What Was The Role of David Herold

[Art Loux]

(02-28-2013 11:40 AM)BettyO Wrote:  Thanks, Art!

Powell had so many aliases and nicknames that I don't know how the kid kept track of them all!

He also wrote to John Surratt under the assumed name of "Wood" from the Revere House in NY. According to Weichmann, the letter was addressed to "James Sturdy" i.e. Surratt.

I have recently found out that the ledgers for the Revere House may still exist -- I'm currently checking that out as well. If so, Powell used either "Wood" (more than likely) or one of his other aliases "James Hall." (No connection to the 'late/great' historian of the same name!) I'm checking into this as we speak....

I'm firmly convinced that Powell/Paine/Wood/Hall/Kincheloe/Ferguson" with the nicknames of "Doc" and "Longfellow" were one and the same person.

Betty,

If you stumble across a picture of the Revere House and/or it's address, let me know. Richard Sloan and I once did a walking tour of the Chester-Booth walk through the village. We had the Revere House address then.

[BettyO]

Art -

The address of the Revere House was 604-608 Broadway, corner of Houston Street, NY. It was a - $2.00 a day rent. This did not include meals -

[John Fazio]

(02-27-2013 03:19 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Is it possible Booth spoke of "others" in an effort to encourage those who might be waivering in their dedication to his cause, by making the number of conspiritors larger than it really was?

As for these unknown "others" on the fringe who are seen acting strangely, in most notorious crimes there are usually eyewitnesses who see things that never were, and see suspicion in ordinary activities. Kooky witness come out of the woodwork to report strange things they've seen.
(Either that or I've wasted years of watching TV cop shows.)

Gene:

Sorry for not responding to this sooner; it did not jog my email in the usual way.

Booth's exaggeration is more than possible; it is probable. Recall that he told Chester in New York that there were between 50 and 100 people involved in the conspiracy and that Herold said he told him there were 35. It could not have been kept secret with such numbers. But an exaggeration does not negate a bigger conspiracy than his immediate action team; it just wasn't as big as he sometimes portrayed it to be. Recall his reference in his diary to the failure of "others" who had failed to strike for their country.

As for others on the fringe, eyewitnesses who come out of the woodwork and see things that never were, etc., recall that Harbin, Stringfellow and Breckenridge left the country. All three returned (Harbin in 5 years; Stringfellow in 2; I don't remember in Breckenridge's case). Benjamin left too, after destroying all his records and correspondence (he used to destroy much of it as he created it), and never returned. Surratt left too, and had to be dragged back. Do innocent men flee? Recall Stringfellow's letter to Davis about being in regular contact, in March, 1865, in Washington, with someone who was very close to Lincoln. And recall, lastly, that Robert Lincoln said, in later years, that he had positive proof that a member of his father's cabinet had been guilty of treason, a statement that ties in well with Jacob Thompson's statement that he would not write memoirs because to do so would positively ruin a man who was still active in national politics.

John

---

(02-27-2013 05:04 PM)BettyO Wrote:  

Quote:And I haven't even begun to talk about the mail line, Ficklin, Stringfellow, Harbin, Parr, et al. Was Richmond ignorant of them too?

Powell also told Gillette that the head of the house where he boarded in Baltimore, i.e. Branson, was also "in on the kidnap plot." I have recently uncovered information regarding Mr. Branson which will surprise folk - it surprised me..... I'll bring this up at the Conference - so be there or be square!

Betty:

I will look forward to meeting you and sharing information re Branson, et al.

John

---

(02-28-2013 05:08 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, thank you for all your comments. I'll limit this to just one question. You mentioned the Parker House meeting. Can you say for certain that this trip was not simply to see Isabel Sumner? What do you think? Do we really know with certainty that JWB met with Confederate operatives there?
[/quote)

Roger:

Sorry for not responding to this sooner. It only recently came to my attention.

No, we do not know with certainty that the meeting took place, but Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy believe it did (Come Retribution, pp. 262, 263) and the circumstantial evidence for it is strong. Steers (Encyclopedia, pp. 422, 423) refers to the evidence as "thin", but I am inclined, as are most prosecutors, to view circumstantial evidence as frequently better than eyewitness testimony. Start with my firm conviction that Booth was at all times relevant in the service of the Confederate Government and especially of its Secret Service. Follow that with the fact that less than two weeks after the meeting, Booth was in Baltimore recruiting his two boyhood chums, Arnold and O'Laughlen, into his "kidnapping" scheme. Follow that with the fact that within two months, the man-boy was in Montreal for two weeks meeting with Thompson, Martin, Sanders, Clay and all the other Confederate biggies. What reasonable conclusion shall we draw? Remember Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the best one. As for Isabel, I know nothing about her, nor about her relationship with the man-boy, and while I do not discount the feminine mystique, it seems a stretch that he would travel all the way to Boston for a dalliance when he already had a "binder" full of women elsewhere. (That was the term used by Romney; so please don't blame me.)

