Eva, here is a paragraph from Dr. Steers' Blood on the Moon:

(10-13-2014 04:29 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Thanks, Linda. To me a very important point is that "Mrs. Lincoln begged to be excused".
The main remaining question - does "came to pay a call" mean they were invited and/or expected, or did they come unexpectedly?

If that was the case I would consider Fanny's assumption that "the truth of Mrs. L'.s engagement was probably that she did not want to see Mother" quite an egocentric accusation, and, as I previously stated, the fact that the Sewards were let in to me rather indicates that Mary indeed first intended to make up time for them but simply couldn't make it due to her schedule and maybe due to the latest developments regarding the refurbishing scandal.

Giving general directions to the doorkeeper to let no one in was not the Lincolns' policy, they didn't want a locked White House like Congressman Lincoln experienced under Polk's presidency, but that still doesn't mean the Lincolns' shedule allows them to be available at any time. Perhaps the Seward ladies would also have judged milder if they had themselves experienced what it means to fulfil the busy schedule of a First Lady?

Eva, perhaps Mrs. Lincoln was available to callers at a certain time each day and would not expect to know who would show up. Fanny writes, however, that it was "...the only time on record that she ever refused to see company in the evening - she generally sits in state, Anna found her & Mrs. Grimsley the former in pink tarleton and the latter in yellow - ball dresses, for chance callers once)." The Seward ladies would have also judged milder if they didn't know that Mrs. Lincoln did not care for Mr. Seward, to put it mildly! What you call "quite egocentric" may be just them taking that into account. We also have only Fanny's diary to go by. She didn't write about what other people said about them being turned away. Perhaps the doorman looked sheepish. There would have been all kinds of signals going on that contributed to Fanny's assertion that they were snubbed.

It is common sense to me that, unless there was a dire emergency, you do not refuse to see your husband's Secretary of State and his family when they come to pay their first courtesy call.

Being the class act that she was, Fanny managed to find something good to say about Mrs. Lincoln in her diary.

---

(10-13-2014 04:13 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 06:10 PM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  I think we are talking about two separate things. I wasn't talking about Mary Lincoln after the assassination but the Mary Lincoln who snubbed the Sewards and who spent too much money on furnishings for the White House.

Linda I also talked about Mary before April 1865. After the murder of AL it all got much worser for her. I think Mary’s excessive buying behavior was giving her a sense of relief . It was compulsive, she could not control it. This goes imo also for her “compulsive wanting” (right expression?) and her snubbing.

---

That's a good point, Kees. Was Mary mentally ill? If not, why was she allowed to get away with such behavior? If she did suffer from mental illness, would have it been possible to have her learn the consequences of her actions? One such consequence, of course, was that she was treated terribly by others once Lincoln was no longer there to protect her. Did Lincoln "enable" her? There's no blame here, by the way. He did the best he could under the circumstances, I think.

Linda,

your question “Was Mary Lincoln mentally ill?”, I (and I think no one) is able to answer, as she was never diagnosed by anyone with a modern understanding of psychiatry. Okay, she was placed into an institution, but was after 3 months able to reverse the court's decision. Maybe (or possibly?) her “eccentric” behavior was the result of her very stress- and eventful (sad) life and not the result of mental illness.

I think Grant would have had at least one military guard with him and that may have deterred Mr. Booth from even making an attempt. Barring that, I think he might well have still been able to reach the President, but would have failed at an attempt to get Grant also. I wonder how good Grant was at hand-to-hand combat?

I don't believe the presence of a military guard would have deterred Booth. Because of who he was, access to the box wouldn't have been a problem. Once in the box he had the advantage of surprise. With his athleticism it's quite possible he could have killed both Lincoln and Grant. But I don't believe he would have escaped.

(10-13-2014 08:46 AM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  Fanny writes, however, that it was "...the only time on record that she ever refused to see company in the evening......There would have been all kinds of signals going on that contributed to Fanny's assertion that they were snubbed.

Linda, I didn't know of this background, and it puts the incident into a different light. Thanks for adding this info!

---

Thanks Herb, Bill, and Roger for your input and thoughts on my question! Bill, I've always wondered why JWB had a single shot revolver when he originally had planned to kill two people.

(10-13-2014 07:35 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Had the Grants not declined - what would have happened at Ford's that night? What would JWB have done, how would he have proceeded - shot both? Whom first? Would he have succeeded? What do you think?

