Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

John Fazio · 08-09-2015, 12:36 PM

(08-09-2015 11:57 AM)Dave Taylor Wrote:
(08-09-2015 11:35 AM)John Fazio Wrote: Consider that the original report of the escape from Surratt's "guards" (actually Zouave comrades) stated that the distance from the rim to the outcropping was 35 feet. The report of their superior, de Lambilly (who, of course, received his information from his subordinates) confirmed the distance at 35 feet. His superior, however (Allet), reported that the distance was 23 feet. Surratt, himself, however, later said that he found the story of the leap to be "a great source of amusement" and the distance was really only 12 feet!! Why would his "guards" say it was 35 feet and Allet say it was 23 feet if it was only 12 feet? These disparities demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the initial report was a fabrication designed to protect those who made it, i.e. Surratt's "guards", who were really his friends, and that Surratt favored the story because it in turn protected his "guards". He felt compelled, however, to shorten the distance to 12 feet, because he realized that the 35-foot and 23-foot versions were simply too much to be believed. As Jampoler said in his biography of Surratt: "It is easy to see why the Zouaves preferred to report the other escape story (the leap), one that featured a minute of sudden, astonishing derring-do by their prisoner, instead of a long night of stolid incompetence by officers and criminal conspiracy by enlisted guards, guards who saw no reason to turn over a comrade in arms to a distant, godless government."

Lastly, consider that just as Surratt had every reason to fabricate his escape story, and just as his "guards" had every reason to do the same, Lipman, a fellow Zouave, who was one of his 12 (not six) "guards" and who told a completely different and much more prosaic escape story, had absolutely no motivation to fabricate anything.

John

John,

It makes sense to me that the reported distances would be different because everyone judges distances differently. I, for one, am terrible at accurately judging the distance between two points and I bet I would be even worse at it if I were looking down and trying to judge how far a drop was. I doubt anyone, even after the event, took the time to actually measure the distance between where Surratt jumped and where he landed. I will admit that there was likely some degree of exaggeration in recounting the distance of the jump, but to say that equates to a purposeful "cover up" to benefit Surratt is too far fetched to me.

Also, Lipman's account of 12 guards is contradictory to the 6 guards reported by the Papal authorities. His entire story of the sewer escape is contradictory to the official record. Lipman's account comes from 1881 which is a bit far removed from the event. Ultimately though, the fact that he recalls such a different story than as what was reported by the authorities puts the burden of proof on Lipman.

John, show me any evidence, aside from Lipman's word, that he was actually present with Surratt in 1866, and then I will happily give more weight to his account. Until that time, Lipman's is just another unsubstantiated story from a person trying to ride on the coattails of history.

Dave:

I have thus far not been successful in obtaining the information I have requested from Rome re Henry Lipman. I have been shuffled around. My last communication was with an official of the Museo di Armee. But I will continue to pursue it and hopefully have the information we both wish to have. I will keep you advised. Schein makes the point that all records of Surratt's service in the Zouaves have disappeared. That is probably due to the murmurings about the Church's complicity in the assassination occasioned by the fact that Catholic clerics protected Surratt while he was in Canada and abroad. The possibility exists that Lipman's records have also been excised, and for the same reason, which may be why I am getting what appears to be a run-around.

I would like to expand a little on the Hanson Hiss interview. Imagine the consequences to Hiss if the subject of his interview had blown the whistle on him and told the world that he was a liar and that no such interview had ever occurred, in terms of his reputation, his job, his career, his finances, etc. Who among us would take that risk? Yet Hiss reported the interview apparently without hesitation or fear. That suggests strongly that the interview has a great claim to authenticity. Mistakes? Mistakes are always made. The newspapers run "correction" notices almost every day. It was in this interview, recall, that Surratt returned to the 35-foot story. As it says in Decapitating, no one lands safety from a leap of 35 feet even if he or she landed on a pile of powder puffs.

John

Pamela · 08-09-2015, 01:21 PM

Dave, I couldn't access the Lipman interview from your site. I read the posts about this topic and I think John's points make the most sense. John's post on your site is comprehensive and clearly [/i] articulates so many aspects, of the incident. Just the fact that he broke no bones is unbelievable. People break bones falling from a standing position, just 3 ft to the floor or ground. At age 16 I broke my wrist vaulting from the horse in gym class and landing on a padded floor. I have personal knowledge of many more broken bone incidents all involving heights of six ft or less. I bet you do, too.