John

---

[quote='BettyO' pid='14097' dateline='1362002695']

Quote:And I haven't even begun to talk about the mail line, Ficklin, Stringfellow, Harbin, Parr, et al. Was Richmond ignorant of them too?

Powell also told Gillette that the head of the house where he boarded in Baltimore, i.e. Branson, was also "in on the kidnap plot." I have recently uncovered information regarding Mr. Branson which will surprise folk - it surprised me..... I'll bring this up at the Conference - so be there or be square!

Betty:

I will look forward to meeting you and sharing information about Branson, et al.

John

[Gene C]

(03-05-2013 03:01 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  And recall, lastly, that Robert Lincoln said, in later years, that he had positive proof that a member of his father's cabinet had been guilty of treason, a statement that ties in well with Jacob Thompson's statement that he would not write memoirs because to do so would positively ruin a man who was still active in national politics.

Anyone have any ideas of who this could be?
(Treason does not necessarily mean involvement in the assassination)

[John Fazio]

(02-28-2013 11:18 AM)Art Loux Wrote:  [quote='John Fazio' pid='13852' dateline='1361686198']

John, I have been reading through this interesting thread and wanted to respond to a few items. Here goes.

You wrote: "I submit that the foregoing evidence suggests that Wood or Woods may not be the same person as Powell and that he (Wood or Woods) was also involved in the assassination and attempted assassinations that night."
Response: See Atzerodt Statement to McPhail, May 1, 1865: "James Wood sometimes called Mosby boarded with Mrs. Murray an Irish woman on the corner of 9 & F St. . . . He was a little over six feet, black hair, smooth round face, gray coat black pants, & spring coat . . . Mosby was Wood'’s nickname - did not know him by any other name than mentioned."

Conclusion: Powell, Wood/Woods, Mosby were all the same person.

You wrote: "In his confession of April 25, Atzerodt said that after Booth returned from New York (i.e. after the Gautier's Restaurant meeting and the Campbell Hospital episode), he took Atzerodt to a lady's house near the Patent Office..."introduced me to a young man he called James Wood. . . ."

Response: Yes, the timing of Atzerodt meeting Powell is off as written. Atzerodt spoke with a thick accent which was difficult to understand. What he said was written down by his various interviewers which added another layer of obfuscation. It is obvious from the May 1, 1865 statement that Atzerodt knew Wood/Mosby/Powell before or coincident to the Gautier’s' meeting.

You wrote: "Later in his April 25 confession, Atzerodt said that "I went up to Woods in the Navy Yard about 12 o'clock after the assassination. . ." This "Woods" could hardly have been Powell. . ."

Response: This mysterious statement can be demystified by reference to Atzerodt'’s other confessions. In his confession which appeared in the Baltimore American of January 18, 1869 Atzerodt described riding around after he left the Kirkwood House at 10:15 (est.): "I rode down the avenue and the cavalry were dashing by me. This was the first I heard of the murder. I then went up Eighth Street and left the horse at the stables opposite the Franklin House, and then went to the Herndon House. I then took a car and went towards the Navy Yard. This was about 11 o’clock, and I met two young men named Briscoe and Spates. After walking some distance I took a car to Sixth and Pennsylvania Avenue."

Conclusion: The statement "I went up to Woods in the Navy Yard about 12 o’clock after the assassination . . ." is garbled. In light of the Baltimore American confession it might be edited to read, "I went up to Wood’'s [meaning the Herndon House], and then took a car to the Navy Yard."

Art:

Sorry for not responding to this sooner; it only recently came to my attention.

I appreciate your input, and your explanations are well taken. Still, there is some difficulty attributing the apparent inconsistency as to who Atzerodt met at the "lady's house near the Patent Office" to the fact that he spoke with a heavy accent. I remain troubled by the fact that he said he was introduced to James Wood after Booth returned from New York, when we know he already knew Powell from the Gautier's meeting and the Campbell Hospital episode.

As you point out, there are inconsistencies galore as to what Atzerodt did on the 14th after the assassination. Some of his inconsistencies were probably intentional, i.e. to conceal complicity (such as his failure to mention that he went to the Kirkwood between 10 and 10:30, per Fletcher, who saw him enter and then exit a few minutes later) and some were probably because his brain was addled with alcohol and he therefore got a lot of things screwed up, as you suggest.

