(02-04-2014 09:29 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Or were they normal people committed to a cause? Hundreds of thousands of other Americans on both sides went to war to protect their beliefs, and they knew that it would mean that they had to kill in order to do that. Many soldiers killed far more people than Booth did (or intended to do). What does that say of them?

Because Lincoln was assassinated during a war and JFK was assassinated during "peacetime", do you think this is the reason that the JFK assassination seems to get more attention? Is it more acceptable to conspire and murder a President when the country is split in two, and civil war is raging? I wonder what the country's reaction would have been had Lincoln been killed during one of his battlefield visits. While The JFK story goes into every detail of the events surrounding his murder the Lincoln story is usually quickly covered. I know there is much more now, about the details of the Lincoln story and much more to come with the anniversary coming, but as a child and teen I knew much more about Kennedy. Maybe it simply had to do with Zapruder and technology in the press.
Sorry to get off topic of the book, but Laurie's last post had me thinking, reminding me that there was still a war going on. Even after Lee surrendered and that the non military citizenry Committed to the war were in despair.

I am really enjoying your book Tom.

Lee had surrendered, Richmond had fallen. For all intents and purposes, the war was over.
Booth didn't fight on a battlefield. Booth shot an unarmed man from behind. His cause may be considered noble, his actions were not.

Hypothetically, I may not want my son/daughter to go to war, but I can be proud of the fact they fought for their beliefs and country.
I don't know to many people that would be proud if their child repeated Booth's actions.

Joe, I think the person you are referring to is A W Smiley

Garfield's and McKinley's assassinations were also committed in peacetime and have not received the same detailed analysis as Kennedy's murder. Kennedy was young and telegenic; and, by the 1960s, our system of communications had become instantaneous. In the 1860s the news was spread via the telegraph and newspapers. By the 1960s, we had graduated to film, moving pictures, sound and television.

No argument here. Gene or Roger. While I agree that Booth's actions were not honorable, there are more and more books being written as to whether Booth was sanctioned to commit an act. Also civilians during the civil war committed many acts for their sides war effort. I assume many were not honorable either. But again, I was just thinking. I agree with both of you.

I would just think that Lincoln's assassination ( being the only proven conspiracy) would garner more media and educational coverage.

A "Cause"is always worth fighting for!

(02-02-2014 07:42 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  Tom: the book continues to reveal new things for me. I had not known about the costume issue with John Matthews- and how Harry Hawk had "suspected" him because of it. That tid bit further illuminates how Matthews must have been completely terrified that he might be implicated in the murder.

Speaking of Matthews - does anyone have doubts about Booth giving him "the letter"?

(02-05-2014 11:44 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 07:42 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  Tom: the book continues to reveal new things for me. I had not known about the costume issue with John Matthews- and how Harry Hawk had "suspected" him because of it. That tid bit further illuminates how Matthews must have been completely terrified that he might be implicated in the murder.

Speaking of Matthews - does anyone have doubts about Booth giving him "the letter"?

As was the case with Laura Keene's being in the presidential box or not, I looked at everything I could get my hands on about Mathews' having the letter, including a wonderful, detailed analytical back-and-forth between Mr. Hall and another fellow in the Surratt Courier sometime back, and concluded that Mathews did get the letter, and did mostly-memorize it (combining it with elements of the "To Whom it May Concern" letter of Asia Booth's). As fast as actors those days had to learn new roles (essentially a new one every day), I do believe he could well have done that. Also, he was so specific in terms of the time, and place, and his mission of going to Shoomaker's, and Booth's demeanor and words, and his own ongoing guilty feelings about the events of the day, as well as the corroboration of John Ford's contemporaneously knowing about it from Mathews, that it rang true for me. As with everything, of course, since we weren't there, I could be wrong.

(02-05-2014 11:44 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  Speaking of Matthews - does anyone have doubts about Booth giving him "the letter"?

I agree with Tom, but for anyone who would like to read the reasoning of an author who feels the Mathews' letter never existed please see pp. 73-79 of Robert Lockwood Mills' It Didn't Happen the Way You Think.

It would make more sense to me if Booth had given the letter directly to the publisher rather than Matthews. Why trust Matthews? In his diary why did Booth curse the government for suppressing the letter and not Matthews? To me it's the moment of fame and vindication he was looking. I'd have left it in Johnsons box before giving it to Matthews.

He needed someone he could trust to destroy it if he couldn't get to Lincoln. I thought there was a witness who saw Booth talking to Matthews near Grover's.

I just always assumed Booth cursed The Government for suppressing his letter in the newspaper because he believed Mathews would have delivered it. If they were friends or even good friends he must have thought he would have followed through and delivered it or at least handed it over during questioning. I am sure Booth would have had expected everyone in the theatre to be questioned after the assassination.
Booth would naturally distrust the Government, as a Confederate sympathiser he would have heard about all of the arrests that happened during war time. A huge complaint was that Lincoln was a tyrant because of his war time powers and Marshall Law had been in place for years. "Inter arma silent leges." Latin for, "In times of war the laws fall silent." Perhaps his diary entry was written in case he was caught and killed but his diary went public. If the Government had suppressed his letter, robbing him of an explanation to the public, than his diary might cause public opinion to demand more information.

I agree with Joe and Mike. I also think that this forum is playing with my head!

Yesterday, when Roger posted that we should read Robert Mills's account, I immediately thought of a former Surratt Society member from about thirty years ago who did extensive writing and arguing about the Matthews issue. I realized that this man, Tom Shaffer, had dropped off the grid years back. In fact, it took me hours to remember his last name.

Lo and behold, about 9 am this morning, I received a phone call from Tom Shaffer - whom I had not heard from in about twenty years. He was not calling about Mathews and the letter, however, so I can't blame it all on mental telepathy...

There are a series of articles/arguments between Mr. Shaffer and others that date to the 1990s' Surratt Couriers. These have been published in the second installment of our series of books on assassination articles from the Couriers over the years (1977-2000). If you own the three-volume set, it is Volume 1 of the two volumes with red covers.

P.S. Tom (at that time) did not think that Mathews was telling the truth. I also invited him to join this forum.

I didn't realize until Joe's post that there was a corroborating witness to the Mathews-Booth meeting during the afternoon of April 14th. This person named Brady backed up Mathews' account of where he (Mathews) met Booth. Of course this doesn't prove the authenticity of the letter, but it does look like Mathews told the truth about meeting up with Booth that afternoon. I always thought we only had Mathews' word on that; I was wrong.

If Matthews had actually delivered the letter (which he didn't)- can there be any doubt that he would have been executed as a conspirator? Or imprisoned- at the least?

Good question, Bill. I don't know what would have happened with Mathews, but I do know that Samuel Chester's testimony at the trial backed up Mathews on the fact that Mathews refused Booth's request to be part of the kidnap plot.