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 08-09-2015 02:06 PM by L Verge.)

I guess I'm being silly here in not caring about "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" in regards to how far Surratt did or did not leap in order to escape at Veroli. The significant point to me is that he did escape, made it to Naples, then Malta, and finally to Alexandria, Egypt, before returning to the U.S. on the Swatara. Even more significant to me is that the U.S. government pretty much knew his trail the whole time he was on the run from April of 1865 on. That to me is an important point in U.S. history. Of course, I don't see the need in continually debating how Booth broke his leg, either. The significant point is how that broken leg may have determined his fate.

I also have a distinct privilege here that I don't believe anyone else has. I was around when James O. Hall and his tremendous sidekicks, John C. Brennan and Msgr. Robert Keesler, Fr. Alfred Isacsson, lawyer James E.T. Lange and his sidekick Kathryn DeWitt, Jr. (both members of MENSA) were dissecting the John Surratt story. Someone would have to really dig to find better detective historians than those six.

Also, having spoken with a number of Surratt descendants (most of them from John's family), I am always cognizant of how they have told us that we know more history than they - the subject having been taboo when they were growing up. We have been led to believe that John Surratt kept a very low profile the rest of his life, and I can certainly see where he would do that to protect his family as well as Anna's and even bachelor brother Isaac. To protest a fraudulent article would only reopen old wounds to a very large audience. I suspect that Hanson Hiss laid a trap that Surratt refused to step into. The press could be just as nasty in the past as some can be today. How do you spell Yellow Press? Wasn't it at its heyday during that period of history when Surratt was trying to remain under the radar?

Pamela · 08-09-2015, 06:37 PM

Just because stage leaping and cliff leaping and how bones got broken or why they didn't get broken are not as important as other, political behaviors of the story, doesn't mean that historians shouldn' t describe the events as accurately as possible. Even the tiniest details, without great military or political significance, can be fascinating and make the entire story more compelling. I enjoy the illustrations of the cliff leap that Dave has on his site. Surratt's escape story, including the debated cliff leap, and the tales he told McMillan, and Booth and Herold's escape would make a terrific graphic novel that would engage youngsters in the assassination history. In fact, the entire conspiracy story would make a terrific graphic novel, or series of novels.

L Verge · 08-09-2015, 07:29 PM

(08-09-2015 06:37 PM)Pamela Wrote: Just because stage leaping and cliff leaping and how bones got broken or why they didn't get broken are not as important as other, political behaviors of the story, doesn't mean that historians shouldn' t describe the events as accurately as possible. Even the tiniest details, without great military or political significance, can be fascinating and make the entire story more compelling. I enjoy the illustrations of the cliff leap that Dave has on his site. Surratt's escape story, including the debated cliff leap, and the tales he told McMillan, and Booth and Herold's escape would make a terrific graphic novel that would engage youngsters in the assassination history. In fact, the entire conspiracy story would make a terrific graphic novel, or series of novels.

And we have at least one member of this forum that has done just that in a great learning tool for children. Toot your horn, Mike, for Malice Toward One.

I also want to offer an apology here. It just dawned on my feeble brain that, just because I have been exposed to these little tidbits of the big story for most of my life, it doesn't mean that others have.

Yes, it's old school to me, and I guess I have become a curmudgeon regarding rehashing of things. I now realize that others have not been as lucky as I to have been through these learning experiences before -- and a used history teacher such as I should have realized that a long time ago.

I remember now being excited as I read something new. Unfortunately, now I want to continue to read new things and get frustrated with the retelling of old things. I am truly sorry.

Susan Higginbotham · 08-09-2015, 09:13 PM

I recognize the various problems with the Hanson Hiss story, but I'm not convinced that it was a fraud. Hiss came from a respected Baltimore family, and I just don't see him fabricating an interview when the subject (or the subject's friends) were almost guaranteed to see the piece and could readily deny it. I did a search and found a few other Hiss pieces from the period, and they aren't of the "yellow journalism" variety at all (fox hunting, golf, the Bonapartes in Baltimore, etc.)

I wouldn't be surprised if Hiss did add a little color to his story, but some of the errors probably came about because he was born after the war and was relying on the recollections of others that had become embroidered over the years. It may also be significant that he appears to have suffered from mental illness during the last years of his life; his death in 1907 was supposed by some to be suicide, and he seems to have spent some time in asylums during the early 1900s.

