Who else besides Johnson could issue a pass? Seems like a menial task for the VP to be involved in.

(04-16-2013 05:10 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  An eyewitness account that states Powell had a pistol in his boot? I'm not buying it. Those things weigh a whole 2 pounds! That's waaaaay too bulky to fit in a boot!

If this is correct, I'd say he kept one to make his escape. I wouldn't want to be unarmed after that. Makes perfect sense.

He had the pistol during the day but it was locked in Atzerodt room during the
attacks.

---

(04-16-2013 07:53 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Who else besides Johnson could issue a pass? Seems like a menial task for the VP to be involved in.

Unless there was a tie in the Senate that needed his vote, Johnson had nothing to do but drink during the day.

---

(04-16-2013 01:07 PM)wsanto Wrote:  He doesn't sound like the kind of soldier you would hand-pick for this kind of mission. If I was Mosby or another Confederate Officer looking for the man to help in the mission to assassinate Lincoln and Seward, I wouldn't pick the guy in my unit that is helping to save the lives of Union soldiers and not cleaning his gun. I would pick a killer, an assassin.

Is there any indication as to how he got messed up in this business in the first place?

Lincoln was 6'4" and a powerfully built man. Booth needed someone who could control him in case he decided to resist his kidnapping.

(04-16-2013 07:48 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 08:05 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Jerry and William:

Jerry, I read your book, and much as I would like to support your work, I have to be honest and say I do not believe the evidence supports the "pass" theory, which is central to your book. There is talk in Atzerodt's confessions and statements about passes, true, but nowhere is there any indication that either he or Booth or any of the conspirators actually obtained one. Further, nothing in the conversations between Cobb and Booth and Herold suggests that anyone had a pass. If Booth or Herold had a pass, they would simply have flashed it and they would then have been permitted to pass on the strength of it. Instead, we have all this palaver about the time of day, the rules, where are you going, why, etc., etc. All of this suggests that Booth and Herold had other reasons to know they would be permitted to cross, which, in my judgment, is why they knew they didn't need a pass and therefore did not bother to get one, assuming they could have gotten one if they wanted one. Te other reason? Perhaps Mosby men in the wings prepared to force passage if needed. Perhaps a well placed bribe of Cobb. Here is something else to think about. Rule No. 5 provided that passage could only be granted after 9:00 if one had a pass AND GAVE THE RIGHT COUNTERSIGN. But then, in the official accounts, we hear nothing about a countersign. Was one required? What was it? Was it given by Booth and Herold? In the entire corpus of literature on the subject, I have found only one reference to the use of a countersign that night. It is in Guttridge and Neff's book. That alone makes it suspect, but the fact that they cite no authority for their reference makes it even more suspect. They said (p. 147, Dark Union) that the password was "T.B." and the countersign was "T.B. Road" and that Booth and Herold used it on the Maryland side of the river. Can you shed any light on this?

John

John,
You are probably a great defense attorney the way you can throw out a lot of doubt without coming up with a viable theory as to what actually happened. The central issue is how Booth and Herold crossed when the orders were very clear that they needed a pass to cross at night. Atzerodt states that Booth wanted him to get a pass from Johnson AND that Booth and Herold had already seen Johnson. If you believe what Atzerodt said was true (and this was not known until 1977) then the answer jumps out at you. If you don’t believe it then you can throw all the ‘perhaps this and that’ that you want and still not come up with a viable theory.

Remember that in the official records there is an excerpt of Cobb undergoing some obvious coaching before he took the stand. In my judgment his testimony was carefully choreographed so that he was telling the truth but very restrictive on what he said to protect the new president. Does that ever happen in testimony nowadays?

As for the countersign my question is how often did it change? Most probably it changed on a weekly basis so that old passes could not be used over again. If Johnson gave Booth & Herold a pass on Monday or Tuesday of that week it would probably not expire before that Friday evening.

Jerry:

What is that reference in the Official Record to coaching of Cobb? I do not recall it from your book. I find that very interesting. Please advise.

There is an interesting note in Dark Union (a book I do not have a high regard for, but, as I keep saying, even a blind man can stumble over a nugget occasionally). Inter alia, the authors say (p. 263):

What occurred at the Navy Yard Bridge has never been positively established. One has to consider: F. E. Demond and F. L. Bates, June 16, 1916, Swaim Collection, Georgetown University Library, Special Collections...and Lieut. David Dana, Boston Sunday Globe, Dec. 12, 1897...(Further)..."the failure to question Cobb immediately after the crime is as perplexing as the failure to question (special policeman) Parker." (Stanley Kimmel, The Mad Booths of Maryland)

I wonder: did you have occasion to check any of these references in connection with your book? If so, I should like to hear something about them. Thanks in advance.