Eva,

I think you love history, but by asking this I think you love alternate history (AH) too. “What ... if” always leads to speculation, to an alternative (hypothetical) reality. We may assume that all history is based on facts (which is probably not true), but AH is pure fiction, consisting of stories in worlds in which one or more historical events unfolds differently from how it did in reality. What if de Grants had accompanied the Lincolns to Ford’s? One possibility is that Grant would have had a large military guard with him for protection. Another possibility is that Grant was not protected at all (like Feb 10). Between these two extreme possibilities are a lot of possible outcomes. One possible outcome of many is that Lincoln might not have been assassinated that night. Another possible outcome is that Lincoln and Grant both were assassinated. Or.... Lincoln was assassinated and Grant was badly wounded...... or Lincoln was (not so badly) wounded and Grant was assassinated ..... or Lincoln and Grant were borh severely wounded..... or .....or.....or. Just pick one outcome. All is possible. This is speculation at best, not founded on evidence. That makes AH (for me) so funny, but not more than that. It's like the modern literary genre known as "faction", facts and fiction woven together into a briljant story. I'm a lover of "faction".

(10-13-2014 04:41 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 08:46 AM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  Fanny writes, however, that it was "...the only time on record that she ever refused to see company in the evening......There would have been all kinds of signals going on that contributed to Fanny's assertion that they were snubbed.

Linda, I didn't know of this background, and it puts the incident into a different light. Thanks for adding this info!

---

Thanks Herb, Bill, and Roger for your input and thoughts on my question! Bill, I've always wondered why JWB had a single shot revolver when he originally had planned to kill two people.

It is puzzling. But some do believe Booth had two single shot pistols. There was another pistol found at Fords. If I remember the story correctly it had Booth's name on it. Roger, can provide the link to that discussion?

(10-13-2014 04:50 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 07:35 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Had the Grants not declined - what would have happened at Ford's that night? What would JWB have done, how would he have proceeded - shot both? Whom first? Would he have succeeded? What do you think?

Eva,

I think you love history, but by asking this I think you love alternate history (AH) too. “What ... if” always leads to speculation, to an alternative (hypothetical) reality. We may assume that all history is based on facts (which is probably not true), but AH is pure fiction, consisting of stories in worlds in which one or more historical events unfolds differently from how it did in reality. What if de Grants had accompanied the Lincolns to Ford’s? One possibility is that Grant would have had a large military guard with him for protection. Another possibility is that Grant was not protected at all (like Feb 10). Between these two extreme possibilities are a lot of possible outcomes. One possible outcome of many is that Lincoln might not have been assassinated that night. Another possible outcome is that Lincoln and Grant both were assassinated. Or.... Lincoln was assassinated and Grant was badly wounded...... or Lincoln was (not so badly) wounded and Grant was assassinated ..... or Lincoln and Grant were borh severely wounded..... or .....or.....or. Just pick one outcome. All is possible. This is speculation at best, not founded on evidence. That makes AH (for me) so funny, but not more than that. It's like the modern literary genre known as "faction", facts and fiction woven together into a briljant story. I'm a lover of "faction".

Kees, my question mainly aimed at finding out what JWB's plans might have been as for how "exactly" to proceed when murdering Lincoln and Grant that night at Ford's. And it's a fact that his original plan was to assassinate both, Lincoln and Grant.

(10-13-2014 04:56 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  It is puzzling. But some do believe Booth had two single shot pistols. There was another pistol found at Fords. If I remember the story correctly it had Booth's name on it. Roger, can provide the link to that discussion?

Yes, Bill, I think the discussion you are referring to is here.

Why was it so important for Lincoln that Gen. Grant would accompany him to Ford’s Theatre? I know that Grant was a very important man, in fact Lincoln (as Commander-in-Chief) and Grant (as General-in-Chief) were in 1865 the two mightiest men in the Union. President Theodore Roosevelt called in a speech delivered at Galena, Ill. on April 27, 1900 that Washington, Lincoln, and Grant were the three “mightiest among the mighty” (of the US). I have some problems to understand this in reference to Grant.

How was the high command of the Union in the CW? As in modern times the President of the United States (Lincoln) was of course Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces. But (certainly at the outbreak of the CW) the Army was under the direct control of the Secretary of War (Stanton, since January 15, 1862) and of a General-in-Chief (in 1861 Gen. Winfield Scott in the official rank as Brevet Lieutenant General). The General-in-Chief however had in my opinion no direct military power, because he was subjected to the orders of the President and the Secretary of War. He also was assisted by a General Staff, and this General Staff consisted of various bureaus, which were part of the Department of War. The General-in-Chief had no control over these bureaus. This means that he was handicapped and could only function as an (military) advisor to (civilian) superiors (Stanton and Lincoln). In my eyes this is no “real power”, because he had “no real command of the Union Army’s” and had “no real field command”.

