(12-18-2013 10:05 PM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  whispers about his incompetence about his failure to save Lincoln.

I wonder if Henry imagined this? Maybe it happened, but personally I have not read about anyone blaming Rathbone for not preventing the assassination.

Roger, i can't either-that's why I posted a thread on it. I was curious if anyone on the Forum was aware of any sources.

Agreed - I was unaware of this book by Mellon - pretty interesting and it looks like one I'd like to buy -

Thanks!

Look at how Parker was treated and it was his job performance that should have drawn the most scrutiny. As Lincoln's guest, I think the fact that Rathbone twice tried to stop Booth speaks a lot to his character and I'm sure the public saw it that way as well in 1865.

It seems from his subsequent actions that Rathbone did indeed felt guilty so it's possible he may have projected his guilt onto other people.

We need to see Mallon's sources.

It takes a lot of nerve for an unarmed man to go after an armed man. Especially as quickly as Rathbone did. There must have been something deep in the character of the man to have responded like he did.

(12-19-2013 08:18 AM)Gene C Wrote:  It takes a lot of nerve for an unarmed man to go after an armed man. Especially as quickly as Rathbone did. There must have been something deep in the character of the man to have responded like he did.

I read somewhere, maybe in Henry and Clara, that Rathbone compared himself to Pvt. George Robinson, Seward's nurse, who prevented Lewis Powell from killing Seward. Robinson was unarmed when he fought Powell who slashed Robinson with a bowie knife.

(12-19-2013 07:37 AM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  It seems from his subsequent actions that Rathbone did indeed felt guilty so it's possible he may have projected his guilt onto other people.

We need to see Mallon's sources.

I agree. I, too, would love to know if there's a source for the sentence Roger quoted above and if there were such rumors. Obviously there is no source given in that essay book?! What is the page number of the passage you posted, Linda? (Can't see it on the Google page.)

(12-19-2013 09:03 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 07:37 AM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  It seems from his subsequent actions that Rathbone did indeed felt guilty so it's possible he may have projected his guilt onto other people.

We need to see Mallon's sources.

I agree. I, too, would love to know if there's a source for the sentence Roger quoted above and if there were such rumors. Obviously there is no source given in that essay book?! What is the page number of the passage you posted, Linda? (Can't see it on the Google page.)

I don't know, Eva. I'm getting the book out of the library today and I'll let you know what I find. One source listed in the Google Books excerpt is Rathbone's cousin's diary which is in the Albany Institute of History and Art.

(12-19-2013 08:18 AM)Gene C Wrote:  It takes a lot of nerve for an unarmed man to go after an armed man. Especially as quickly as Rathbone did. There must have been something deep in the character of the man to have responded like he did.

I believe Rathbone's selfless actions were a result of his military training and experiences. One of the best pieces of advise given when being instructed about what to do in life or death situations when you may not be prepared, are caught off guard or at a disadvantage is - do something. Anything. Don't just stand there. Here's a modern example of a soldier thinking on his feet when faced with certain death.


http://www.businessinsider.com/the-crazy...ge-2013-12

I don't remember ever having read that Rathbone was blamed for anything. I wonder how much different that would have been if he hadn't made the attempt to get Booth. I would imagine public opinion might have been pretty harsh, then throw in his battle scars and self blame, I expect he would have really been a mess.

But to me it's one of those situations where I just don't feel like he could really be expected to do much. Even if he did see Booth enter the box, what would there have been to be suspicious about? Practically everybody considered that the war was over, they've had the illumination, the city is in a great mood, he's having a nice evening with his fiancee and the first couple. Then throw in the fact that it would have been fairly dark in the box, he likely would not have seen a weapon until the gun was pointed at Lincoln and Booth was pulling the trigger. Who could seriously expect him to see Booth step into the box, immediately suspect foul play and jump up to stop the murder, all in the matter of a few seconds? It's kind of ridiculous. I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just fairly unrealistic in my opinion. I believe that Rathbone probably never forgave himself, despite the fact that there was likely nothing more he could have done. What he did do was more than many would have, at least among civilians, though probably not soldiers.

It's one of those situations where, looking at it from Rathbone's chair, he did what he could do, it just wasn't enough. He should have let himself off the hook a little bit.

(12-19-2013 08:18 AM)Gene C Wrote:  It takes a lot of nerve for an unarmed man to go after an armed man. Especially as quickly as Rathbone did. There must have been something deep in the character of the man to have responded like he did.

(12-19-2013 09:36 AM)J. Beckert Wrote:  I believe Rathbone's selfless actions were a result of his military training and experiences. One of the best pieces of advise given when being instructed about what to do in life or death situations when you may not be prepared, are caught off guard or at a disadvantage is - do something. Anything. Don't just stand there. Here's a modern example of a soldier thinking on his feet when faced with certain death.

(12-19-2013 10:23 AM)jonathan Wrote:  What he did do was more than many would have, at least among civilians, though probably not soldiers.

It's one of those situations where, looking at it from Rathbone's chair, he did what he could do, it just wasn't enough. He should have let himself off the hook a little bit.

IMO all of you folks make good points. Many years later Harry Hawk wrote, "I did simply what any other man would have done - I ran."

Henry was never officially blamed for allowing Lincoln to get shot. He did however internalize this belief and blame himself. Friends stated that he would constantly bring up the matter and state that others thought it was his fault, but his friends reassured him this was not true. Rathbone could not stop the ruminations from playing over and over again in his mind and during conversations not related to the assassination, he would bring it up. It was a constant thought he carried with him and he couldn't escape other reminders either. Such as his oldest son sharing Lincoln's birthday and the family lived across the street in direct view of the White House. This could be one reason Henry and his family spent more time in Europe in later years. And yes Laurie, it's my belief that Henry suffered from PTSD. His symptoms of depression, paranoia and anxiety are all major indicators. To drill down even further Henry probably suffered from Survivor's Guilt. This was just recently added as a component of PTSD. The disorder itself is constantly evolving as researchers and doctors learn more about it.

---

Also, one quick note on Mallon's Henry and Clara. I know he did a fair amount of research and I've heard his book is wonderfully written. I have not read it however as I didn't want to be influenced by any information that was fiction. He took quite a few liberties in order to create a better story, one big one for instance was he made Henry older than Clara, however in real life it was the opposite. Clara was two years older. I see Mallon's book as movie based on a true story. It's a wonderfully romanticized version of the facts.

Eva, "whispers about his incompetence" can be found on page 284 in the essay "Writing Historical Fiction." That essay was originally published in The American Scholar.

Another mention of Henry and Clara can be found in "The Historical Novelist's Burden of Truth" which was originally published in the Washington Post. It is reprinted here:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/novels/hist...velist.htm

(12-19-2013 11:22 AM)calebj123 Wrote:  Henry was never officially blamed for allowing Lincoln to get shot.

For my understanding, rumors (of which Mallon speaks) are still something different than being (directly and) officially blamed. Or do you mean by what you wrote that there were also no rumors?