allowing us to keep our phones on.

Did the flight attendant break the rules by allowing us all to keep our phones on? Yes. If a terrorist had then used his phone to hijack the plane and crash us into something, would people blame the flight attendant? Of course. But that did not happen. Instead we had a completely normal flight. The bridge crossing is the exact same. There was no treachery and no passwords at the Navy Yard Bridge. It was a simple case of understandable and casual "negligence" on the part of intelligent men who knew the rules would be changing soon and started to show some leniency.

John Fazio · 07-30-2015, 10:16 AM

[i]

(07-30-2015 09:22 AM)L Verge Wrote: "On Friday, April 14, 1865, two men appeared before the guard on the road leading into Washington from the east. Refusing to give their names or state their business, they were arrested and put in the guard tent, whence they were to be sent to headquarters. This was about 1 o'clock in the afternoon. In an hour or two they gave their names as Booth and Herold."

John - this is the previous passage that I remembered reading earlier in which I got the impression that Booth and Herold were stopped from entering the city early in the morning and held for several hours. It struck a chord with me because of my family's story that Herold left our home before the family got up on the morning of the 14th. Mr. Huntt had a store to run, and Mrs. Huntt had a four-year-old daughter and a two-month-old infant son - both good reasons for getting up early. Herold's sister also said that he was home in D.C. in time to have breakfast with them. I also knew that Booth's movements in D.C. were well-documented that day and that spending time in a guardhouse was not on the agenda.

This sign/counter-sign/password debate is interesting. Dave Taylor has posted a great excerpt from a CW diary maintained by Julia Wilbur, an abolitionist sent to D.C. to assist the escaping (then freed) slaves. I'll have to re-read it, but I swear she talks about crossing from Alexandria into the city with ease because the security on the bridges has been relaxed. See BoothieBarn.com

Laurie:

I am not prepared to dismiss Demond's letters and statement that easily. I believe they can be reconciled with your family history and other information. The only error i see him making is the time when they were finally let go. It could not have been as late as he says it was, because we know that Herold was at Willard's about mid-day and Booth was there shortly thereafter for the luncheon, probably after he left Ford's Theatre, where he went to pick up and read some of his mail around noon. Demond was recalling events of 46 and 51 years ago, when he was a boy of 18. It is understandable that he would have erred with respect to time. Think of ourselves trying to recall with accuracy events that occurred in 1964 and 1969. My rough scenario is as follows: They emerge from overnight stays in Maryland and show up at the Maryland side of the bridge early in the mnorning. They are detained, but then released on the say of an Augur aide and a Dana orderly. They then cross the bridge. Herold probably stops at home and while there has breakfast. At mid-day he shows up at Julia Grant's suite at Willard's. Booth stops three times at Mary Surratt's in the course of the day. He shows up at the theatre for his mail about noon and leaves in about a half hour. He already knows where Lincoln will be that night (per Tidwell,Hall and Gaddy). He joins Herold, Atzerodt and Powell in the dining room at Willard's for Julia's luncheon. In the afternoon he performs carpentry at the theatre. He has an accidental meeting with Mathews on the avenue, giving him the letter he had written earlier for publication in the National Intelligencer. Here, too, he finds out that Grant is leaving the city after Mathews draws his attention to the Grants' carriage. He goes to Willard's and finds out where the Grants are going and then makes arrangements to have an assassin on board the train to Burlington. The rest (the horse, his trips to the theatre, his drinking with Spangler and others, etc.) is well known. Such a scenario incorporates the evidence we have from Demond, Julia, Ulysses, Mathews, the Fords, Weichmann and others.

John

L Verge · 07-30-2015, 11:06 AM

As long as you admit, John, that this is YOUR "rough scenario."

My thoughts are that only Herold spent the night outside of D.C. and that he likely arose about 5 am. A quick ride into the city from T.B. would still take at least two hours, getting him back when the bridge opened at 7 am (if that schedule still existed). My scenario has Booth spending the night in D.C., and I would like to romanticize and think it was spent with Ella. I also do not subscribe to Julia Grant's theory that she was being watched by the gang at lunch. I don't think they were the least bit interested in the distaff side of the Grants.

Again, this is just my theory and I cannot engrave it in stone. IMO, too much speculation has been inserted into the documented history of the assassination over the past 150 years. And, when you take every little incident and try to make it fit into the overall picture, you create a situation where the average person gets totally confused.

RJNorton · 07-30-2015, 12:00 PM

(07-30-2015 10:16 AM)John Fazio Wrote: At mid-day he shows up at Julia Grant's suite at Willard's.