When Scott was succeeded in the fall of 1861 by Major General George B. McClellan this situation was as far as I know unchanged. And when McClellan was succeeded in July 1862 by Major General Henry Halleck, again (according to me) no real change. Can we say that the only task of the General-in-Chief was to communicate the wishes of Lincoln and Stanton (civilians) to the Generals in the field? Or was the high command of the Union changed with the assignment of Gen. Grant in Feb. 1864? What was his exact position? He got the rank of “Lieutenant General", a rank originally created for George Washington (and nobody else since then). Had Grant (or did he get) more power than his predecessors? Could he take responsibility for his own strategic decisions, without first communicating this with Lincoln and/or Stanton? If so than he was indeed a very powerful man! And in that case I understand that Lincoln was eager to visit with Grant the Ford Theatre.

Another thing. Lincoln was a familiar figure at Ford’s, Grant was almost a stranger. Were the Washingtonians anxious for a glimpse of Grant or were they in the first place hoping to see the President? It was also the first time that the State Box was decorated with flags, it was (correct me if I’m wrong) never done for Lincoln earlier when he visited Ford’s. The theater was crowded (sold out ?), so many persons had purchased tickets. To see Grant, or .... ???

It must have been a kind of “blow” for Lincoln that Grant rejected his invitation. And could Grant “disobey” so easily the wishes of his superior (Lincoln), or was Lincoln no longer his superior? And if the Washingtonians came in the first place for Grant, how could he so easily disappoint them by not coming (while it was advertised).

In short my (new) questions in reference with Lincoln’s invitation:

- What was the exact position of Grant?
- Came the public in the first place for him to Ford’s, or for Lincoln? (or for both?)
- Could Grant so easily reject the invitation from the President?
- Could he (seen from a moral standpoint) disappoint the public?

I will appreciate the opinion(s) you may have on these questions. Thanks!

Kees, I know James Ferguson wanted to see Grant. Here is a portion of his trial testimony (from Poore):

By the JUDGE ADVOCATE:

Q. Do you reside in Washington City?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What business are you engaged in?
A. The restaurant business.
Q. Where?
A. No. 452, Tenth Street.
Q. Near Ford’s Theatre?
A. Adjoining the theatre on the upper side.
Q. Did you know J. Wilkes Booth in his lifetime?
A. I did.
Q. Did you see him on that evening?
A. I saw him that afternoon: I do not recollect exactly what time; but it was some time between two and four o’clock, I think. He came up in front just below my door on the street. I walked out to the door, and saw Mr. Maddox standing out by the side of his horse,—a small bay mare. Mr. Maddox was standing aside of him, with his hand on the horse’s mane, talking. I stood on the porch a minute; and Booth looked round, and said, “See what a nice horse I have got!” As I stepped out near him, he said, ‘Now, watch: he can run just like a cat!” and struck his spurs into the horse, and off he went down the street. I did not see him any more until that night,—somewhere near ten o’clock, I should think. Along in the afternoon, about one o’clock, Harry Ford came into my place, and said to me, “Your favorite, General Grant, is going to be in the theatre to-night: and, if you want to see him, you had better go and get a seat.” I went and secured a seat directly opposite the President’s box, in the front of the dress-circle. He showed me the box that he said the President was to be in; and I got those seats directly opposite. I saw the President and his family when they came in, and some gentleman in plain clothes with them. I did not recognize him; but I knew from the appearance of the man that it was not Grant. I supposed that probably Grant had remained outside, so as not to create any excitement in the theatre, and would come in alone, and come in the box; and I made up my mind that I would see him before he went in; and I watched every one that passed around on that side of the dress-circle towards this box. Somewhere near ten o’clock, I should think it was (it was the second scene in the third act of the play they were playing, “Our American Cousin”), I saw Booth pass along near the box, and then stop, and lean against the wall.

Grant and free alcohol at Ford's?How could he pass that up?It would be like Custer passing up a good pr.shoot!

(10-14-2014 02:41 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  Why was it so important for Lincoln that Gen. Grant would accompany him to Ford’s Theatre? I know that Grant was a very important man, in fact Lincoln (as Commander-in-Chief) and Grant (as General-in-Chief) were in 1865 the two mightiest men in the Union. President Theodore Roosevelt called in a speech delivered at Galena, Ill. on April 27, 1900 that Washington, Lincoln, and Grant were the three “mightiest among the mighty” (of the US). I have some problems to understand this in reference to Grant.

