My Journey on Lincoln's Assassination

[RJNorton]

(10-31-2018 03:20 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I believe that he wrote an article specifically on the telegraph issue for the Surratt Courier and at least one other Lincoln-related journal.

I put a link to Art Loux's Lincoln Herald article in post #101.

[mikegriffith1]

The Lincoln assassination is full of long-accepted assumptions that have never, or rarely, been critically examined and that make no sense. For example,

* Why would Booth have needed Mary Surratt to carry binoculars to John Lloyd when Booth could have easily carried binoculars in his saddle bag?

* Why would Booth have relied on a drunkard like John Lloyd to have guns waiting for him at Surrattsville?

* Why would Booth have stopped at Garrett's farm for one minute, much less many hours, when he knew every minute was crucial?

* Why would Booth have been lounging around at Garrett's farm, spending time relaxing on Garrett's front porch, when he knew every minute was crucial?

* If Dr. Mudd was trying to hide Booth's boot from the federal soldiers who came to his house, why didn't he just destroy the boot when he had plenty of time to do so, long before any federal soldiers showed up at his farm?

* If Mary Surratt was guilty, why didn't she run during the two days between the time police authorities first came to her house and the time they came back to arrest her?

* If Weichmann had incriminating evidence against Mary Surratt, why did the Metropolitan Police appear to know nothing about it after he gave a full statement to them on April 15? (After Weichmann gave his statement, the police showed no interest in returning to Mary Surratt's house.)

* If Holt and Baker really wanted to identify the body on the Montauk, why didn't they just have the Booth conspirators who were in their custody come up on deck and look at the body?

* Why didn't Holt and Baker have Booth's left boot brought to the Montauk to compare it with the boot that was supposedly on the body's right foot, especially since the left boot had part of Booth's name written inside it?

* Why did Stanton falsely tell Lincoln that Eckert could not be spared that night to go with him to Ford's Theater? And why would David Homer Bates, who saw and recorded the Lincoln-Stanton exchange, have lied about this, given that Bates admired Stanton? You see, the problem is that Bates had no idea that Stanton lied when he claimed that Eckert had vital work to do that night at the War Department. (Eisenschiml discovered that Eckert handled only a few routine telegrams that night and that he left not long after Stanton told Lincoln that he could not be spared.)

* Why did Stanton and Holt not use Booth's diary at the conspiracy trial if it contained nothing that was problematic for their case?

* Why did the War Department suppress Booth's letter to his brother-in-law? (The letter was printed in a Philadelphia newspaper, then War Department agents came and confiscated it, and it was never introduced as evidence at the trial.)

[L Verge]

And why don't you go ahead and write your own book and give us documented evidence to answer all these questions? Other very well-qualified people have done just that.

[Gene C]

(11-23-2018 07:13 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  The Lincoln assassination is full of long-accepted assumptions that have never, or rarely, been critically examined and that make no sense.

It only seems that way because you have begun your study of Lincoln's assassination by reading authors who reach questionable conclusions by using questionable and weak, or non existing, original sources and you have been overly influenced by them.

This is probably why you can not adequately answer the questions asked of you.
You have been unable to give credible sources for your statements,
give rambling responses that don't answer the question, or
try to change the subject by asking new questions and ignoring those questions asked of you.

Consider balancing your study with some of the books recommended on this forum.

[wpbinzel]

I have not previously engaged on this thread, but in a sincere effort to be helpful, I will point out that your fundamental flaw is that every one of your questions assumes facts that are not in evidence or documented.


* Why would Booth have needed Mary Surratt to carry binoculars to John Lloyd when Booth could have easily carried binoculars in his saddle bag?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth had a saddle bag.


* Why would Booth have relied on a drunkard like John Lloyd to have guns waiting for him at Surrattsville?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth knew or had met John Lloyd; or that Booth had any knowledge of Mr. Lloyd’s drinking habits.