John, I know you cover this in your book, but I don't have it in front of me at this moment. I believe the vast majority of books I've seen say it was Washington's afternoon papers that carried the news that the Grants would attend Ford's that night with the Lincolns. If your theory that Herold called on Mrs. Grant (pretending to be a White House messenger) is correct what is your best guess as to how Booth was able to find this out so early in day and send Herold to the Grants' room at the Willard (before the afternoon papers were out)?

John Fazio · 07-30-2015, 12:06 PM

(07-30-2015 11:06 AM)L Verge Wrote: As long as you admit, John, that this is YOUR "rough scenario."

My thoughts are that only Herold spent the night outside of D.C. and that he likely arose about 5 am. A quick ride into the city from T.B. would still take at least two hours, getting him back when the bridge opened at 7 am (if that schedule still existed). My scenario has Booth spending the night in D.C., and I would like to romanticize and think it was spent with Ella. I also do not subscribe to Julia Grant's theory that she was being watched by the gang at lunch. I don't think they were the least bit interested in the distaff side of the Grants.

Again, this is just my theory and I cannot engrave it in stone. IMO, too much speculation has been inserted into the documented history of the assassination over the past 150 years. And, when you take every little incident and try to make it fit into the overall picture, you create a situation where the average person gets totally confused.

Laurie:

As to where Booth spent the night, it has often been written that no one knows. It is known only that he did NOT spend it in his hotel room in the National. If he spent it in Washington, what was he doing at the Maryland side of the Navy Yard Bridge in the morning with Herold? Demond said that he recognized Booth as the actor and that when he said to Booth that he recognized him, he acknowledged that he was Booth and that his companion was Herold. He went on to say that Augur's aide had conversation with Booth, that Dana's orderly came and said they were "alright" and that the entire Maryland-side detail expressed surprise when they saw them again crossing from Washington that night inasmuch as they had seen them earlier that day. Sounds pretty solid to me. If Booth spent the night in Washington, he would have had to rise early and then cross the bridge to Maryland for a rendezvous with Herold. Seems unlikely.

John

Dave Taylor · 07-30-2015, 01:12 PM

(07-30-2015 12:06 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Laurie:

As to where Booth spent the night, it has often been written that no one knows. It is known only that he did NOT spend it in his hotel room in the National. If he spent it in Washington, what was he doing at the Maryland side of the Navy Yard Bridge in the morning with Herold? Demond said that he recognized Booth as the actor and that when he said to Booth that he recognized him, he acknowledged that he was Booth and that his companion was Herold. He went on to say that Augur's aide had conversation with Booth, that Dana's orderly came and said they were "alright" and that the entire Maryland-side detail expressed surprise when they saw them again crossing from Washington that night inasmuch as they had seen them earlier that day. Sounds pretty solid to me. If Booth spent the night in Washington, he would have had to rise early and then cross the bridge to Maryland for a rendezvous with Herold. Seems unlikely.

John

John,

Allow me to quote you something that I read in a book by an intelligent man. I've made a few substitutions to it which I hope you'll permit me.

Quote:"Entirely too much emphasis is laid by [Fazio] on eyewitness statements that support [his] conclusion and entirely too little emphasis is placed on eyewitness statements that do[es] not support [his] conclusion and on Booth's own words..."

You, John, wrote this yourself in your book when discussing Kauffman and Timothy Good's theory that Booth may have broken his leg in a fall from his horse and not at Ford's Theatre. However, I think it is very obvious that you suffer from the same bias you accuse them of.

Demond's accounts were the products of Fins Bates' manipulation and were stated more than 30 years later!!!! Why, in the name of Pete, do you even attempt to defend them? They are the lowest form of evidence that exist and yet you cling to them as gospel truth, dismissing all logical, and far more supported, alternatives. The only truth we can possibly give to Demond is that he was one of the guards on duty on the Maryland side of the bridge and that he saw Booth pass over. That's all that can be truthfully believed in any of his accounts. Everything else comes from Bates' constant baiting and is entirely suspect.

So much evidence points to the fact that Booth WAS in Washington on the night of April 13th/14th. Heed your own words, John, and consult Booth's writings. On April 14th, at 2:00 AM Booth wrote a letter to his mother from his hotel room at the National. He was there! The letter is addressed from Washington. For your unnecessarily treacherous theory to hold true, then Booth would have had to have been in Washington at 2:00 am, left in the wee hours of the morning, and then returned with Herold later. If that is the convoluted route you want to follow then my question to you would be, how did Booth know the mythical password to cross on the night of the 13th/14th? Don't you see, by using Demond's accounts as your foundation, you have nothing but a house of cards, John. I understand you are a lawyer and a d****d persistent one at that, but even you have to concede that Demond is likely very wrong.