How was the high command of the Union in the CW? As in modern times the President of the United States (Lincoln) was of course Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces. But (certainly at the outbreak of the CW) the Army was under the direct control of the Secretary of War (Stanton, since January 15, 1862) and of a General-in-Chief (in 1861 Gen. Winfield Scott in the official rank as Brevet Lieutenant General). The General-in-Chief however had in my opinion no direct military power, because he was subjected to the orders of the President and the Secretary of War. He also was assisted by a General Staff, and this General Staff consisted of various bureaus, which were part of the Department of War. The General-in-Chief had no control over these bureaus. This means that he was handicapped and could only function as an (military) advisor to (civilian) superiors (Stanton and Lincoln). In my eyes this is no “real power”, because he had “no real command of the Union Army’s” and had “no real field command”.

When Scott was succeeded in the fall of 1861 by Major General George B. McClellan this situation was as far as I know unchanged. And when McClellan was succeeded in July 1862 by Major General Henry Halleck, again (according to me) no real change. Can we say that the only task of the General-in-Chief was to communicate the wishes of Lincoln and Stanton (civilians) to the Generals in the field? Or was the high command of the Union changed with the assignment of Gen. Grant in Feb. 1864? What was his exact position? He got the rank of “Lieutenant General", a rank originally created for George Washington (and nobody else since then). Had Grant (or did he get) more power than his predecessors? Could he take responsibility for his own strategic decisions, without first communicating this with Lincoln and/or Stanton? If so than he was indeed a very powerful man! And in that case I understand that Lincoln was eager to visit with Grant the Ford Theatre.

Another thing. Lincoln was a familiar figure at Ford’s, Grant was almost a stranger. Were the Washingtonians anxious for a glimpse of Grant or were they in the first place hoping to see the President? It was also the first time that the State Box was decorated with flags, it was (correct me if I’m wrong) never done for Lincoln earlier when he visited Ford’s. The theater was crowded (sold out ?), so many persons had purchased tickets. To see Grant, or .... ???

It must have been a kind of “blow” for Lincoln that Grant rejected his invitation. And could Grant “disobey” so easily the wishes of his superior (Lincoln), or was Lincoln no longer his superior? And if the Washingtonians came in the first place for Grant, how could he so easily disappoint them by not coming (while it was advertised).

In short my (new) questions in reference with Lincoln’s invitation:

- What was the exact position of Grant?
- Came the public in the first place for him to Ford’s, or for Lincoln? (or for both?)
- Could Grant so easily reject the invitation from the President?
- Could he (seen from a moral standpoint) disappoint the public?

I will appreciate the opinion(s) you may have on these questions. Thanks!

I am not able to answer the military hierarchy question as to the powers of Gen. Grant except to say that I think he was the military strategist who planned the troop movements and battles under the supervision of Lincoln and Stanton. But I think Stanton's War Department was more involved in the administration of the Union armies than in the raw execution of plans.

I think the public would have been delighted to see both Lincoln and Grant together at one point and in a "confined" space where viewing was easy. However, I suspect that the General would have been the big draw for the night since Lee's surrender had been less that a week previous.

I suspect that the "political protocol" was not what it is today and that it was easier for Grant, the hero of the hour, to explain his case to Mr. Lincoln without stepping on toes. I also think that Lincoln was much less worried about protocol than some current politicians I can think of.

I'm not sure that Grant's disappointing the masses would be considered a breach of ethics in 1865. Perhaps the average person would understand that the General had other obligations - and maybe they didn't know the reason for his departure from the city. There were still battles to be fought and Confederate forces to conquer. I have a jaded opinion of ceremonial visits and mingling with the masses today, so that might taint my views of 1865. However, I think many of these "appearances" then and now were/are more for the media than the masses. One does not want to get on the bad side of the press (in any form) today. Maybe Lincoln and Grant didn't care that much about pleasing everyone?

Kees, I've always read Grant's announced attendance was the #1 reason for many (most?) to get a ticket. I believe in "We Saw Lincoln Shot" several eyewitnesses stated something similar like Ferguson, or e.g. A. C. Richard: "In making our usual rounds of the area we were in the vicinity of Ford's Theatre. Captain Reeds suggested that as General Grant was supposed to be in the theatre to go in. We did so..."
BTW, I also believe I read in another book (maybe it was in "Backstage...") of at least one claim the theater was not sold out (I'll check/try to find this).
However, IMO Grant being the main attraction makes sense. Seeing Lincoln at the theater or elsewhere was not as unusual for Washingtonians as catching a glimpse of Gen. Grant. A. Lincoln's "face" and photo were sure more familiar than Gen. Grant's. Grant (not Lincoln) was the hero of the battlefield ("pitch") who turned the tide, or the "game" - and speaking in soccer terms, as much as the fans loved and appreciated the coach, don't you think seeing the libero who won the game on the pitch was the slightly greater thrill so shortly after Appomattox?