I feel I do not have a firm handle on this issue. I lean in the direction of holding that Powell, Paine, Payne, Rev. Wood, James Wood, Mosby, Kincheloe, etc., are all the same person, as you do, but a doubt remains.

John

John

[RJNorton]

(03-05-2013 03:01 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  As for Isabel, I know nothing about her, nor about her relationship with the man-boy, and while I do not discount the feminine mystique, it seems a stretch that he would travel all the way to Boston for a dalliance when he already had a "binder" full of women elsewhere.

John, the reason I asked and why I am undecided on the meeting with Confederate operatives is because on July 24, 1864, Booth wrote to Isabel Sumner, "I will come at once to Boston."

(03-05-2013 03:01 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  And recall, lastly, that Robert Lincoln said, in later years, that he had positive proof that a member of his father's cabinet had been guilty of treason, a statement that ties in well with Jacob Thompson's statement that he would not write memoirs because to do so would positively ruin a man who was still active in national politics.

John, do you have a reliable source for this statement by Robert Lincoln? Is this part of the "burning papers" story? Are you talking about something separate from the Nicholas Murray Butler story?

[Gene C]

(03-05-2013 05:33 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, do you have a reliable source for this statement by Robert Lincoln? Is this part of the "burning papers" story? Are you talking about something separate from the Nicholas Murray Butler story?

Who is Nicholas Murray Butler, and what's his story?

[RJNorton]

Gene, here's what I have on the topic of Robert burning papers. Nicholas Murray Butler insisted in 1939 the date of the alleged burning of papers was 1923. This was a story in Butler's memoirs. Butler had gone to see Robert Lincoln at the insistence of Horace G. Young who had told him Robert was burning his father's papers. The problem with Butler's story is that Robert Lincoln had turned the papers over to the Library of Congress in 1919. Maybe there were some extra papers Lincoln didn't turn over in 1919. Maybe it never happened at all. Whether or not it did happen, one thing is for sure: no one, other than Robert himself, knew what papers were burned (if indeed they were burned at all). There is no way I know of that connects any of these alleged burned letters to be treason-related. I believe Jason Emerson feels Robert might have burned some papers that were private and family-related but had nothing to do with treason by a Cabinet member. I think Jason also feels Robert may also have burned some of his own papers. This is why I asked John about a source for Robert burning papers regarding treason by a Cabinet member; I am not aware of Robert ever saying this. But, if he really did, I am curious to know about it and where it came from.

[Laurie Verge]

If I remember correctly (and it has been over 10 years), this was one of the questions posed at the Hildene conference that I attended. The answer at that time was a resounding NO! Robert never accused anyone in the administration of commiting treason.

[John Fazio]

(03-05-2013 05:33 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 03:01 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  As for Isabel, I know nothing about her, nor about her relationship with the man-boy, and while I do not discount the feminine mystique, it seems a stretch that he would travel all the way to Boston for a dalliance when he already had a "binder" full of women elsewhere.

John, the reason I asked and why I am undecided on the meeting with Confederate operatives is because on July 24, 1864, Booth wrote to Isabel Sumner, "I will come at once to Boston."

(03-05-2013 03:01 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  And recall, lastly, that Robert Lincoln said, in later years, that he had positive proof that a member of his father's cabinet had been guilty of treason, a statement that ties in well with Jacob Thompson's statement that he would not write memoirs because to do so would positively ruin a man who was still active in national politics.

John, do you have a reliable source for this statement by Robert Lincoln? Is this part of the "burning papers" story? Are you talking about something separate from the Nicholas Murray Butler story?

Roger:

I did not know about Booth's letter to Isabel, or, if I knew, I forgot about it. Well, there's nothing wrong with killing two birds with one stone, or at least one bird and three or four gorillas.

As for the source re Robert Lincoln, here's what I have:

Robert Todd Lincoln died in 1926. Some time before he died, he burned a great collection of his father's letters and private papers. A friend, Mr. Young, stopping in on a visit to Mr. Lincoln's home in Manchester, Vermont, was appalled to see these documents going up in flames. "Mr. Young at once remonstrated...Mr. Lincoln replied he did not intend to continue his destruction--but the papers he was destroying contained the documentary evidence of the treason of a member of Lincoln's Cabinet, and he thought it was best for all that such evidence be destroyed. (Citing Emanuel Hertz, The Hidden Lincoln, Preface, Empahsis supplied) Also quoted in Van Doren Stern, The Man Who Killed Lincoln, p. 406, and in Vaughan Shelton, Mask of [i]Treason[/i], pp. 351, 352. (Roscoe, Web of Conspiracy, p. 533)

Stringfellow saying that he had been in "constant communication with an officer occupying an important position about Mr. Lincoln". (Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy, Come Retribution, p. 412) (Bear in mind that Stringfellow was an especailly rabid Confederate agent, a hater of blacks and the Union and one who spoke openly of wholesale killing to further the cause of Southern independence.)