You are a good researcher, John and I commend your knowledge of sources for your points, however, you are blind to anything other than your theory. You suffer from the same confirmation bias that you project onto others. As a lawyer you would argue your points indefinitely, believing that if you can convince others of your way, that would, by default, make your points true. But history doesn't work that way. We need to be objective when assessing a source or evidence, particularly when they support our own beliefs. And, most of all, when reporting on evidence that we believe supports our beliefs, we must, as responsible historians, preface that it is impossible to ever "prove" our points. We can provide evidence to why we came to our conclusion, but to claim our own interpretation is the only possible interpretation is the mark of a fool.

I do not believe you to be a fool, John, but I tire of reading your posts and your inability to acknowledge that the interpretations of others are just as valid and possible as your own. I tire of watching you browbeat people into submission and portray everything you espouse in your book as gospel and iron clad proof. I worry that those who are unfamiliar with the topics you discuss are reading your interpretations as the only interpretation and are therefore believing theory to be fact.

History is, and always will be, theory. We were not there and even those who were there interpreted and recalled the events based on their own life experiences and beliefs. History will never be set in stone and no one person can claim to know exactly how historical events played out.

Wild Bill · 07-30-2015, 02:05 PM

Amen, Dave

John Fazio · 07-30-2015, 02:44 PM

(07-30-2015 01:12 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:
(07-30-2015 12:06 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Laurie:

As to where Booth spent the night, it has often been written that no one knows. It is known only that he did NOT spend it in his hotel room in the National. If he spent it in Washington, what was he doing at the Maryland side of the Navy Yard Bridge in the morning with Herold? Demond said that he recognized Booth as the actor and that when he said to Booth that he recognized him, he acknowledged that he was Booth and that his companion was Herold. He went on to say that Augur's aide had conversation with Booth, that Dana's orderly came and said they were "alright" and that the entire Maryland-side detail expressed surprise when they saw them again crossing from Washington that night inasmuch as they had seen them earlier that day. Sounds pretty solid to me. If Booth spent the night in Washington, he would have had to rise early and then cross the bridge to Maryland for a rendezvous with Herold. Seems unlikely.

John

John,

Allow me to quote you something that I read in a book by an intelligent man. I've made a few substitutions to it which I hope you'll permit me.

Quote:"Entirely too much emphasis is laid by [Fazio] on eyewitness statements that support [his] conclusion and entirely too little emphasis is placed on eyewitness statements that do[es] not support [his] conclusion and on Booth's own words..."

You, John, wrote this yourself in your book when discussing Kauffman and Timothy Good's theory that Booth may have broken his leg in a fall from his horse and not at Ford's Theatre. However, I think it is very obvious that you suffer from the same bias you accuse them of.

Demond's accounts were the products of Fins Bates' manipulation and were stated more than 30 years later!!!! Why, in the name of Pete, do you even attempt to defend them? They are the lowest form of evidence that exist and yet you cling to them as gospel truth, dismissing all logical, and far more supported, alternatives. The only truth we can possibly give to Demond is that he was one of the guards on duty on the Maryland side of the bridge and that he saw Booth pass over. That's all that can be truthfully believed in any of his accounts. Everything else comes from Bates' constant baiting and is entirely suspect.

So much evidence points to the fact that Booth WAS in Washington on the night of April 13th/14th. Heed your own words, John, and consult Booth's writings. On April 14th, at 2:00 AM Booth wrote a letter to his mother from his hotel room at the National. He was there! The letter is addressed from Washington. For your unnecessarily treacherous theory to hold true, then Booth would have had to have been in Washington at 2:00 am, left in the wee hours of the morning, and then returned with Herold later. If that is the convoluted route you want to follow then my question to you would be, how did Booth know the mythical password to cross on the night of the 13th/14th? Don't you see, by using Demond's accounts as your foundation, you have nothing but a house of cards, John. I understand you are a lawyer and a d****d persistent one at that, but even you have to concede that Demond is likely very wrong.

You are a good researcher, John and I commend your knowledge of sources for your points, however, you are blind to anything other than your theory. You suffer from the same confirmation bias that you project onto others. As a lawyer you would argue your points indefinitely, believing that if you can convince others of your way, that would, by default, make your points true. But history doesn't work that way. We need to be objective when assessing a source or evidence, particularly when they support our own beliefs. And, most of all, when reporting on evidence that we believe supports our beliefs, we must, as responsible historians, preface that it is impossible to ever "prove" our points. We can provide evidence to why we came to our conclusion, but to claim our own interpretation is the only possible interpretation is the mark of a fool.