John

(04-19-2013 01:02 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  There is an interesting note in Dark Union (a book I do not have a high regard for, but, as I keep saying, even a blind man can stumble over a nugget occasionally). Inter alia, the authors say (p. 263):

What occurred at the Navy Yard Bridge has never been positively established. One has to consider: F. E. Demond and F. L. Bates, June 16, 1916, Swaim Collection, Georgetown University Library, Special Collections...and Lieut. David Dana, Boston Sunday Globe, Dec. 12, 1897...(Further)..."the failure to question Cobb immediately after the crime is as perplexing as the failure to question (special policeman) Parker." (Stanley Kimmel, The Mad Booths of Maryland)

In addition to that quote is this one from Dark Union - chapter notes p 263-264
'If indeed the statement is genuinely Cobb's, (an unsigned and undated statement in the LAS files) it cast further doubt on officialdom's story, for, at least as reported in the Evening Star, May 17, 1865, Cobb said after seeing a picture of David Herold that "I do not think he was the man" who crossed the bridge a few minutes after Booth'

(04-19-2013 01:02 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Jerry:

What is that reference in the Official Record to coaching of Cobb? I do not recall it from your book. I find that very interesting. Please advise.

John

The interrogatory with Cobb is found in M-599 starting at reel 4 frame 171.

My book dissects Cobb's testimony p.222 - 226.

(04-19-2013 07:58 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 01:02 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  There is an interesting note in Dark Union (a book I do not have a high regard for, but, as I keep saying, even a blind man can stumble over a nugget occasionally). Inter alia, the authors say (p. 263):

What occurred at the Navy Yard Bridge has never been positively established. One has to consider: F. E. Demond and F. L. Bates, June 16, 1916, Swaim Collection, Georgetown University Library, Special Collections...and Lieut. David Dana, Boston Sunday Globe, Dec. 12, 1897...(Further)..."the failure to question Cobb immediately after the crime is as perplexing as the failure to question (special policeman) Parker." (Stanley Kimmel, The Mad Booths of Maryland)

In addition to that quote is this one from Dark Union - chapter notes p 263-264
'If indeed the statement is genuinely Cobb's, (an unsigned and undated statement in the LAS files) it cast further doubt on officialdom's story, for, at least as reported in the Evening Star, May 17, 1865, Cobb said after seeing a picture of David Herold that "I do not think he was the man" who crossed the bridge a few minutes after Booth'

I don't believe it was sinister. It was dark. Cobb describes Herold's horse pretty well in court testimony. We know it was Herold.

The clincher for me is that Fletcher testifys that Cobb was going to let him across without a pass but wouldn't let him return.

It seems pretty evident that Cobb was letting anyone across into Maryland without a pass that night as long as they looked reasonble and had a satisfactory reason for crossing.

Also the fact that the court did not pursue any line of questioning concerning passes, curfew, etc. with Cobb is evident, in my opinion, that Cobb's actions were acceptable if not routine.

(04-19-2013 07:58 AM)Gene C Wrote:  In addition to that quote is this one from Dark Union - chapter notes p 263-264
May 17, 1865, Cobb said after seeing a picture of David Herold that "I do not think he was the man" who crossed the bridge a few minutes after Booth'

By not implicating Herold, Cobb avoided being cross-examined by Herold's attorney. IMO it was a sharp move by whoever coached him.

---

(04-19-2013 12:55 PM)wsanto Wrote:  The clincher for me is that Fletcher testifys that Cobb was going to let him across without a pass but wouldn't let him return.

It seems pretty evident that Cobb was letting anyone across into Maryland without a pass that night as long as they looked reasonble and had a satisfactory reason for crossing.

Also the fact that the court did not pursue any line of questioning concerning passes, curfew, etc. with Cobb is evident that Cobb's actions were acceptable if not routine.

I disagree.

Cobb had testified BEFORE Fletcher. Fletcher could have just as easily got it wrong. He never said that Cobb said 'Yes' . As I read it Cobb answered his question 'Can I Cross" with another question. 'How will you get back?'. After explaining the rules Fletcher may have thought he made the decision not to cross but in reality Cobb never told him that he would pass him.

