Hi Craig. Yes, Griffin argues that Lincoln was executed because of his attitude of clemency toward the South. Stanton and other Northern politicians and military leaders were not about to let this happen. It's one of those books that has a bibliography but no footnotes.

Thanks Roger! I just found a copy on Amazon for .019 cents! Although I don't really buy into the Stanton "Done it" theory I still enjoy reading other people's views on the subject.

We have briefly discussed this book once before
http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...d-354.html

It's hard to pass up a book on a subject you are intereseted in at that price, even though it may not be very good historically. Sounds like you got a good deal, just let us know after you read it if you think you paid to much.

I've bought several books off Amazon where the shipping costs were more than the price of the book. I usually don't regert buying them, although I know going in it may be a poor book. But it's a fun feeling when you get a winner. (the one I just posted on yesterday written by Ed Steers was a winner)

All this talk got me interested, so I did a little research, (actually very little) and I may have uncovered something that will make a fascinating book. After being reprimanded by his employer, (and this is where my research stopped) Parker quits his job, and looking for a change of scene travels to India. There he surprisingly meets up with none other than John Wilkes Booth. Destitiute, John feels sorry for Parker and all the trouble he has endured. But he's not that sorry, because he manages to convincve Parker to invest his last cent in his new idea, a real estate venture and planned self contained community for the theatrical industry in India. John calls his investment venture "Boothiewood" It fails miserably and Parker returns to the states. A few years later, learning from his mistakes and with the emerging motion picture industry, Booth tries again. He changes the name of his investment idea and lays the foundation for "Bollywood". Read all about it and more in my upcomming book, "Baloney, Balderdash and Booth"

(I may need a little assistance with the publishing costs. Any intrest?)

Gene, you are correct about the shipping costs $3.99 for a grand total of $4.18. However, since I used my Amazon points that I have accrued it didn't cost me one cent!

Craig

It is a dreary, rainy, and cold day in Southern Maryland - and the phones aren't ringing very much at Surratt House. Therefore, I decided to do a little follow-up on the issue of Presidential/White House guard John F. Parker with information taken from a 1982 article that James O. Hall did for the Surratt Courier.

Parker was born in 1830 in Winchester, Virginia. His father was a butcher, but later became a police officer in Winchester. Young Parker first came to D.C. in the early-1850s to work as a carpenter and also married Mary America Maus in the city in 1855. By the 1860 Census, they were the parents of three children - all girls.

When the war began, Parker enlisted in a unit of the D.C. Volunteers (Metropolitan Rifles) and served his three-month enlistment and was honorably discharged in July of 1861. His wife applied for a widow's pension in 1890, but was turned down because bookkeeping errors during the war did not prove his service -- mainly because there were three John Parkers on the rolls of the D.C. militia units. Mrs. Parker did not list the correct unit when she applied. The dates of service that she gave, however, matched a John Parker of Capt. Kelly's Company.

The D.C. police force in 1861 was pitiful. It was really composed of auxiliary guards employed by municipal corporations and paid out of federal funds. It included quite a few Southern sympathizers and also became overwhelmed by the influx of soldiers and camp followers. A law was passed in August of 1861 to establish the Metropolitan Police Force of the District of Columbia. William B. Webb was the first police superintendent and the first recruits were inducted on September 11, 1861. It is not certain when Parker was inducted, but the 1862 city directory - which was compiled in late-1861 -- shows him as "police."

His difficulties with the department began in 1862. The details are sparse because his personnel file has been missing from the Federal Records Center in Maryland since May 28, 1940, when they were sent to Campbell Photo Service for photostats to be made. What Mr. Hall was able to find was a list of ten charges filed against him between November 11, 1862 and July 22, 1868. A summary of the various charges through November of 1865 was prepared by T.A. Lazenby, secretary of the Board of Police. At that point, Parker had been charged six times -- two reprimands and four charges dismissed.

Mr. Hall found records for four other White House-assigned police in 1864-65, and their records were dismal also, ranging from mistreating prisoners, violent language to citizens, intoxication on duty, brawling in the station, refusal to assist other officers, and discharging firearms in public places. Better men of the city were, of course, serving in the military.

