Good point, Bill and Laurie has a theory about Herold making a run south on April 13th. Miss Laurie?

(02-02-2013 09:15 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  As for Augur, I don't think he looked the other way; he reprimanded Cobb severely, but in the end nothing more serious than that was done because Augur, too, must have known that enforcement of the rule had eased and that the sentries had discretion in the matter. To a degree, the facts speak for themselves.

John,
There is no record that I know of where Auger reprimanded Cobb much less in a severe manner. Neither is there any example that I know of that sentries had discretion as to enforcing the orders.

On the contrary, it is a fact that Lincoln was writing a pass to someone right before he left for the theater.

If the facts speak for themselves it seems that you and I are hearing their story differently.

(02-02-2013 09:15 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  My grandfather was born 3 years after the end of the C.W.

Well you got me there but only by 8 years. I broke the family tradition of fathering children into my fifties.

John,

Thanks for somewhat holding up my end of the bridge fight. BTW, my grandfather was born in 1868 also and my grandmother in 1874. She lived to be 91 and is the one who instilled the love of history in me. It was easy to listen to her because she had lived so much of what I was learning in school.

As for the testing of the bridge. Mrs. Surratt and Weichmann made it over the bridge during daylight hours on both April 11 and April 14. However, we know on the 11th that she was a little concerned about sentries that were posted at night. She inquired of a man along the road as to when they were pulled in, and I believe the answer was 8 pm.

On the 14th, she was late arriving at the tavern, and Lloyd was even later. She was starting to get a bit antsy about making it back before the bridge closed. I believe it was around 6 pm when they finally headed back to D.C. According to my calculations, that would put her at the bridge about 8 pm. When you stop and think about everything that some of us suspicion went on at the boardinghouse in the next few hours, it was a bee hive! Dinner, start to church, turn back because of weather, talk with Smoot, and other things that I don't agree with...

Next thought: Sorry to bore you once again with the Herold/Huntt story, but I contend that Herold was sent into Southern Maryland sometime on April 12, after Booth made the final decision to strike after hearing the Lincoln speech on April 11. Davey never seemed to have a problem getting out of the city, but he did spend the night with my great-grandparents on April 13. Was it because he had gotten so wet during the rainstorm, or was it because he knew there would be problems getting back into the city? He was gone from the Huntts' by 6 am and had breakfast at his own home - according to a sister.

Since truck farmers from Southern Maryland would be arriving at the bridge early in order to set up at the various markets, could we assume that the bridge would open for traffic about 6 am? And, I agree with the idea that the authorities were more worried about people coming into the city than those leaving - especially when there was no indication that anything was wrong. Fletcher's problem was that he needed to get back into the city. Booth and Herold had no intentions of doing so.

Thanks for confirming, Laurie - to this very day, I get my "bridges" mixed up!

Hello John,

Kudos to you on a great article. I always love when someone challenges the story as its been told for umpteen years. Also, kudos to Dave Taylor for asking the question 'Where's the source ?" a few years back...

I have a question: You seem to give a lot of attention to the lights being turned off in the theater in regards to Booth's assassination plan.

Weren't the lights to be extinguished to aid the kidnapping and not the murder ?

[quote='John E.' pid='12345' dateline='1359993607']
Hello John,

Kudos to you on a great article. I always love when someone challenges the story as its been told for umpteen years. Also, kudos to Dave Taylor for asking the question 'Where's the source ?" a few years back...

I have a question: You seem to give a lot of attention to the lights being turned off in the theater in regards to Booth's assassination plan.

Weren't the lights to be extinguished to aid the kidnapping and not the murder ?
[/quote


John:

Thank you very much for your compliment and for remembering Dave Taylor.

