Tonight while watching Jeopardy, one of the contestants, a professional archivist, revealed he made an exciting discovery regarding the Lincoln assassination.

He said that he discovered a new John Wilkes Booth profile card from the early 1860's. It was stashed away in the Vaudevillian actor James Thomas Powers' papers. Apparently, he was married to a distant JWB relative (Rachel Booth Powers).

After doing a little digging, I was able to find an article the contestant (Josh Hager) wrote about his discovery in 2010. As you can imagine, I was less than impressed. He won his game tonight but he gets an "F" for eyesight. It floors me how people just see what they want to see.

Judge for yourself:

http://blogs.library.duke.edu/rubenstein...ached-man/

John,

Eh Hem: What? is exactly right.

I saw this too tonight on Jeopardy. I, like you, did some digging and found the same blog. I was sorely disappointed in the irresponsible history advanced by this library affiliated with a respected academic institution like Duke University. Everything in the text even screams that there is nothing to make one think that this is JWB much less that the photo doesn't look like him.

I e-mailed Dave T. and he called them out on Twitter (check out his boothiebarn site - there is a section on his twitter posts in the right hand column). As he replied to me, it probably will come to nothing but it was cathartic. We do what we can to set the record straight I guess.

Not JWB but he bears a strong resemblance to the mummy though!

(10-01-2014 09:22 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  We do what we can to set the record straight I guess.

Amen. Shame on Duke University for promoting that unfounded nonsense. For the guy to go on national TV and boost his discovery without any hesitance, floored me.

Quote:Amen. Shame on Duke University for promoting that unfounded nonsense. For the guy to go on national TV and boost his discovery without any hesitance, floored me.

Agreed, John! Absolutely shameful....and, looking at the photograph, you can tell by the gentleman's collar that the photo isn't even from the 1860s but appears to be from the 1870s to 1890s! Still, pretty poor excuse for an archivist who should know better....like most things today, anything for a buck, apparently.....!

I agree with all of you.
It is shameful, and this young man is working on his masters. With his sloppy research he belongs back in grade school. He bases his theory on a comparison of Booth photo's off Google image search. And then his assumption in the last paragraph really got me, "Rachael Booth and John Wilkes Booth were likely (distant) relatives in the Booth acting family, although I cannot find any definite proof of this. No matter it's provenance (the photo), the find is quite exciting.

And shame on Duke University for keeping the article in their library web site blog.

The picture looks more like Alex Trebek sporting his new mustach.

Thanks for the morning laugh! This is great.

I just backed up John's and Gene's posts on the Duke site, suggesting that someone should have consulted the book John Wilkes Booth Himself by the Gutmans - which is still the best (though scarce) source for identifying Booth photos. I also posted doubts about Rachel Booth Powers being of "the" Booth line. Junius the Elder was an only son to carry on the name after his brother died as a child; I'm not even sure June had any sons to bear the name; and Edwin had only a girl, who took her married name.

The credibility of Duke University and the Rubenstein Library continues to plummet in my eyes. Here is another post on their library blog:

http://blogs.library.duke.edu/rubenstein...sepainter/

Quoted from the article linked above: “Come to the Rubenstein Library and read this true account of the life and death of John Wilkes Booth.”

More irresponsible history played off as the truth. Though I am a fan of the Bates book (I had the opportunity to hold an original in my hands a couple of weeks ago) and think it is certainly a part of the assassination lore, it is no, way, shape or form given any credence by any credible historian – it has been solidly discredited so many times. It is just a laughable, fanciful story that credible academic institutions should not be promoting as true.

“Shameful” has been used before in this thread and I invoke it again!

(10-01-2014 09:38 PM)RickBeaver Wrote:  Not JWB but he bears a strong resemblance to the mummy though!

My exact thoughts.

---

                               

(10-02-2014 09:01 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I just backed up John's and Gene's posts on the Duke site, suggesting that someone should have consulted the book John Wilkes Booth Himself by the Gutmans - which is still the best (though scarce) source for identifying Booth photos. I also posted doubts about Rachel Booth Powers being of "the" Booth line. Junius the Elder was an only son to carry on the name after his brother died as a child; I'm not even sure June had any sons to bear the name; and Edwin had only a girl, who took her married name.

For what it is worth, some scapbook on Junius Brutus Booth. Sorry for the spine covering up some of the article; it is cemented to the page and does not pry up easily. Sorry for the overlaps.

I think even a casual student of the Lincoln assassination can see that's not Booth. JWB was an extraordinarily handsome man!

Warren, you awakened my sleeping brain. There was another Booth child that I did not take into consideration - the "legal" son from his first marriage to Adelaide. The young man's name was Richard (after his grandfather), but I don't remember whether he married after he came to the U.S. Dave Taylor, or someone, please fill in my gaps.

That said, however, that photo still is not of JWB!

(10-02-2014 09:01 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I just backed up John's and Gene's posts on the Duke site, suggesting that someone should have consulted the book John Wilkes Booth Himself by the Gutmans - which is still the best (though scarce) source for identifying Booth photos. I also posted doubts about Rachel Booth Powers being of "the" Booth line. Junius the Elder was an only son to carry on the name after his brother died as a child; I'm not even sure June had any sons to bear the name; and Edwin had only a girl, who took her married name.

The link that John posted no longer works. Is that where you all posted?

http://blogs.library.duke.edu/rubenstein...ached-man/

Like Gene, John and Laurie I posted a comment to the website that harbored the supposed Booth photo. Just now, I went back to the website to copy the link into an e-mail I was sending to a friend who studies the Civil War and guess what:

The page has been removed!!

Maybe we CAN make a difference in getting irresponsible history out of the public eye. Way to go team!! Now if we can just prevent it from being posted in the first place...