Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

08-10-2013, 09:48 PM

Laurie is correct that this issue has been debated fully. Troy, check out this thread:

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...hlight=Leg

To answer Troy's question about a witness, I would direct all to the words, "...in jumping I broke my leg..."
THERE'S a witness who would know. There is no one who respects Mike Kauffman (& Dr. Steers) more than I do, but I think that the bulk of the evidence supports the view that JWB broke his leg at Ford's. Troy, I would direct your attention to Capt. Wood's report that mentioned a Ford's break WELL before JWB's diary was discovered. There WERE witnesses who opined that the leg was broken at Ford's just days after the assassination; we just don't know who they were (my suspicion - as detailed in that thread - is that it was O. Swann)

Heath

Troy Cowan · 08-10-2013, 11:08 PM

(08-10-2013 09:48 PM)Rhatkinson Wrote: Laurie is correct that this issue has been debated fully. Troy, check out this thread:

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...hlight=Leg

Heath

Thanks Rhatkinson
That was most helpful and I now know that more discussion would not be productive.

I am still bothered that this false statement was unchallenged by anyone on this forum. People reading it would go away with a false belief.

"I don't know who told Wood about Booth's broken leg, but recall that there were about 1,700 people in the theater and that a lot of them recorded that Booth had broken a leg ("limped", "bull frog", etc.)..."

John Fazio · (This post was last modified: 08-11-2013 02:51 AM by John Fazio.)

(08-09-2013 04:09 PM)SSlater Wrote: John I. (I'm going to call you I, and I'll be John II - Like Pope John the second - now a Saint.) You are a Lawyer through and through. You are entertaining, as well as informative and constructive. You do your home work. But, your Lawyer side is too dominant. Such as: If you don't know the answer - don't ask the question. On the other hand - if there is no answer, ask it, then don't ask what they are thinking - tell them what they are thinking. That's a good lawyer. I hope you never prosecute me or I'm dead.
You say murdering emaciated and almost certainly unarmed escapees. You are posturing for the jury. Very effective. You say MURDERING, I say punitive reaction. You say unarmed. I say no visible conventional weapons. If they have two hands (one is essential) - they are a threat. These guys are criminals. They were in a pen surrounded by armed guards, who should have should have shot before they got this far. They should have stayed where they were safe. These are escaped POW's, still in enemy territory. They may not be a big threat to 4 or 5 well-armed, well-fed, Rebels on a hand-cart, but they are a threat to a lone widow, or a small sickly male, who just put his supper of one rotten apple, on the table. (Did the Jury like that?)
"The Laws of War". I've never read the whole book, but I can remember my own training. Example: If you are bringing in a prisoner or two, and you are getting sleepy - ready to collapse - you cannot risk tieing them up and go to sleep - NO, Shoot them!. That scenario was approved by the US Gov. and the Pope. (That part was important to me.) As trainees, we drove the Chaplain crazy, with our "Desert Island " Stories. (Suppose we are on a desert island, and there is this girl ........) This was War, and we wanted to be ready. (PS. Yes, you can marry her, even if there is no Clergy present) (That was a relief, to know).
I can't answer some questions, I wasn't there. (I.ve dropped the desert Island scenario). I can't answer others because, there is no answer. If I can't answer, it doesn't make the question a good one. The best I can do is tell you something I read. Errors, in any report, are apt to appear, when the teller is resorting to exaggeration, or suppression - depending on the effect they are trying to create.
(We can't agree on the date that the "Failed Abduction" occurred. March 17th, no, the 19th, no the 20th, maybe. So What! it happened.
PS. Surratt could not have been in Elmira for several weeks, we know where he was on April 6, and the 18th. (with lots of travel in between).

We need a ."Superior Judge", who has a list of ALL approved information, and has authority to edit all our ravings. Say, Betty O?
Laurie is full up with extra duties.

SSlater (John II):

Thank you for your response, which calls, I believe, for no further commentary from me other than to say that I consider it a good one.

John

(08-10-2013 10:52 AM)L Verge Wrote: John I - If it's any consolation, every legitimate author that I have known on this subject has had to do major rewrites and condensing to satisfy publishers (and I do feel that publishers know what the buying public's tolerance level is on numbers of pages they have to read).

Mike Kauffman comes to mind because he snuck many of his ideas past the publisher by taking them out of the main text and inserting them (again condensed) into the chapter notes at the end of American Brutus. The only drawback that I see with this method is that probably 50% of the audience doesn't read and absorb chapter notes because they float outside the main flow of the text and aren't retained as well. I actually resorted to reading the book and then going back and reading just the chapter notes and taking the extended ones as little vignettes in their own right.