John, the next shibboleth and icon that I will attempt to destroy is "kidnapping". There is a chapter in my book by that title and I believe it destroys the myth that Booth first contemplated kidnapping, but changed his mind to murder in the days leading up to the assassination. In my judgment, the Confederates were not so stupid as to imagine that kidnapping the President and holding him hostage would have done them the slightest good. There is good evidence that Booth was contemplating murder as early as 1863, and certainly as early as
April, 1864. Eckert believed such intent dated to January, 1865, at least. Neither Harris nor Bingham believed the kidnapping story. The other so-called kidnapping plots, (Joseph Walker Taylor; Bradley T. Johnson; Thomas Nelson Conrad and Daniel Mountjoy Cloud), were either vetoed by higher authority or came to nothing, perhaps elaborate ruses to deceive Union intelligence. Forget kidnapping. Zero in on the real plot, which followed the Wistar and Dahlgren-Kilpatrick raids, in which Confederate leaders believed they had been targeted by Lincoln and Stanton for death. After those raids, the gloves were off and the goal became multiple assassinations. Kidnapping is kid stuff.

John

(02-04-2013 11:00 AM)John E. Wrote:  Weren't the lights to be extinguished to aid the kidnapping and not the murder ?

Hi John. This is in Jerry Madonna's book. On p. 135 Jerry writes that Spangler was unable to turn out the gas lights because Jeannie Gourlay and William Withers were standing in a spot that blocked Spangler's access to the meter box. That miscue left the lights on as Booth was on the stage.

I thought the gaslights issue had been resolved earlier with mention of the man who normally tended the lights being in his place. I also thought that we had agreed that the lights issue was part of the kidnap plot. Booth had no need for those lights to be out during the murder. He needed to see his target and his way to the exit - not to mention that he wanted the audience to see his grand performance.

Also, if there was no kidnap plot, why was Herold sent to Surrattsville on March 17 in a buggy with carbines and other supplies? Certainly that trip wasn't necessary to pull off a ruse.

I hope Jerry sees this and will explain his thinking.

I sure like his book (as he well knows) and all the thinking and research he put into it, but my personal opinion, as stated repeatedly in the past, is the belief Spangler was more a victim of circumstances rather than complicit with Booth's plot to assassinate Abraham Lincoln.

Jerry doesn't believe me, but I also like his book - even though I don't agree with everything in it. As Joe Beckert said in an earlier post, he thinks outside the box and stirs up things. That's what keeps us on our toes in the history field.

There is much speculation as to what really happened on the bridge. As one who has been down the logical rabbit hole as much as I’ve been, let me tell you how I determined what I did. First of all, speculation is necessary because there is no clear path to follow. The more you can tie your speculation to what is historically known the more correct you’ll be. What you don’t want to do is pile speculation on top of speculation it will lead to a dead-end and an indefensible position.

As John pointed out there were too many lucky coincidences for Booth’s escape. To get over the bridge one of 2 things had to happen; negligence of the guard or Booth had passes.

The negligence theory has been accepted for years but there is really nothing to it but speculation. There is no example of bridge rules being lax nor any evidence of a bribe. Stanton never sent an APB to the bridges because he thought the rules were being rigidly enforced. After 150 years have we found any evidence that this assumption was wrong? If so, I don’t know of it.

The army would have investigated the situation and if negligence was the cause a reprimand would be in order. Yet there is no evidence of one. One can speculate that the actual reprimand was covered up but for what purpose, to save the reputation of sergeant? Not likely, cover-ups like that are reserved for higher ups.

Compare Cobb’s situation with that of Parker, the guard who left his post. He received a reprimand that was lost. We know this because its part of the historical record. Is there any hint that Cobb got the same treatment? Anywhere?

Yes, the theory of Booth having passes seems ridiculous but it has a historical anchor point, Atzerodt’s statement that Booth and Herold had seen Johnson. If you accept his statement as true now you have a link to the actual reason why Booth was confident he could get over the bridge. Plus there are other incidentals mysteries that this theory helps resolve like Booth’s note to Johnson and others.