RJNorton · 08-10-2015, 04:50 AM

(08-09-2015 09:13 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: I did a search...

Susan, I also did a search but a different one. I was curious as to which assassination author was the first to mention the interview in his/her book. And, as far as I can tell, it was Osborn Oldroyd in his book published in 1901. That's 3 years after the Hiss interview was published. Oldroyd quotes briefly from the interview on p. 163. Based on the way Oldroyd presented the quote there is no indication Oldroyd felt the interview was spurious (IMO).

John Fazio · 08-11-2015, 08:22 PM

Dave et al.:

To keep everyone in the loop: I finally received a response from Italy, this from Professor Giancarlo Onorati, an author himself ("L'Ultimo Cospiratore", i.e. "The Last Conspirator", a biography of John Surratt) and one who is familiar with the Papal Zouave Enlistment Records in the State Archives of Rome. He has advised me that the Archives are closed the entire month of August (everything shuts down in Rome in August; it's too hot, so everyone takes their vacations during this month), but that they will re-open in September and that he will obtain the information I requested re Henry Lipman at that time. Of course, if the records show that Lipman was a Zouave at the same time Surratt was, it will not prove his story of the escape absolutely, but it will give it greater credence. A failure to show that they were members at the same time, however, will be a serious blow to his story, though not necessarily fatal. I will keep everyone advised.

John

08-12-2015, 01:07 PM

(08-09-2015 07:29 PM)L Verge Wrote: I remember now being excited as I read something new. Unfortunately, now I want to continue to read new things and get frustrated with the retelling of old things. I am truly sorry.

Was that a joke? It cracked me up, but being new to the Lincoln Discussion Symposium I thought maybe you could be serious. Historians "rehash" for a living and often can make new insights or connections for having done so. So, if you were joking, that was a good one, and if not, I am really confused on the purpose of this site. Should I not bother visiting any of the archived threads? Not expect a reply until I am up to speed on every issue ever covered? Only look for new threads? Please clarify?

L Verge · 08-12-2015, 01:43 PM

That was no joke and was a sincere apology on my part because I felt that my 60+ years of interest in the Lincoln assassination had brought me to the point where I forgot that other people might be learning things for the first time and feeling the enthusiasm of learning and expressing opinions, just as I have done over the years. I believe that other people understood what I was doing, and I'm sorry if it was not clear to all.

Perhaps for those who are newbies to the site, it would be wise to spend time going back through approximately three years of very interesting and productive discourse that have gone on here with comaraderie and constructive differences of opinion. In many cases, what appear as contentious debates are sparring matches between highly intelligent and qualified scholars. There's something to be learned in most cases as long as one maintains an open mind.

Reading the full forum and realizing the friendships and respect that have grown within the circle of participants - thanks to the masterful eye of Roger Norton, a true Lincoln expert - might awaken all to the positive aspects of this forum (not the negative ones that some are choosing to elaborate on).

Although it has recently appeared that some on this forum may have a negative agenda, that certainly is not the case. We all might do well to consider that. End of story.

08-12-2015, 01:57 PM

(08-12-2015 01:43 PM)L Verge Wrote: Although it has recently appeared that some on this forum may have a negative agenda, that certainly is not the case. We all might do well to consider that. End of story.

Thanks for the clarification. I am working my way through the threads, though I will not commit to three years worth of reading, just wanted to be sure of the parameters. How much "rehash" do you imagine is in the threads? I generally find a lot on most sites which is why "newbies" can simply join and contribute as opposed to researching already covered ground before daring a comment. The layout here is not conducive to seamless research, but I will endeavor to learn the temperaments and sentiments if not the entire catalog of information and sharing.

Eva Elisabeth · 08-12-2015, 02:07 PM

SandiS, what about Abraham Lincoln and/or the assassination are you interested in?

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 08-12-2015 02:35 PM by L Verge.)

(08-12-2015 01:57 PM)SandiS Wrote:
(08-12-2015 01:43 PM)L Verge Wrote: Although it has recently appeared that some on this forum may have a negative agenda, that certainly is not the case. We all might do well to consider that. End of story.

Thanks for the clarification. I am working my way through the threads, though I will not commit to three years worth of reading, just wanted to be sure of the parameters. How much "rehash" do you imagine is in the threads? I generally find a lot on most sites which is why "newbies" can simply join and contribute as opposed to researching already covered ground before daring a comment. The layout here is not conducive to seamless research, but I will endeavor to learn the temperaments and sentiments if not the entire catalog of information and sharing.