Jacob Thompson telling the New York Times, on November 20, 1883, that he had decided not to write his life's story, because if he did, it would "utterly ruin" at least one man who had the confidence of the Union government at the time of the Canadian commission and at the same time had aided the Confederacy; that man was still in Congress. (Charles Higham, Murdering Mr. Lincoln, pp. 236, 237

John

[JMadonna]

Jacob Thompson telling the New York Times, on November 20, 1883, that he had decided not to write his life's story, because if he did, it would "utterly ruin" at least one man who had the confidence of the Union government at the time of the Canadian commission and at the same time had aided the Confederacy; that man was still in Congress. (Charles Higham, Murdering Mr. Lincoln, pp. 236, 237


Well I would guess he was referring to Benjamin Wood or Sunset Cox of New York. Though neither men had the confidence of the Union government.

[L Verge]

The sources cited from Hertz, Van Doren Stern, Shelton, and Roscoe are certainly not trustworthy in my opinion. I'm one of those who cut my teeth on Web of Conspiracy and still recommends that well-read students in our field read that one, but I admit that Roscoe used some questionable sources and hinted too much of Eisenschiml to suit me.

None of those hints necessarily suggest that Robert was referring to a member of the Lincoln administration - if indeed he said anything at all.

Jerry - tell us more about Benjamin Wood (there's that Wood name again that gives me fits - any kin to Fernando?) and Sunset Cox.

[JMadonna]

Fernando and Benjamin were brothers and notorious Copperheads. Fernando was New York's former mayor, and in 1865 a US representative from New York. Benjamin was publisher of New York’s most anti-Lincoln newspaper that Lincoln effectively shut down for half the war. I think Hedley mentions Wood as a helper to the CSA during the burning of New York.

[John Fazio]

(03-06-2013 06:51 PM)L Verge Wrote:  The sources cited from Hertz, Van Doren Stern, Shelton, and Roscoe are certainly not trustworthy in my opinion. I'm one of those who cut my teeth on Web of Conspiracy and still recommends that well-read students in our field read that one, but I admit that Roscoe used some questionable sources and hinted too much of Eisenschiml to suit me.

None of those hints necessarily suggest that Robert was referring to a member of the Lincoln administration - if indeed he said anything at all.

Jerry - tell us more about Benjamin Wood (there's that Wood name again that gives me fits - any kin to Fernando?) and Sunset Cox.

Laurie:

I am not surprised that you are not enamored of the sources given; neither am I, but that is all I have at this stage. Remember, however, that even a blind man can stumble over a gem occasionally, and, conversely, that even the masters go astray occasionally. (Example: Mike Kauffman has written that Hanscomb hand-delivered the package from the White House to Lincoln in the presidential box, but Hanscomb himself said that he left it with Forbes and did not hand- deliver it to Lincoln.) Kauffman is addressing our Roundtable next week and I plan to ask him about this, gently and kindly, and a few other things, including his apparent acceptance of the myth of kidnapping.This one is dying hard, like the simple conspiracy theory, but I am nudging it into its well deserved grave.

I remain, Madam, your most obedient & etc.

John

[RJNorton]

Based on what he writes in his book I assume Shelton thought William Seward (or possibly Stanton) was the "mystery Cabinet member" who was guilty of treason. How would evidence of that sort end up in the Lincoln Papers? Why would Robert Lincoln tell just one person about it...Horace G. Young (a golfing partner of Robert's)? If this were really such a great story why didn't it surface before 1937?

Jason Emerson writes, "Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the Abraham Lincoln papers - and certainly the most enduring - is that Robert Lincoln, before giving them up, purposely burned countless of his father's manuscripts in order to purge and purify the family legacy."

Like Laurie, I am very skeptical of those other sources. Regarding Emanuel Hertz, Paul Angle wrote that the Hertz collection was indiscriminate, undocumented, and full of fraudulent material. It was "worse than useless." Dr. Mark Neely writes that the entire story is the "purest bunk." John, as you know, I am fascinated with your work and enjoy it immensely. I thank you for all the work you do. But, regarding this story about Robert Lincoln, I am unconvinced.

I mentioned this once before...IMO, I find this whole story highly suspect as it first became public at just about the same time Eisenschiml's book was published.