* Why would Booth have stopped at Garrett's farm for one minute, much less many hours, when he knew every minute was crucial?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth “knew every minute was crucial.”


* Why would Booth have been lounging around at Garrett's farm, spending time relaxing on Garrett's front porch, when he knew every minute was crucial?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth “knew every minute was crucial.”


* If Dr. Mudd was trying to hide Booth's boot from the federal soldiers who came to his house, why didn't he just destroy the boot when he had plenty of time to do so, long before any federal soldiers showed up at his farm?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Dr. Mudd gave any consideration to Booth’s boot after Booth and Herold departed and “before any federal soldiers showed up at his farm.”


* If Mary Surratt was guilty, why didn't she run during the two days between the time police authorities first came to her house and the time they came back to arrest her?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that “making a ‘run’ for it” on April 15-17 was a viable option for Mrs. Surratt.


* If Weichmann had incriminating evidence against Mary Surratt, why did the Metropolitan Police appear to know nothing about it after he gave a full statement to them on April 15? (After Weichmann gave his statement, the police showed no interest in returning to Mary Surratt's house.)

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that demonstrates that of all the leads and statements taken in the two days following Lincoln’s assassination, the police should have reached the immediate conclusion that Mrs. Surratt was their prime suspect.


* If Holt and Baker really wanted to identify the body on the Montauk, why didn't they just have the Booth conspirators who were in their custody come up on deck and look at the body?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that proper police (civilian or military) procedure at that time included releasing imprisoned co-conspirators from their cells to make an identification already made by competent and unimpeachable witnesses.


* Why didn't Holt and Baker have Booth's left boot brought to the Montauk to compare it with the boot that was supposedly on the body's right foot, especially since the left boot had part of Booth's name written inside it?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that proper police (civilian or military) procedure at that time was to use physical evidence to make an identification already made by competent and unimpeachable witnesses.


* Why did Stanton falsely tell Lincoln that Eckert could not be spared that night to go with him to Ford's Theater? And why would David Homer Bates, who saw and recorded the Lincoln-Stanton exchange, have lied about this, given that Bates admired Stanton? You see, the problem is that Bates had no idea that Stanton lied when he claimed that Eckert had vital work to do that night at the War Department. (Eisenschiml discovered that Eckert handled only a few routine telegrams that night and that he left not long after Stanton told Lincoln that he could not be spared.)

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Bates’ wistful account, written some 40 years after the fact, of events of the morning of April 14, 1865, actually happened.


* Why did Stanton and Holt not use Booth's diary at the conspiracy trial if it contained nothing that was problematic for their case?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth’s diary had any evidentiary value against any of the eight co-conspirators on trial.


* Why did the War Department suppress Booth's letter to his brother-in-law? (The letter was printed in a Philadelphia newspaper, then War Department agents came and confiscated it, and it was never introduced as evidence at the trial.)

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth’s letter had any evidentiary value against any of the eight co-conspirators on trial.


I have no interest or intention of engaging in a debate with you on any of these points; but – again, in a sincere effort to be helpful – suggest that if you want your questions to be taken seriously, they must be based on a foundation of evidence or documentation that does not assume facts that are not in evidence or documented. Whether or not you heed this advice is, of course, up to you.

[Wild Bill]

Thanks, Bill, for the one sensible reply to a lot of hot air that has preceded you. It is deeply appreciated!

[mikegriffith1]

(11-25-2018 07:53 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  I have not previously engaged on this thread, but in a sincere effort to be helpful, I will point out that your fundamental flaw is that every one of your questions assumes facts that are not in evidence or documented.


* Why would Booth have needed Mary Surratt to carry binoculars to John Lloyd when Booth could have easily carried binoculars in his saddle bag?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth had a saddle bag.


* Why would Booth have relied on a drunkard like John Lloyd to have guns waiting for him at Surrattsville?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth knew or had met John Lloyd; or that Booth had any knowledge of Mr. Lloyd’s drinking habits.