In 1864, it was Ward Hill Lamon, U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia, who finally asked for a detail of officers to be stationed in the White House. On November 3, 1864, Sgt. Cronin and Patrolmen Donn, Pendel, and Smith reported to "Marshal Lammond" at the "President's House." The detail never exceeded five men at any one time. The following men were added after the original four: Lewis, Crook, McElfresh, Hurdle, Shelton, Parker, and Hopkins. Parker's name does not show up on the list prior to the end of February 1865.

The records for March and April of 1865 are missing (surprise...), but on March 22, 1865, the new superintendent, A.C. Richards wrote the famous letter attempting to get some of his officers out of the draft. Parker evidently appealed to Mrs. Lincoln to keep his job, and this resulted in the April 3, 1865, note signed by the First Lady, verifying that Parker was "a member of the Metropolitan Police detailed for duty at the Executive Mansion by order of of, Mrs. Lincoln" (her signature, but text written by someone else).

On April 14, 1865, Parker had the bad luck of being assigned to the Lincolns' trip to Ford's Theatre. No document has been found specifying his particular duty. We have two variations of his duty as stated in ghost-written books by Officers Pendel and Crook. Pendel said that Parker went on ahead of Lincoln to the theatre "...to see him safe inside." Crook said, however, that Parker "...accompanied the President to the theatre on the night of the 14th..."

Mr. Hall found only two contemporary documents that relate directly to Parker being at Ford's that night. The coachman, Francis Burns, stated that he took a drink with "the footman" and "the special police officer" (but did not name them). He had to mean Forbes and Parker, however. Superintendent Richards filed a formal charge against Parker alleging "neglect of duty," and listed himself and Charles Forbes as witnesses. The specification reads: "In this, that Parker was detailed to attend and protect the President, Mr. Lincoln, that, while the President was at Ford's Theatre on the night of the 14 of April last, said Parker allowed a man to enter the President's private box and shoot the President." This was filed on May 1, 1865, and tried before the board on May 3, 1865. The case was dismissed on June 2, 1865. We know this much only because of the summary written by the previously mentioned board secretary, T.A. Lazenby.

The testimony of Capt. Theodore McGowan during the Conspiracy Trial has gotten a lot of mileage (some of it courtesy of Eisenschiml's famous "conclusions"). Eisenschiml said that McGowan saw Booth hand his card to Parker. That's not what McGowan said in his statement of May 15. He stated under oath that the man who entered the box selected a card and "...then showed it to the President's messenger." Just a few minutes before Booth, Simon Hanscom, editor of the Washington National Republican had been to the box to deliver a document. He wrote in his newspaper that he found only the "footman and messenger" at the door to the box - and he identified the man by name, Charles Forbes.

So, the question boils down to whether or not Parker had been instructed to guard the President throughout the play. If so, he was guilty of "neglect of duty." If his duty was a lesser one of getting Lincoln into and out of the theatre, negligence would be improper. Parker remained on White House duty until May 10, when he was returned to street duty in the 5th Precinct. On July 22, 1868, he was charged with gross neglect of duty and was apparently tried and charges dismissed -- this record is missing also. Entry 57 in RG 351 in the National Archives show that he was absent without leave on August 13, 1868. His police trail ends there.

Parker went back to his trade as a carpenter and was employed at the Navy Yard. City directories through 1890 describe him variously as a carpenter, a ship's carpenter, and as a machinist. He died in Washington on June 28, 1890. The death certificate lists the cause as pneumonia, complicated by asthma and exhaustion. He was buried beside four of his children in Glenwood Cemetery. In 1904, his wife joined them in the unmarked plot.

I was wrong earlier in saying that he had no descendants. As of 1982, there were Parker descendants in the D.C. area, but they did/do not carry the Parker name and have no pictures of him nor family records.

Laurie, Great history of Parker! Thanks for posting. I wonder if there is any correspondence between Stanton and Richards that might shed some light on the charges being dropped.