You are correct that the court did not pursue any line of questioning concerning passes, curfew, etc.. Probably because Cobb's testimony had nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the conspirators.

(04-19-2013 01:07 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 12:55 PM)wsanto Wrote:  The clincher for me is that Fletcher testifys that Cobb was going to let him across without a pass but wouldn't let him return.

It seems pretty evident that Cobb was letting anyone across into Maryland without a pass that night as long as they looked reasonble and had a satisfactory reason for crossing.

Also the fact that the court did not pursue any line of questioning concerning passes, curfew, etc. with Cobb is evident that Cobb's actions were acceptable if not routine.

I disagree.

Cobb had testified BEFORE Fletcher. Fletcher could have just as easily got it wrong. He never said that Cobb said 'Yes' . As I read it Cobb answered his question 'Can I Cross" with another question. 'How will you get back?'. After explaining the rules Fletcher may have thought he made the decision not to cross but in reality Cobb never told him that he would pass him.

You are correct that the court did not pursue any line of questioning concerning passes, curfew, etc.. Probably because Cobb's testimony had nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the conspirators.

This is a cut and paste of the part of Fletcher's testimony that deals with his interaction with Cobb.

...I then returned to the stable for a saddle and bridle and horse myself. I got a horse, and went along the avenue until came to Thirteenth Street; went up Thirteenth Street to E, along E until I came to Ninth, and turned down Ninth Street to Pennsylvania Avenue again. I went along the avenue to the south side of the Capitol. I there met a gentleman coming down; and I asked him if he saw any men going up there, riding on horseback. He said yes, and that they were riding very fast. I did not ask him any more questions. I followed on until I got to the Navy-Yard Bridge; and the guard there halted me, and called for the sergeant of the guard of the heavy artillery, and he came out. I asked him if a road horse had crossed that bridge, giving him a description of the horse, saddle and bridle, and the man that was riding the horse. He said, ‘Yes: he has gone across that bridge.” Said I, “Did he stay long here?” He replied, “He said that he was waiting for an acquaintance of his that was coming on; but he did not wait; and another man came riding a bay horse or a bay mare, I do not know which, right after him.” Said I to the sergeant, “Did he tell you his name?”—“Yes,” said he: “he said his name was Smith.” I asked the sergeant if I could cross the bridge after them. He said, “Yes, you can cross the bridge; but you cannot return back.” I said, ‘If that is so, I will not go.” So I turned around, and came back to the city again....

When was Cobb first shown Herold's picture?

(04-19-2013 02:35 PM)wsanto Wrote:  ” I asked the sergeant if I could cross the bridge after them. He said, “Yes, you can cross the bridge; but you cannot return back.” I said, ‘If that is so, I will not go.” So I turned around, and came back to the city again....

Again this was Fletcher's recollection and you can take it for what it's worth. I don't believe Cobb ever said 'yes'. It's inconsistent with the rest of the statement that 'you can't return back'. Why not?
Cobb would have been definitely court-marshaled if he had taken a bribe or let his commander & chief's escape because he wasn't following orders. Stanton was not the type of guy to forgive and forget.

---

(04-19-2013 02:54 PM)KateH. Wrote:  When was Cobb first shown Herold's picture?

To the best of my knowledge he never was shown a picture. He was asked to identify Herold in the courtroom.

(04-19-2013 03:29 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 02:35 PM)wsanto Wrote:  ” I asked the sergeant if I could cross the bridge after them. He said, “Yes, you can cross the bridge; but you cannot return back.” I said, ‘If that is so, I will not go.” So I turned around, and came back to the city again....

Again this was Fletcher's recollection and you can take it for what it's worth. I don't believe Cobb ever said 'yes'. It's inconsistent with the rest of the statement that 'you can't return back'. Why not?
Cobb would have been definitely court-marshaled if he had taken a bribe or let his commander & chief's escape because he wasn't following orders. Stanton was not the type of guy to forgive and forget.

---

(04-19-2013 02:54 PM)KateH. Wrote:  When was Cobb first shown Herold's picture?

To the best of my knowledge he never was shown a picture. He was asked to identify Herold in the courtroom.

Jerry:

I recently requested and was sent material re Cobb and the bridge crossing from Georgetown University's Library (the Swaim Collection). I consider this material quite valuable because it throws a somewhat different perspective on the event. If you, or anyone else, would like to receive a copy, please let me know.