* Why would Booth have stopped at Garrett's farm for one minute, much less many hours, when he knew every minute was crucial?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth “knew every minute was crucial.”


* Why would Booth have been lounging around at Garrett's farm, spending time relaxing on Garrett's front porch, when he knew every minute was crucial?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth “knew every minute was crucial.”


* If Dr. Mudd was trying to hide Booth's boot from the federal soldiers who came to his house, why didn't he just destroy the boot when he had plenty of time to do so, long before any federal soldiers showed up at his farm?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Dr. Mudd gave any consideration to Booth’s boot after Booth and Herold departed and “before any federal soldiers showed up at his farm.”


* If Mary Surratt was guilty, why didn't she run during the two days between the time police authorities first came to her house and the time they came back to arrest her?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that “making a ‘run’ for it” on April 15-17 was a viable option for Mrs. Surratt.


* If Weichmann had incriminating evidence against Mary Surratt, why did the Metropolitan Police appear to know nothing about it after he gave a full statement to them on April 15? (After Weichmann gave his statement, the police showed no interest in returning to Mary Surratt's house.)

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that demonstrates that of all the leads and statements taken in the two days following Lincoln’s assassination, the police should have reached the immediate conclusion that Mrs. Surratt was their prime suspect.


* If Holt and Baker really wanted to identify the body on the Montauk, why didn't they just have the Booth conspirators who were in their custody come up on deck and look at the body?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that proper police (civilian or military) procedure at that time included releasing imprisoned co-conspirators from their cells to make an identification already made by competent and unimpeachable witnesses.


* Why didn't Holt and Baker have Booth's left boot brought to the Montauk to compare it with the boot that was supposedly on the body's right foot, especially since the left boot had part of Booth's name written inside it?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that proper police (civilian or military) procedure at that time was to use physical evidence to make an identification already made by competent and unimpeachable witnesses.


* Why did Stanton falsely tell Lincoln that Eckert could not be spared that night to go with him to Ford's Theater? And why would David Homer Bates, who saw and recorded the Lincoln-Stanton exchange, have lied about this, given that Bates admired Stanton? You see, the problem is that Bates had no idea that Stanton lied when he claimed that Eckert had vital work to do that night at the War Department. (Eisenschiml discovered that Eckert handled only a few routine telegrams that night and that he left not long after Stanton told Lincoln that he could not be spared.)

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Bates’ wistful account, written some 40 years after the fact, of events of the morning of April 14, 1865, actually happened.


* Why did Stanton and Holt not use Booth's diary at the conspiracy trial if it contained nothing that was problematic for their case?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth’s diary had any evidentiary value against any of the eight co-conspirators on trial.


* Why did the War Department suppress Booth's letter to his brother-in-law? (The letter was printed in a Philadelphia newspaper, then War Department agents came and confiscated it, and it was never introduced as evidence at the trial.)

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth’s letter had any evidentiary value against any of the eight co-conspirators on trial.


I have no interest or intention of engaging in a debate with you on any of these points; but – again, in a sincere effort to be helpful – suggest that if you want your questions to be taken seriously, they must be based on a foundation of evidence or documentation that does not assume facts that are not in evidence or documented. Whether or not you heed this advice is, of course, up to you.

Some of these questions strike me as silly.

You need documented evidence that Booth knew that every minute was crucial? Have you read the accounts of his flight and his close calls with federal troops? You need documented evidence that Booth's diary would have had evidentiary value at the trial? Do you know anything about what his diary says? You need documented evidence that Bates' supposedly "wistful" account actually happened? Why is it "wistful"? Because it's problematic for your view? Again, why would Bates, who admired Stanton, have written this if it did not happen? You need documented evidence that the police should have arrested Mary Surratt after Weichmann first gave them an extensive statement? Really? If he had told the police half of the stuff that he later concocted about her, they would have raided her house within minutes of taking his statement. You need documented evidence that Booth had a saddle bag? Wouldn't the logical assumption be that he had a saddle bag, especially since he knew that he was going to be on the run for a few days?