Laurie:

Quite right. One author friend said it was like "drowning kittens", a painful process. I understand the reasons for it, on the one hand, but on the other hand it means that a truly comprehensive story of the assassination will probably never be told, or at least never be published, because it would take about 1,200 pages to do it.

John

(08-10-2013 12:01 PM)Rhatkinson Wrote: The chapter notes in American Brutus are nearly as good as the chapters. It's the ideal book for your Kindle or ipad as you can quickly click to the notes.

John, thanks for your posts; they are very interesting.

Heath

Heath:

You are quite welcome. So are yours. And so are everyone else's. What a great educational tool this is!

John

(08-10-2013 12:17 PM)Troy Cowan Wrote: John Fazio said,

"I don't know who told Wood about Booth's broken leg, but recall that there were about 1,700 people in the theater and that a lot of them recorded that Booth had broken a leg ("limped", "bull frog", etc.) I believe he broke it when he fell to the stage. The horse business was a cover story. The evidence is strong. He knew a lot of people had witnessed it, which is why he would not lie in his diary, which would have destroyed his credibility".

John, I have been looking for years if anyone present at Ford's Theatre on April 14, 1865, said Booth limped across the stage. I have found none. Maybe you could present some. I have found dozens of statement of people at the Theatre that Booth ran off the stage. For example:

A witness to Booth’s jump, Frederick A. Sawyer, said, “He ran with lightning speed across the stage” .

James B. Stewart testified that “he was at the theater on the night of the assassination, and saw the assassin leap from the box, and made an effort to stop him from running across the stage. Stewart continued,

When I got out of the door I perceived a man mounting a horse. He was at that instant barely mounted. The moon was just beginning to rise, and I could see him better. The horse was moving in a circle as though prematurely spurred in mounting. I ran in the direction to which the horse was heading at about eight or ten feet from the head of the horse, and the rider brought him around to the right again. The horse’s feet were rattling violently on the stones. I crossed in the same direction, and was soon on the right hand side of the horse, but he was gaining on me. When about two-thirds of the way out of the alley, he brought the horse forward and swept to the left of F Street. I commanded him to stop. It all occupied but two seconds.
Source: Lincoln, Davis, and Booth: Family Secrets

Both Booth and Herold said Booth's horse stumbled and fell with Booth on the horse. When they reached Loyd's home, Booth's horse had a bloody knee and Booth had a broken leg and mud on his pants.

Troy:

In deference to Laurie's statement re this issue, let me say only that there is evidence for both positions. In my opinion, the preponderance of the evidence and the better evidence favors a break on the stage. That is also the opinion of most assassination historians, including Holzer, Eisenschiml, Zeinert, O'Neal, Bryan, Weichmann, Mills, Starkey, Roscoe, DeWitt, the Kunhardts, Baker and Steers. As far as I know, only Kauffman and Good favor the horse theory, though I believe Blaine Houmes recently joined them. Let me say, last, that Joseph Stewart is not a good witness. He lied, presumably to flesh out a story he thought he could sell. His testimony is contradicted by almost 10 other witnesses. Police Superintendent A. C. Richards, who was there, said he was a "shady lawyer" (is there such a thing?) whose story of the pas de trois he did with Booth and his bay mare in the alley, outside the theater door, is entirely fictitious. There is a chapter on this subject in my book.

Thank you for your comments.

John

RJNorton · 08-11-2013, 03:50 AM

(08-10-2013 08:25 PM)Troy Cowan Wrote: Roger, My quote came from post #76 on this thread. It is located at the second paragraph from the bottom.

Troy, thank you. I had gone through all the posts in the "Breaking a Leg" discussion and couldn't find it. I also didn't find it in the "Report that Booth's Horse Fell on Him" thread as well as the threads entitled "Where did Booth break his leg?," "Thoughts on Booth leg fracture," and "Broken Fibula - Again!" I just didn't think to look in the the John Surratt thread.

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 08-11-2013 11:52 AM by L Verge.)

The comment that John II made about books on this subject needing 1200 pages or more to adequately tell the story is so true. About 35 years ago, I was told by James O. Hall that his manuscript (Murder At Ford's Theatre) was over 1200 pages in length, and that Knopf & Sons was interested in it if he would chop out at least 400 pages. He never completed the task because he began sharing so much of his work with future writers in the field.