As I’ve said, speculation is necessary but make sure that it’s based upon known historical anchor points and not someone else’s long held assumption.

Jerry

---

(02-04-2013 11:53 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 11:00 AM)John E. Wrote:  Weren't the lights to be extinguished to aid the kidnapping and not the murder ?

Hi John. This is in Jerry Madonna's book. On p. 135 Jerry writes that Spangler was unable to turn out the gas lights because Jeannie Gourlay and William Withers were standing in a spot that blocked Spangler's access to the meter box. That miscue left the lights on as Booth was on the stage.

Roger,
The positioning of Spangler came from Jeannie Gourlay's brother. If Spangler actually intended to turn off the lights for Booth, no one will ever know. But he was a lot closer to commiting a crime than Aterodt was.

Stanton did send APBs, but just not in time. It took awhile for him to receive the news at his home, hurry to the Petersen House, start taking statements, etc. I believe it is Kauffman who tells that Booth and Herold cleared Forts Baker and Stanton at the top of Good Hope Hill before the telegraph started clicking. There had to be at least a 30-45 minute lapse between the murder and the regrouping of authority.

Also, Parker's reprimand proceedings were not lost until the 1960s - and still aren't lost so far as we know. We just have to find the officer who retrieved them from the trash can fifty years ago and is holding onto them - at least that's the story that police historians have been told.

(02-04-2013 01:04 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  I hope Jerry sees this and will explain his thinking.

I sure like his book (as he well knows) and all the thinking and research he put into it, but my personal opinion, as stated repeatedly in the past, is the belief Spangler was more a victim of circumstances rather than complicit with Booth's plot to assassinate Abraham Lincoln.

Roger:

Wonderful and congratulations. Let me say it loud and clear: SPANGLER WAS INNOCENT! Once more for emphasis: SPANGLER WAS INNOCENT. And it matters.

John

---

(02-04-2013 12:40 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  I thought the gaslights issue had been resolved earlier with mention of the man who normally tended the lights being in his place. I also thought that we had agreed that the lights issue was part of the kidnap plot. Booth had no need for those lights to be out during the murder. He needed to see his target and his way to the exit - not to mention that he wanted the audience to see his grand performance.

Also, if there was no kidnap plot, why was Herold sent to Surrattsville on March 17 in a buggy with carbines and other supplies? Certainly that trip wasn't necessary to pull off a ruse.

Laurie:

The gas issue is not entirely resolved. Granted that Booth was an egomaniac, it nevertheless remains a possibility that he wanted the lights out to facilitate his escape. I doubt that he needed light to find the corridor that led to the back door. He knew the place like the back of his hand.

More importantly, kidnapping is not inextrictably bound to the deposit of the carbines and tools, etc., at the tavern. They could just as easily have been deposited in connection with assassination(s). In fact, they were. The fugitives stopped there on the night of the 14th and picked up one of the carbines (they would have picked up both of them, but for Booth's injury), the field glasses and whiskey. They hadn't kidnapped anyone.

John

Then why didn't Herold just drop those items off on March 17, when he first got to the tavern instead of waiting around and then heading five miles south to T.B. to spend the night? And why did Surratt and Atzerodt come looking for him on March 18?

Herold was so well known in that area that he could have dropped those carbines off any place. Southern Marylanders had been receiving and forwarding contraband weapons for four years.

Your turn...

(02-04-2013 04:02 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  Then why didn't Herold just drop those items off on March 17, when he first got to the tavern instead of waiting around and then heading five miles south to T.B. to spend the night? And why did Surratt and Atzerodt come looking for him on March 18?

Herold was so well known in that area that he could have dropped those carbines off any place. Southern Marylanders had been receiving and forwarding contraband weapons for four years.

Your turn...

Laurie:

Trying to get ahead of you is like trying to get ahead of a cheetah. I'm going off now to have my daily cocktail. I'll respond to this tomorrow, I hope.

John