On another matter, your book contins a reference, on p. 112, to condolences sent to Lincoln by Davis upon the death of Willie in 1862. Query: Is there a source for this? If so, please refer me to the same. Further, is there any evidence that you, or anyone else, are aware of attesting to Lincoln's sending condolences to Davis when Davis lost his young son a year or two later, falling from a tree or porch, as I recall, or something like that. Any light that can be shed on this matter by anyone will be greatly appreciated.

John

---

(04-19-2013 03:29 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 02:35 PM)wsanto Wrote:  ” I asked the sergeant if I could cross the bridge after them. He said, “Yes, you can cross the bridge; but you cannot return back.” I said, ‘If that is so, I will not go.” So I turned around, and came back to the city again....

Again this was Fletcher's recollection and you can take it for what it's worth. I don't believe Cobb ever said 'yes'. It's inconsistent with the rest of the statement that 'you can't return back'. Why not?
Cobb would have been definitely court-marshaled if he had taken a bribe or let his commander & chief's escape because he wasn't following orders. Stanton was not the type of guy to forgive and forget.

---

(04-19-2013 02:54 PM)KateH. Wrote:  When was Cobb first shown Herold's picture?

To the best of my knowledge he never was shown a picture. He was asked to identify Herold in the courtroom.

Jerry:

I recently requested and was sent material re Cobb and the bridge crossing from Georgetown University's Library (the Swaim Collection). I consider this material quite valuable because it throws a somewhat different perspective on the event. If you, or anyone else, would like to receive a copy, please let me know.

On another matter, your book contins a reference, on p. 112, to condolences sent to Lincoln by Davis upon the death of Willie in 1862. Query: Is there a source for this? If so, please refer me to the same. Further, is there any evidence that you, or anyone else, are aware of attesting to Lincoln's sending condolences to Davis when Davis lost his young son a year or two later, falling from a tree or porch, as I recall, or something like that. Any light that can be shed on this matter by anyone will be greatly appreciated.

John

John,

Here is a qucik reference to the accident

http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/JosephEvanDavis.aspx
http://trrcobb.blogspot.com/2011/01/two-...davis.html

I've read of the condolences too, not sure where, but I'll look when I get home.

Gene,Great job of finding the cause of death of the Davis's son.It is talked about in books and articles about Varina Davis.I have also heard about the condolences,but I can't remember the source.I found the source-"Lincoln" by David Herbert Donald.Jefferson Davis sent condolences to Lincoln upon the death of Willie!

(09-17-2013 02:02 PM)Gene C Wrote:  John,

Here is a qucik reference to the accident

http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/JosephEvanDavis.aspx
http://trrcobb.blogspot.com/2011/01/two-...davis.html

I've read of the condolences too, not sure where, but I'll look when I get home.

Gene:

Many thanks for the references. My suspicions appear to be confirmed, namely that Davis sent condolences to Lincoln when Willie died, but that Lincoln did not, apparently, send condolences to Davis when Joseph died. I long ago learned of the importance of the little things in life. Something like condolences may appear to be a pro forma banality to some, but the truth is that relationships are made and broken every day based on such things as this. Survival is such a precarious thing with us that we take offense easily, where protocol is concerned, and forgive with difficulty, sometimes not at all. If my suspicions are accurate, as I believe them to be, it must have been a very hurtful thing to Davis to receive nothing from Lincoln when he, Davis, suffered what was probably one of the two greatest losses of his life (the other being the loss of his first wife at the age of, I believe, 21), especially in light of the fact that he had responded to Lincoln's loss of Willie with a humane gesture. Such a lapse on Lincoln's part may well have played a role in Davis's attitude toward him, in general, but especially after the Wistar and Dahlgren-Kilpatrick Raids on Richmond and the orders, accepted by Davis and just about everyone else in the South as genuine, to capture or kill Davis and his Cabinet. In my judgment, something as tiny as a message of condolences from Lincoln to Davis, upon his great loss, may well have changed the course of history. Would you be disposed to eliminate with extreme prejudice someone who had taken the time to express his grief over your loss?

John

You are quite right about people of that era having a code of etiquette by which they judged others and were judged themselves. You have a valid assumption here relative to Davis's state of mind if you take into account the extreme pressures that he was under for a long period of time because of the political and military aspects of the war.

Everyone of us who have been under pressure even slightly like this knows that it is often a little thing or a small slight that can throw you off balance. Of course, it's another situation where we can only "suggest" or speculate, but the psychological aspects should be considered.