He also became heavily involved with Bill Tidwell and Dave Gaddy in that tremendous work entitled Come Retribution. That was published by a University Press, but they even had problems there. A young editor, fresh with diploma and red pen in hand, was assigned to "assist" them. It turned out to be one of the most frustrating experiences of their lives. She changed data and context as well as erasing necessary sections. From that point on, I could see Mr. Hall's attitude change. He remained very generous in sharing his research, but he no longer seemed interested in authoring another book.

Before he died, the research librarian at Surratt House had begun working with him in sorting out his files, etc. He had signed a letter of intent to the museum years before to assure that his estate would agree to his research coming to us. He had stopped talking about his Murder At Ford's Theatre, and I knew that much of his research had gone into Come Retribution, so I didn't ask about it. However, when all of his files were transferred to us, there was no manuscript.

His wife had pre-deceased him, and they had no children. Two young nieces on his wife's side of the family were administrators to the estate. They knew nothing about the ms. I asked authors whom he had helped, and they knew nothing about it. For nearly a year before his death, he lost his ability to speak, so it was very difficult to communicate. And frankly, I was too chicken to ask what had become of his manuscript.

It has always been my suspicion that his trials with editors and publishers did him in, that he shared all of the good stuff with authors that he trusted to do a good job with his work (without their knowledge that he was doing so), and went to his grave letting Come Retribution - one of the most controversial (and overlooked) pieces of work in our field - be his signature piece.

One of the worst days of my life came when a member of the Surratt Society, who had moved to Florida upon retirement (no, it's not Roger), announced that he had written a book on the assassination. It was already published before anyone knew about it. Its title is Murder At Ford's Theatre... And yes, I cried that day.

It was definitely not the work of my friend and mentor, James O. Hall, but you cannot copyright a title. This man knew exactly what he was doing.

John Fazio · 08-12-2013, 08:26 AM

(08-11-2013 11:49 AM)L Verge Wrote: The comment that John II made about books on this subject needing 1200 pages or more to adequately tell the story is so true. About 35 years ago, I was told by James O. Hall that his manuscript (Murder At Ford's Theatre) was over 1200 pages in length, and that Knopf & Sons was interested in it if he would chop out at least 400 pages. He never completed the task because he began sharing so much of his work with future writers in the field.

He also became heavily involved with Bill Tidwell and Dave Gaddy in that tremendous work entitled Come Retribution. That was published by a University Press, but they even had problems there. A young editor, fresh with diploma and red pen in hand, was assigned to "assist" them. It turned out to be one of the most frustrating experiences of their lives. She changed data and context as well as erasing necessary sections. From that point on, I could see Mr. Hall's attitude change. He remained very generous in sharing his research, but he no longer seemed interested in authoring another book.

Before he died, the research librarian at Surratt House had begun working with him in sorting out his files, etc. He had signed a letter of intent to the museum years before to assure that his estate would agree to his research coming to us. He had stopped talking about his Murder At Ford's Theatre, and I knew that much of his research had gone into Come Retribution, so I didn't ask about it. However, when all of his files were transferred to us, there was no manuscript.

His wife had pre-deceased him, and they had no children. Two young nieces on his wife's side of the family were administrators to the estate. They knew nothing about the ms. I asked authors whom he had helped, and they knew nothing about it. For nearly a year before his death, he lost his ability to speak, so it was very difficult to communicate. And frankly, I was too chicken to ask what had become of his manuscript.

It has always been my suspicion that his trials with editors and publishers did him in, that he shared all of the good stuff with authors that he trusted to do a good job with his work (without their knowledge that he was doing so), and went to his grave letting Come Retribution - one of the most controversial (and overlooked) pieces of work in our field - be his signature piece.

One of the worst days of my life came when a member of the Surratt Society, who had moved to Florida upon retirement (no, it's not Roger), announced that he had written a book on the assassination. It was already published before anyone knew about it. Its title is Murder At Ford's Theatre... And yes, I cried that day.

It was definitely not the work of my friend and mentor, James O. Hall, but you cannot copyright a title. This man knew exactly what he was doing.

Laurie:

Thank you for this history of James O., whom I often refer to in the book as "the dean of assassination historians". It appears that the only saving grace in the story is that he did help so many others and that his signature piece, Come Retribution, is a seminal work of the greatest importance and influence. He, Tidwell and Gaddy single-handedly overturned almost 125 years of error made by people who were put to sleep by Sanders, Dunham, Montgomery and Merritt. In retrospect, it is astonishing that more people did not see through their artifice sooner, because if Davis, et al., were innocent and they knew it to be so, they would simply have said so. The fact that they alleged them to be guilty, therefore, proves that they did not know them to be innocent and that their testimony was given for a nefarious purpose. All roads, therefore, lead to complicity.

