Laurie said: "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."

Kees, the question of Grant's role is potentially very complicated but I think Laurie is on the right track here.

I would recommend the book "The Grand Design: Strategy and the U.S. Civil War" by Donald Stoker. He uses the attached diagram to provide a foundation for his point of view. I will try to do a very brief overview here in this post.

A quote from his book: "Civil-military relations, the respective roles of the military and civilian leaders and their ability to work with each other, had a significant impact on the creation of strategy as well as its implementation." He defined each category and how various the various role players fit in.

He describes policy as the political objective or objectives sought by the government in arms (often described as war aims). He further states that "policy should inform strategy, provide the framework for its pursuit, but not dictate it". Development of policy would certainly be the role of the President and his Cabinet.

Grand strategy would be the utilization of the combined non-military resources (economic, political, diplomatic) and military resources.

He defines strategy as how military force is used in the pursuit of the political goal. Grant would certainly be involved at this level and probably operations (what military forces do in an effort to implement military strategy) is where he would have had more unfettered decision making authority. When he was in the field he would have been also involved in tactics (which govern the execution of battles fought in the course of operations).

Re: "Gen. Grant...was the military strategist who planned the troop movements and battles under the supervision of Lincoln and Stanton" - one humble thought: Grant, other than e.g. McClellan, was willing to obey orders from "above" (at least he himself stated so), plus he and Lincoln anyway agreed on the same strategy of not to foucus on capturing cities, but weakening and defeating the enemy's army and military resources/power. Thus I think there was not that much basis for friction between the "hierarchies" due to different strategies.

---

(10-14-2014 05:59 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  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).

Haven't found it so far, maybe my memory is cheating me, but I'm so sure there was at least one witness (and I believe it was an actor or employee at Ford's) who claimed (by far?) not all seats were taken. Can anyone recall reading something similar?

Eva, I agree with you. Some time ago (I think in 2012) I posted that I had read somewhere that, contrary to most accounts, Ford's did not have a full house, and that I had seen an estimate as low as 1000 patrons in attendance on April 14th. Since that time I have never been able to find where I read that, but I am quite confident I did at some time in the past.

Thanks for the info Roger,I had read that also,but one's memory is the 2nd thing to go.-Herb

Perhaps the only box occupied that night - the Presidential box - was "telling?" Or was this done purposely by management (the other 6 boxes were vacant) so as not to detract from the presidential party? Would Ford's have sold tickets to the other 6 boxes if the demand was there?

(10-15-2014 05:16 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Perhaps the only box occupied that night - the Presidential box - was "telling?" Or was this done purposely by management (the other 6 boxes were vacant) so as not to detract from the presidential party? Would Ford's have sold tickets to the other 6 boxes if the demand was there?

I'm sure I read somewhere that Ford's puposefully did not sell tickets to the other boxes on the nights that the President was in attendance - as you said, so not to detract from the Presidential party (and also I think to give the party a little more privacy from people looking in). I will see if I can find where I read that. Although, if it came down to it, and if money and was in issue, I'm sure they would have softened that stance to some degree.

Thanks Roger and Herb for relieving me from the doubts I casted on my memory.

One indication that the tickets were not completely sold out would be to me that some witnesses only decided to attend when "accidentally" coming along, or that some were able to find better seats than they originally had purchased.

The invitation of Lincoln and Grant was the marketing strategy to fill the house on Good Friday, a holiday on which even many usual theatergoers would rather have stayed away.
A ticket for the upper boxes was ten dollars and a ticket was six dollars for the lower boxes. Thus, assuming four persons fit in each box, selling tickets for the other six boxes would have added another 88$, equivalent to $1320.77 nowadays, to the profit.

Would any possible detraction from the presidential party have been worth that sum? Would people have decided against attendance when they knew the other boxes were occupied because they feared distraction? Would Ford's have had to fear such fears?

On Amazon I found this statement in a review on "We Saw Lincoln Shot":
"On history's most tragic Good Friday night since that First Good Friday, 741 people bought a ticket to Ford's Theater."

(10-15-2014 08:00 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  "On history's most tragic Good Friday night since that First Good Friday, 741 people bought a ticket to Ford's Theater."

What was the "seating capacity" for Ford's Theatre at that time?

Scott, from the Historic Structure Report - Restoration of Ford's Theatre:

"Thus this total figure of 1,700 for the theatre's seating capacity, aside from the boxes, is based on the statement of John T. Ford published in the Washington Post of June 11, 1893, and the unpublished doctoral dissertation of John Ford Sollers referred to in the main body of this report. This figure of 1,700 appears to be more realistic than contemporary newspaper accounts of 1865 which stated the seating capacity to be between 2,000 and 3,000 persons."

According to the NPS webiste, approximately 1700 people were in attendance on the night of April 14, 1865.

http://www.nps.gov/foth/faqs.htm

Here are a few more opinions from Reck's book:

Helen Truman said the theater "was packed to the walls, there being no fire restrictions."

William Ferguson said "only a fair sized crowd had turned out...and it was an audience that seemed singularly unresponsive."

Reck also notes that Daniel DeMotte and A.C. Richards "held that the theater was not overcrowded. The fact that several patrons moved about to get better seats would seem to verify the latter view."

I seem to recall that Ford's had seating for 2,400 persons in the beginning in 1862, but after the renovation due to the fire in December 1862, the number of seats was reduced to 1,700 in order to make seating mor comfortable. Just am assumption: I tend to believe that 1,700 was the maximum capacity in 1865, and perhaps the "approximately 1700 people" that allegedly "were in attendance on the night" were just an estimation based upon the total number of seats and the assumption the performance was sold out.

(10-15-2014 09:17 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I seem to recall that it had seating for 2,400 persons in the beginning in 1862, but after the renovation due to the fire in December 1862, the number of seats was reduced to 1,700 in order to make seating mor comfortable. Just am assumption: I tend to believe that 1,700 was the maximum capacity in 1865, and perhaps the "approximately 1700 people" that allegedly "were in attendance on the night" were just an estimation based upon the total number of seats and the assumption it was sold out.

And of course, the number of people that later claimed to be in attendance that night was probably about 5,000!

Thanks, Roger, that was sure what I read, too, and had in mind!

Money$$$money$$$money-Look at all of the people who claim to have ancestors on the Mayflower.With all those people on it-it would have sunk!