And I have to wonder what you have read to believe that the witnesses on the Montauk were "competent and unimpeachable." That is laughable. Two of them were crew members who suddenly claimed that they had both known Booth for about six weeks.

[RJNorton]

(11-27-2018 08:35 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  You need documented evidence that Booth's diary would have had evidentiary value at the trial? Do you know anything about what his diary says?

Bill's questions are outstanding. I am not a lawyer, but I have read the diary, and I do not see where it provides evidence that implicates any of the 8 by name. How would the diary have improved the government's case against those on trial? Can you explain the diary's evidentiary value against the 8 defendants that you see?

[L Verge]

I just have to comment that Bill Binzel has the legal skills as well as great historical knowledge on the assassination study to cut your flat, undocumented statements into fodder, Mr. Griffith. At this point, I think we all understand that you deal in hypotheses as well as smoke and mirrors; and I suspect that it is because you enjoy taking up space with repetitive postings...

[wpbinzel]

Alas, Mr. Griffith, I find it quite telling that your response is that you think it is “rather silly” to be asked to distinguish between what you suspect and what you can prove. When you base your version of history on personal subjective assumptions and unsubstantiated material, there is virtually no limit to what you can imagine. JFK may still be alive at age 101 in the third subterranean basement of Parkland Memorial Hospital, and Elvis may have been sighted on Thanksgiving. Whatever your motive here, good luck with your method; just don’t expect to be taken seriously by those who deal in facts.

My effort to point out that distinction is sincere, but I see little point in engaging further on this. However, in leaving this thread, I will highlight just one example of what I am attempting to convey to you: do your research and find any source that was recorded prior to 1907 that corroborates any aspect of Bates’ account (which was indeed, wistful) of Lincoln or Stanton’s actions in the Telegraph Office on the morning of April 14, 1865. I doubt that you will take this challenge because it is much easier for you just to assume that Bates’ account is accurate and to use it for whatever purpose to support your version of history. However, simply assuming that it is accurate does not make it so. If you want to use Bates’ account as fact, then be prepared to offer substantiating evidence to prove it. Your attempt to dismiss a challenge to it – and your other assumptions – simply by labeling it “silly,” does you no credit. I wish you well.

[Rob Wick]

That this nonsense has lasted to this point is definitely testament to the persistence of Mr. Griffith, and that's fine. We are all free to believe what we choose and to tenaciously hold onto that belief despite all reasonable counterarguments. And I have the sneaking suspicion that no matter what else one brings out, it won't make a difference to Mr. Griffith about being taken seriously among serious scholars. James G. Randall once said of Otto Eisenschiml that what bothered him the most was how he "rode a theory." It angered Randall that Eisenschiml turned historianship as Randall practiced it upside down in order to simply sell more books by flouting the widely-accepted rules of good scholarship. Yet Randall knew that the only thing that can drive bad history out of the arena is for good history to be introduced. After all, the battle is won not in changing the mind of the person doing the fighting. The battle is won in convincing those on the sidelines, and those who come to study the battle later on, that your opponent, no matter how adamant. remains purely and simply wrong.

That said, there is one thing I'd love to know. What purpose would modern day historians have for withholding the "truth?" It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to grasp why those involved during the conspiracy needed to stay together. But why would a historian in the year 2018 find it necessary to suppress the government's role in this charade? I don't ask this to Mr. Griffith, as I know he won't care to answer it, but rather it's for someone reading this post who might be in danger of believing Mr. Griffith to be correct.

Best
Rob

[L Verge]

Rob - we have certainly had our differences over some things in the past, but I thank you sincerely for this post. It is beautifully crafted and said with sincere support of good, historical work. It also made me realize that thoughts like this are what has kept me swimming uphill for so many years to try and make correct history relevant.