John

L Verge · 08-12-2013, 10:42 AM

John II - I'm assuming that your last few sentences refer to Sanders, Dunham, et al and not Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy? If the latter, I'm afraid I will have to throw down the gauntlet. The Bladensburg Dueling Grounds where Stephen Decatur and others met their doom is still maintained about thirty minutes from Surratt House. I'm thinking conference time...

Since I don't know one end of a pistol from another, I will choose either Joe Beckert or Wesley Harris as my alternates or back-up or whatever they are called. Insert smiley face here - and this may be the first and only time that I ever use that emoticon.

John Fazio · 08-12-2013, 11:19 AM

(08-12-2013 10:42 AM)L Verge Wrote: John II - I'm assuming that your last few sentences refer to Sanders, Dunham, et al and not Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy? If the latter, I'm afraid I will have to throw down the gauntlet. The Bladensburg Dueling Grounds where Stephen Decatur and others met their doom is still maintained about thirty minutes from Surratt House. I'm thinking conference time...

Since I don't know one end of a pistol from another, I will choose either Joe Beckert or Wesley Harris as my alternates or back-up or whatever they are called. Insert smiley face here - and this may be the first and only time that I ever use that emoticon.

Laurie:

The last few sentences refer to Sanders, Dunham, et al. Sorry if that was not clear. I am saying that they engineered the shifting of the blame and that Hall, Tidwell and Gaddy finally revealed the truth. Isn't that your understanding too?

John

SSlater · 08-12-2013, 05:09 PM

(08-12-2013 10:42 AM)L Verge Wrote: John II - I'm assuming that your last few sentences refer to Sanders, Dunham, et al and not Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy? If the latter, I'm afraid I will have to throw down the gauntlet. The Bladensburg Dueling Grounds where Stephen Decatur and others met their doom is still maintained about thirty minutes from Surratt House. I'm thinking conference time...

Since I don't know one end of a pistol from another, I will choose either Joe Beckert or Wesley Harris as my alternates or back-up or whatever they are called. Insert smiley face here - and this may be the first and only time that I ever use that emoticon.

Laurie. I'm John II, and I didn't write about Sanders, et. al. So if your dusting off the "shootin' irons", I would be glad to write a grand story about the outcome, other wise count me out. LOL.

L Verge · 08-12-2013, 05:26 PM

My apologies, John II. Even with a scorecard I can't keep y'all apart. Now I know how the Yankees felt trying to keep track of the Secret Line...

SSlater · 08-12-2013, 07:32 PM

(08-12-2013 05:26 PM)L Verge Wrote: My apologies, John II. Even with a scorecard I can't keep y'all apart. Now I know how the Yankees felt trying to keep track of the Secret Line...

Laurie. I find it difficult when everyone uses first names only, and they don't relate to their "user name". So be it!

JMadonna · 10-20-2013, 08:29 AM

Has anyone out there put together a timeline of John Surratt's movements? Particularly, from mid-March to the assassination. I think this would be a helpful guide in many ways.

L Verge · 10-20-2013, 10:00 AM

Have you checked Andy Jampoler's Last Lincoln Conspirator?

JMadonna · 10-20-2013, 12:34 PM

(10-20-2013 10:00 AM)L Verge Wrote: Have you checked Andy Jampoler's Last Lincoln Conspirator?

No. Honestly I'm not interested in adding to my library a book that may or may not have the information I'm seeking. I suppose I could cobble the information together from the sources I have but, I was hoping someone would have it handy.

L Verge · 10-21-2013, 10:52 AM

In trying to find a timeline for Surratt in Jampoler's book (there isn't one), I did find reference to a Senator Zachariah Chandler. I believe that Bill Nash mentioned being interested in Chandler in an earlier post somewhere on this forum.

Since I'm too lazy to find that thread, I'll just post what Andrew Jampoler said on page 47 of The Last Lincoln Conspirator: "In fact, some in Washington planned for an invasion of Canada up until the end of the Civil War. Senator Zach Chandler of Michigan was father to one such plot. His plan was that 200,000 veterans, half from the North and half from the South, would march into Canada. The purpose, as reported by a supportive contemporary, Senator William Stewart of Nevada, was to confiscate British possessions in Canada as compensation for Union shipping losses to British-built Confederate navy commerce raiders. Not coincidentally, going to war together 'to fight against a common hereditary enemy,' was expected to help heal the breach between the North and South. Stewart claimed thirty senators (of fifty) supported Chandler's idea and that only Lincoln's assassination, 'at almost the very instant the scheme was to be sprung upon the country,' derailed it."