The rehashing that I referred to deals mainly with just 2-3 topics that will jump out at you as you read. It's just that a few have been rehashed for over ten years or more on a variety of podiums without any conclusion, and that's what pushed my button the day I posted.

Since there are 5-6 of us who encouraged Roger to establish this forum (and have stuck with him all the way - best boss I ever had!), I can assure everyone that this format was never designed to be a seamless research venue. It was for sharing information, news, and friendship.

Forums (and blogs in particular) will never replace the time-honored research institutions and practices. Too often they become bully pulpits for individual agendas, and that takes away their educational value.

(08-12-2015 02:20 PM)SandiS Wrote:
(08-12-2015 02:07 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: SandiS, what about Abraham Lincoln and/or the assassination are you interested in?

Nothing specific and everything in general. I am a huge Lincoln fan, not at all a fan of the assassination thoughts, theories and story lines though. I think he was one of our greatest presidents, after Washington and before Jefferson. His writings/speeches intrigue me and his affinity for storytelling is also interesting. IMO, his being so "home-grown" and yet stalwart and resolute in such a turbulent and tragic time is even more remarkable. He did not have the travel, education, and polish of Washington, Jefferson or Madison but he was magnetic and just as impressive IMO.

Is that sufficient reason?

Believe it or not, even those of us who are interested more in the assassination also have an affinity for Mr. Lincoln himself. I have numerous Lincoln items on display at home, but not one of JWB. Knowing Roger and participating in this forum have done wonders for my learning about Lincoln.

Eva Elisabeth · (This post was last modified: 08-12-2015 03:27 PM by Eva Elisabeth.)

(08-12-2015 02:20 PM)SandiS Wrote:
(08-12-2015 02:07 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: SandiS, what about Abraham Lincoln and/or the assassination are you interested in?

Nothing specific and everything in general. I am a huge Lincoln fan, not at all a fan of the assassination thoughts, theories and story lines though. I think he was one of our greatest presidents, after Washington and before Jefferson. His writings/speeches intrigue me and his affinity for storytelling is also interesting. IMO, his being so "home-grown" and yet stalwart and resolute in such a turbulent and tragic time is even more remarkable. He did not have the travel, education, and polish of Washington, Jefferson or Madison but he was magnetic and just as impressive IMO.

Is that sufficient reason?

Thanks, SandiS. (I wasn't asking for reasoning, just curious. FYI I was asked the same when joining as many were as this is interesting and what the forum is about.)

Pamela · (This post was last modified: 08-12-2015 11:49 PM by Pamela.)

(08-10-2015 04:50 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(08-09-2015 09:13 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: I did a search...

Susan, I also did a search but a different one. I was curious as to which assassination author was the first to mention the interview in his/her book. And, as far as I can tell, it was Osborn Oldroyd in his book published in 1901. That's 3 years after the Hiss interview was published. Oldroyd quotes briefly from the interview on p. 163. Based on the way Oldroyd presented the quote there is no indication Oldroyd felt the interview was spurious (IMO).

Weichmann wrote his book around the same time as Oldroyd, although it wasn' t published until more than 70 years after his death. He discussed the HH interview, (which is included) published April 3, 1898, and wrote as though he believed it was genuine. Both he and A.C. Richards responded to the article and their responses were published in the Washington Post on April 18, 1898. Richards subscribed to the Post and had seen the interview, but the paper wrote to Weichmann on April 6, 1898, and offered him the courtesy of it's columns, "for any response you would like to make to John H. Surratt' s Story and furthermore would make the writing of a good historical story worth your while."-from Risvold's introduction to Weichmann's book.

Richards reaction to the interview was to doubt the identity of Hanson Hiss in a correspondence initiated by Weichmann after the HH interview was published, "Your letter as published is an admirable refutation of the dastardly and scandalous attack upon your character by John H. Surratt under the cognomen, 'Hanson Hiss."

In a subsequent letter dated May 7, 1998, Richards seemed to accept that HH was a journalist, "Your two letters of the 2d-inst. came to hand yesterday. I will be glad to see the article you send out to the papers for which Hiss is a correspondent and in which his Surratt "vindication" was published." There are 23 A.C. Richards letters in Weichmann's book.