[RJNorton]

(11-29-2018 10:34 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  James G. Randall once said of Otto Eisenschiml that what bothered him the most was how he "rode a theory." It angered Randall that Eisenschiml turned historianship as Randall practiced it upside down in order to simply sell more books by flouting the widely-accepted rules of good scholarship.

Rob, do you know if the Eisenschiml book in 1937 was the very first publication by a writer to cast suspicion on Stanton? Was there ever anything out there previously that did the same?

[Rob Wick]

Thanks, Laurie. I appreciate your kind words.

Roger, I'm writing this with the understanding that it's been well over 20 years since I did any deep research into Eisenschiml via his papers in the ALPLM in Springfield. My initial thought was that I couldn't remember anyone, but there was some quiet voice nagging at me. On a whim I turned to Eisenschiml's O.E. Historian Without an Armchair and specifically to a chapter that originally appeared in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society about Stanton's involvement. Reading that chapter, it dawned on me why I felt as I did. Eisenschiml writes:

At the time I wrote Why Was Lincoln Murdered?another unanswered question bothered me: how did it happen that in the decades which have passed since 1865, no one had voiced a suspicion like mine Why had the press, in particular the anti-administration papers, accepted the official version of the crime, provided another version existed? The contemporary reporters were no simpletons and must have suspected that something was wrong, if there was something wrong to suspect. If they had, it was reasonable to expect that they had put their suspicions into words, even tough their publishers may have suppressed what they had written. But where were these words? Up to the time my first book on this subject was published, my search had been in vain.
My earlier belief that the reporters of 1865 harbored no suspicion about Stanton proved unfounded. While immediately after the tragedy at Ford's Theater no one leveled a direct accusation about his complicity, three years later convincing proof that not all contemporary journalists agreed with the official version of the assassination came to light, and in a most fantastic manner.

I'm not going to type all the details of this, but this is the May 2, 1868 copy of the People's Weekly in which the editor, Ben Green wrote an editorial entitled "That Wicked Old Man" in which Green (who was the son of Duff Green) wrote that the "real instigators" of the assassination of Lincoln was Stanton, Joseph Holt and Lafayette Baker. Anyone interested in this flight of fancy is free to read O.E. or what Thomas Reed Turner wrote in Beware the People Weeping.

So, despite the fact that ONE editor believed that Stanton and others played a role in the assassination, no other writer ever seriously offered such a theory, at least publicly.

One final note on the man that my Civil War history professor termed "Crazy Otto." For good or ill, and I stand firmly in the "for ill" camp, Eisenschiml played a major role in the study of Lincoln's assassination. If you look at the number of popular magazines and newspapers (and even some academic, peer-reviewed journals) that agreed to carry his work, his influence was felt far and wide throughout the country. One cannot discount Eisenschiml with just a wave of the hand. One certainly can discount his conclusions, or lack thereof, and see that he was a charlatan more interested in lining his wallet than in promoting good and valuable history. But one ignores him at their own peril. He is someone who deserves a biography although it must be built on the work of Bill Hanchett who once told me he couldn't stomach writing such a book. It angered him too much.

Best
Rob

[L Verge]

Interesting about the May 2, 1868, editorial about Stanton. That was the month and year that Stanton finally resigned after two contentious years of fighting with President Johnson.

It was also nice to see Tom Turner and his Beware the People book coming into the discussion. Tom's work should not be overlooked, and he was one of the first and very few professional historians to take up the study of the assassination and to work with us amateurs in ferreting out history way back in the 1970s.

After reading the pages from Beware that Rob posted here, it reminded me of a very enjoyable evening way back when Civil War Times Illustrated was dealing with these controversies. James O. Hall invited Joan Chaconas and me and our husbands to have dinner with him, William C. (Jack) Davis and then-editor of CWTI, Charles Cooney, at a very nice restaurant in Virginia which had a historical theme. I can only describe it as more history in several hours than I had had in several weeks in my Civil War class at college.

Likewise, the mention of Bill Hanchett brings back memories of his visit from California shortly after his book was published. Another great mind with much to share. Ah, the good old days...