I do not believe you to be a fool, John, but I tire of reading your posts and your inability to acknowledge that the interpretations of others are just as valid and possible as your own. I tire of watching you browbeat people into submission and portray everything you espouse in your book as gospel and iron clad proof. I worry that those who are unfamiliar with the topics you discuss are reading your interpretations as the only interpretation and are therefore believing theory to be fact.

History is, and always will be, theory. We were not there and even those who were there interpreted and recalled the events based on their own life experiences and beliefs. History will never be set in stone and no one person can claim to know exactly how historical events played out.

Dave:

A little more temperance, please. One catches more flies with honey than with vinegar.

John

L Verge · 07-30-2015, 02:47 PM

David Taylor,

Bless you my child! A few minutes ago, I was ready to jump through my monitor screen and strangle "someone." Now, I will change my attitude and jump through to kiss you -- electronically. Don't tell Kate.

I was ready to express my opinion on the latest posting, but will spare the audience. I do have an appreciation for my late-mother's declaration in 1950 that she would never go into a courtroom ever again. There was a murder in T.B. at that time. It happened about midnight behind the local bar. She heard a man yelling for help, but thought it was someone inebriated. There was no 911 then, no local police station, and my father was in Korea.

The next morning, she found out what happened from her brother who ran the store in T.B., and he told the investigators. She was called as a witness to establish the time only, but by the time the defense attorney got through with tearing her down, she was in tears. I'm sorry, but I see that same technique being used in the arena of historical research. I'm on the verge of tears also -- but I cry when I'm mad!!

DanielC · 07-30-2015, 05:07 PM

John I personally enjoy reading your threads. Although I must admit I may not agree with them all, they are very well written and make me think. I'm sorry for some of the personal attacks. Very disappointing and unfortunate.

John Fazio · (This post was last modified: 07-30-2015 06:18 PM by John Fazio.)

(07-30-2015 12:00 PM)RJNorton Wrote:
(07-30-2015 10:16 AM)John Fazio Wrote: At mid-day he shows up at Julia Grant's suite at Willard's.

John, I know you cover this in your book, but I don't have it in front of me at this moment. I believe the vast majority of books I've seen say it was Washington's afternoon papers that carried the news that the Grants would attend Ford's that night with the Lincolns. If your theory that Herold called on Mrs. Grant (pretending to be a White House messenger) is correct what is your best guess as to how Booth was able to find this out so early in day and send Herold to the Grants' room at the Willard (before the afternoon papers were out)?

Roger:

Sorry for not getting to this sooner. I'm quite busy.

You raise a very important issue. My educated guess is that just as the invitation to the theatre was by design (per Susannah Hamm, p. 38 of DU), and just as Booth's prior knowledge of the Lincolns' attendance at the theatre for the April 14 performance came from sources inside the government (per Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy, p. 423 of CR), so too the publication in the afternoon newspapers of the attendance of the Lincolns and the Grants was by pre-arrangement by sources inside the government. That is not to say that everything was a lock; any part or all of the pre-arrangements might have failed. As it happened, however, they all worked as planned. See pp. 82, 83 of DU.

John

(07-30-2015 05:07 PM)DanielC Wrote: John I personally enjoy reading your threads. Although I must admit I may not agree with them all, they are very well written and make me think. I'm sorry for some of the personal attacks. Very disappointing and unfortunate.

Dan:

Thanks.

John

L Verge · 07-30-2015, 06:44 PM

A historian's work is always subject to review and criticism. That includes use and abuse of documented facts as well as personal styles of persuasion and writing; it is part of the test to see who can bring something new and worthwhile (and provable) to the table. Personally, I feel that many of John's responses to my theories, as well as others, have been delivered in a condescending manner to make me feel insecure. And, he has not responded with the critical ingredient - documented proof of his points.

I have been on the same page with John for about 2-3 years now, ever since I read his initial writings in a newsletter from the Cleveland CWRT. I want him to PROVE his central theme because I believe in it also. He asked me to review his manuscript last year before it went to the publisher, and I declined because of work and family responsibilities. I could kick myself for not doing that review, but I would probably have had the same problems then as I have now with his style. It is ingrained in him, I'm sure, and he would have fought me tooth and nail about any revision.

What is disappointing and unfortunate to me is that so much is theory written in a style that will convince the novice reader that Decapitating the Union has solved all the questions. It hasn't; it has only confused some of the issues.

Those of us who were trained in history and have spent the past sixty years immersed in the Lincoln assassination story want to avoid the Balsigers, Selliers, O'Reillys, Bateses, Eisenschimls, Sheltons, etc. of the future. John's research is so far superior to those scam artists that he should not denigrate it with so much continued supposition. I can remember the old days when publishers had historical editors that would point out weaknesses in style, content, and accuracy before a manuscript went to press. I wish we could get them back.