Craig

(11-26-2013 01:20 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Superintendent Richards filed a formal charge against Parker alleging "neglect of duty," and listed himself and Charles Forbes as witnesses. The specification reads: "In this, that Parker was detailed to attend and protect the President, Mr. Lincoln, that, while the President was at Ford's Theatre on the night of the 14 of April last, said Parker allowed a man to enter the President's private box and shoot the President."

Laurie, thank you very much for a most informative post. You included one of the reasons why my personal opinion is that Parker's role as a police officer was "guard" and not someone whose job was simply to accompany Lincoln to the theater. If that was really his only duty I don't see why the specification would have been filed at all. I still think Parker blew off his assignment.

(11-26-2013 02:08 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Laurie, thank you very much for a most informative post.

I still think Parker blew off his assignment.

Ditto - great info Laurie.

Didn't Mrs Lincoln later "discuss" with Parker his negligence at the theater?

I've decided to put my book idea on hold. You'd think there would be something in the Potter Papers to confirm some of Parker's trip to India, but I haven't seen it. There are suppose to be more documents of Ray Neff's that the Indiana State University does not have yet. I wonder where they are. Do you think the National Supermarket Tabloid Weekly will want back the $$ they advanced me?

Roger - I agree with you. Even Pendel's and Crook's statements in their books could be interpreted either way. Also, Mr. Hall's research states that Ward Hill Lamon asked for policemen at the White House because he feared for Lincoln's life. That would indicate to me that those assigned to the Executive Mansion were there to protect the President - not just the furniture, carpets, and drapes!

Gene - Again, if I recall correctly, Elizabeth Keckly's book (again, mainly ghost-written) says that Mrs. Lincoln tore into "the new messenger" for allowing Booth to get past him. That would seem to imply that she berated Charles Forbes. Forbes evidently then placed the blame on Parker and Crook's book reiterated it.

A longtime member of the Surratt Society is a retired Secret Service agent (Johnson through Clinton, I believe). Years ago, he said that, if Allan Pinkerton had still been involved with guarding the President, the assassination would not have happened. There would have been a guard on duty -- and maybe we could even speculate that Pinkerton's detectives would have fleshed out Booth's gang and the activities at the H Street boardinghouse ahead of time. We'll never know.

Mary Lincoln's upbraiding of Parker is on record somewhere. Maybe Pendel's book? She actually accused him of being in on it. If I remember correctly, it basically started with something like "Well, look who's on duty in the White House tonight........"

(11-26-2013 04:38 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  Mary Lincoln's upbraiding of Parker is on record somewhere.

Joe, I don't know about Pendel, but one version of this comes from Elizabeth Keckly. The following information comes from the second page of the article here:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-ar...guard.html

"Incredibly, Parker remained on the White House security detail after the assassination. At least once he was assigned to protect the grieving Mrs. Lincoln before she moved out of the presidential mansion and returned to Illinois. Mrs. Lincoln’s dressmaker, former slave Elizabeth Keckley, recalled the following exchange between the president’s widow and Parker: “So you are on guard tonight,” Mrs. Lincoln yelled, “on guard in the White House after helping to murder the President.”

“I could never stoop to murder,” Parker stammered, “much less to the murder of so good and great a man as the President. I did wrong, I admit, and have bitterly repented. I did not believe any one would try to kill so good a man in such a public place, and the belief made me careless.”

Mrs. Lincoln snapped that she would always consider him guilty and ordered him from the room. Some weeks before the assassination, she had written a letter on Parker’s behalf to exempt him from the draft, and some historians think she may have been related to him on her mother’s side."

That's what I was thinking of Roger. Thank you. Parker's own words are interesting - "I did wrong, I admit, and have bitterly repented. I did not believe any one would try to kill so good a man in such a public place, and the belief made me careless."

Crook wrote: "Parker knew that he had failed in his duty. He looked like a convicted criminal the next day. He was never the same man afterward". (But obviously he was, since, in 1868, he was tried again and finally dismissed for "gross neglect of duty".)

And I hope that, if you visit the link Roger provided to the Smithsonian article, you also watch the short video that I did for them. Shameless self-promotion.